See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327776200

Western Dominance in International Relations?: The Internationalisation of

IR in Brazil and India

Book · September 2018

DOI: 10.4324/9781315170480

CITATIONS READS

25 3,248

1 author:

Audrey Alejandro
The London School of Economics and Political Science
33 PUBLICATIONS   66 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Trends in European International Relations Theory - a new book series View project

Problematising the 'local', the 'national' and the 'international' View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Audrey Alejandro on 15 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Western Dominance in International
Relations?

Since the 1970s, a ‘critical’ movement has been developing in the humanities
and social sciences denouncing the existence of ‘Western dominance’ over the
worldwide production and circulation of knowledge. However, thirty years after
the emergence of this promising agenda in International Relations (IR), this dis-
cipline has not experienced a major shift.
This volume offers a counter-­intuitive and original contribution to the under-
standing of the global circulation of knowledge. In contrast to the literature, it
argues that the internationalisation of social sciences in the designated ‘Global
South’ is not conditioned by the existence of a presumably ‘Western domi-
nance’. Indeed, although discriminative practices such as Eurocentrism and gate-
­keeping exist, their existence does not lead to a unipolar structuration of IR
internationalisation around ‘the West’. Based on these empirical results, this
book reflexively questions the role of critique in the (re)production of the social
and political order. Paradoxically, the anti-­Eurocentric critical discourses repro-
duce the very Eurocentrism they criticise. This book offers methodological
support to address this paradox by demonstrating how one can use discourse
analysis and reflexivity to produce innovative results and decentre oneself from
the vision of the world one has been socialised into.
This work offers an insightful contribution to International Relations, Polit-
ical Theory, Sociology and Qualitative Methodology. It will be useful to all stu-
dents and scholars interested in critical theories, international political sociology,
social sciences in Brazil and India, knowledge and discourse, Eurocentrism, as
well as the future of reflexivity.

Audrey Alejandro is Assistant Professor at the Department of Methodology,

London School of Economics and Political Science.
Worlding Beyond the West
Series Editors:
Arlene B. Tickner
Universidad del Rosario, Colombia
David Blaney
Macalester College, USA
and
Inanna Hamati-­Ataya
Aberystwyth University, UK

Historically, the International Relations (IR) discipline has established its bound-
aries, issues, and theories based upon Western experience and traditions of
thought. This series explores the role of geocultural factors, institutions and
academic practices in creating the concepts, epistemologies and methodologies
through which IR knowledge is produced. This entails identifying alternatives
for thinking about the ‘international’ that are more in tune with local concerns
and traditions outside the West. But it also implies provincialising Western IR
and empirically studying the practice of producing IR knowledge at multiple
sites within the so-­called ‘West’.

11 International Institutions in World History

Divorcing International Relations Theory from the State and Stage Models
Laust Schouenborg

12 Fairy Tales and International Relations

A Folklorist Reading of IR Textbooks
Kathryn Starnes

13 Against International Relations Norms

Postcolonial Perspectives
Edited by Charlotte Epstein

14 Assembling Exclusive Expertise

Knowledge, Ignorance and Conflict Resolution in the Global South
Edited by Anna Leander and Ole Wæver

15 Widening the World of International Relations

Homegrown Theorizing
Edited by Ersel Aydınlı and Gonca Biltekin

16 Western Dominance in International Relations?

The Internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India
Audrey Alejandro
Western Dominance in
International Relations?
The Internationalisation of IR in
Brazil and India

Audrey Alejandro
First published 2019
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Audrey Alejandro
The right of Audrey Alejandro to be identified as author of this work has
been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in
any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-­in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book

ISBN: 978-1-138-04798-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-315-17048-0 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Wearset Ltd, Boldon, Tyne and Wear
To transformation
‘Mieux vaut une tête bien faite qu’une tête bien pleine.’
Michel de Montaigne
Contents

List of illustrations viii

Acknowledgements ix
List of abbreviations x

Introduction 1

1 Diversity 24

2 Regarding internationalisation 51

3 The non-­role of ‘the West’  77

4 The national and the international 105

5 Discursive entanglements 137

6 The recursive paradox 168

Conclusion 196

Index 205
Illustrations

Figures
1.1 Representativeness of topics in IR articles published abroad
(UnB, PUC-­Rio, USP, 1979–2016) 35
2.1 Geographical distribution of Brazilian articles published
abroad (1979–2016)  56
2.2 Linguistic distribution of Brazilian articles published abroad
(1979–2016)  58
4.1 Responses to the question ‘The discipline of International
Relations is a Western dominated discipline’ (TRIP survey
2014) 122
6.1 Optimal state of knowledge exchange 178

Table
3.1 Career advancement scheme – examples of UGC regulations
for promotion (2010) 93
Acknowledgements

This research raised many challenges. One of them is the social resistances that
came forward as a result of denaturalising the common sense. I would like to
start this book by thanking all the people whose open-­mindedness and commit-
ment to innovation enabled me to safely navigate academia’s troubled waters
during the formative years of my career.
Most of this research has been developed during my doctoral years at Sci-
ences Po Bordeaux, and I could not have produced this book without the finan-
cial support of this institution. My gratitude goes first to Daniel Compagnon,
who trusted me and agreed to supervise my doctoral research. I would also like
to thank my students there, whose critical curiosity showed me the need to
develop methodological and pedagogical tools for reflexivity.
I wrote this book while working at the Department of Methodology at the
London School of Economics and at the School of Politics and International
Relations at Queen Mary University of London. In both institutions I benefited
from great mentorship and my colleagues performed unto me the academic
persona I currently identify with, both as a Discourse Analyst and as an Inter-
national Political Sociology scholar. I am particularly grateful to Jef Huysmans’
irreplaceable support for the latter. 
I am also indebted to Ellie Knott, Inanna Hamati-­Ataya, Frédéric Ramel, John
Hobson, Kimberley Hutchings, Antoine Louette, Katarzyna Kaczmarska, Pascal
Ragouet, Nicolas Adell and Xavier Guillaume for their precious feedback on
previous versions of this work. Thanks are also due to the editors of the book
series for providing such an intellectual space in International Relations.
My special thanks go to all the interviewees without whom I would not have
been able to conduct this research. They agreed to share their story even though
we belong to the same professional field and I am eternally grateful for that. I
apologise in advance for the simplifications of the situations in Brazil and India
that I made to make the book more readable for a larger audience.
Abbreviations

Brazil
CAPES Coordenaçao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior
(agency of the Ministry of Education)
CNPq Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
(agency of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education)
FAPERJ Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Rio de Janeiro
(funding agency of the state of Rio de Janeiro)
FAPESP Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (funding
agency of the state of São Paulo)
FINEP Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (agency of the Ministry of
Science of Technology)
FUNAG Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão (agency attached to the Brazilian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
IBRI Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (institute attached to
the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
IPRI Instituto de Pesquisa em Relações Internacionais
IREL Instituto de Relações Internacionais (IR research centre of the UnB)
IRI Instituto de Relações Internacionais (IR research centre at both USP
and PUC-­Rio)
PUC-­Rio Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
RPBI Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional
SciELO Scientific Electronic Library Online
UnB University of Brasilia
USP University of São Paulo

India
CAS Career Advancement Scheme
CIPOD Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament
(SIS, JNU)
DU Delhi University
ICSSR Indian Council of Social Science Research
 Abbreviations   xi
ICWA Indian Council of World Affairs
IDSA Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis
ISIS International School of International Studies (JNU)
JNU Jawaharlal Nehru University
SIS School of International Studies (JNU) 
UGC University Grants Commission

Others
BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa
GNP gross national product
IR International Relations
ISA International Studies Association
ISC International Studies Conference
NGO non-­governmental organisation
S&T science and technology
TRIP Teaching Research and International Policy
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
WISC World International Studies Committee
Introduction

Colonial empires administratively organised a world in which the circulation of

goods, humans and knowledge would benefit European powers. For these colo-
nial powers, a greater understanding of the self, expansion of the mind, violence
and exploitation went hand in hand. In the postcolonial world, the controversial
colour line distinguishing ‘Europeans’ and ‘non-­Europeans’ extends itself geo-
graphically with the European colonial diaspora and becomes a more vague par-
tition between ‘the West’ and ‘the non-­West’. ‘The West’ comprises ‘Europe
and its derived entities’ including, for example, former colonies like the United
States, Australia and Canada (Grovogui 2006, 4). Faced with ‘Western domi-
nance’, ‘the rest’ is, allegedly, either constrained by structural postcolonial rela-
tions or engaged in counter-­hegemonic strategies which potentially lead to the
advent of a ‘post-­Western’ world.
In this postcolonial world, emancipation, so critical studies say, is not only
breaking free from the use of force or economic dependence. As ‘epistemic’
colonialism has replaced administrative colonialism (Adler and Bernstein 2005),
emancipation is also the liberation of the mind. Postcolonialism, neo-­
Gramscianism, post-­structuralism and subaltern studies, among others, highlight
that power relationships are produced and reproduced through their invisibility.
Power is exerted via its normalisation and its naturalisation into a power disposi-
tif, namely the set of institutional mechanisms and knowledge structures that
reproduce the exercise of power within society. When discrimination and abuse
become so normal and natural that one cannot even imagine the possibility of an
alternative, one cannot perceive of any other choice than participating in the
power dispositif.
Following Michel Foucault’s theory of power-­knowledge, critical literature
identifies discourses (language in context) as the cornerstone of the implicit pro-
duction of power relations (Foucault 1976, 1975, 1966). When we talk, we can
neither describe all the elements we refer to nor simultaneously explain the
meaning of all the words we use. Without even thinking about it, we need to
guess the knowledge we share with the audience. This shared knowledge is the
set of things we implicitly agree on that we do not need to say. Discourse after
discourse, this implicit ‘sediment’ acquires a solidity of its own. It becomes
‘common sense’. Unlike the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of common
2   Introduction
sense, ‘good sense and sound judgement in practical matters’, ‘common sense’
here hides a powerful mechanism limiting our capacity to question our percep-
tion of the world and our assumptions. Through the mere fact of talking, we
reproduce, update, give legitimacy to and naturalise these implicit layers of dis-
course. The inertia of the texts and conversations carries with it unquestioned
assumptions and beliefs that we might consider true, normal and obvious; and
that may as well be false or discriminatory, not only towards others but also
towards ourselves. Through this endless process, discourses are a part of the nat-
uralisation of the social and political order.
The concept of performativity establishes the link between the implicit hier-
archies carried within discourses and social and political hierarchies. Performa-
tivity is the capacity for discourses to manifest into being the reality they
describe both explicitly and implicitly. From John Austin to Pierre Bourdieu, the
study of performativity extends from identifying speech acts – for example, a
couple being married as a result of a priest saying ‘I hereby declare you husband
and wife’ – to investigating the social conditions of performativity (Austin 1962;
Bourdieu 1982). These conditions are both material and symbolic. The
authoritative character of discourses depends on their capacity to access posi-
tions that give them visibility, and on how they match criteria that the audience
has been socialised to identify as criteria of legitimacy. Mastering the implicit
dimensions of discourses, and the conditions enabling discourses to acquire their
performative value, naturalises one’s representation of the world. By doing so,
social groups who dominate the channels of discourse production and legitima-
tion assign identities and provide the limits of what is believed to be possible or
impossible. Hence, the lure of naturalisation leads to a competition between dis-
courses and a struggle for control of the resources enabling their performance.
Concealing the conditions of discourse production is a necessity for those who
control them to protect their interests and privileged position. Indeed, the system
works better if the people through whom discourses happen are oblivious to the
logic behind them and the effects of their daily discursive engagement.
For those studying the world in its postcolonial condition, understanding the
role of discourses raises two questions. First, is there a discourse endowed with
enough authority, institutional support and outreach capable of implicitly natu-
ralising perceptions of the socio-­political world order? Second, is there a set of
assumptions that has survived decolonisation and has the ideological capacity to
perform ‘West/non-­West’ postcolonial power relations?

International Relations, Eurocentrism and Western

dominance
Academic discourses, and in particular social sciences, are well-­known vehicles
of naturalisation. Anthropology’s colonial heritage epitomises this situation
(Asad 1973). Its categorisation of humans and its rationalisation of racist hier-
archies were part of the legitimation of European colonial expansion. Claude
Lévi-Strauss describes ‘anthropology’s original sin’ as the scientific justification
 Introduction   3
of anthropologists’ discriminatory practices at the end of the nineteenth and early
twentieth century (Lévi-Strauss 1952).1
Since its establishment as an academic discipline, International Relations (IR)
has shared two common features with anthropology: it speaks authoritatively on
a topic involving all humans but, at the same time, it is predominantly institu-
tionalised in ‘the West’. Moreover, until the 1980s, IR was plagued by an onto-
logical omertà: IR did not consider IR to be part of the world it studied and had
excluded itself from its object of enquiry. With the crisis of modernity, IR
scholars started wondering about the consequences of this situation. The popu-
larity of asking how IR participates in the structuration of the world order
quickly propelled the study of the discipline as a new sub-­field of study in its
own right, qualified by Félix Grenier as ‘reflexive studies’ (Grenier 2015).

Critical scholars denounce the Eurocentrism of IR

This sub-­field has identified Eurocentrism as the implicit set of assumptions
through which IR discourses support ‘Western’ (Acharya and Buzan 2010;
Acharya 2011; Chan and Mandaville 2001) and ‘Northern’ forms of ‘imperial-
ism’ (Tickner 2013; Doty 1996; Saurin 2006), ‘hegemony’ (Halperin 2006) and
‘colonialism’ (Muppidi 2012; Gruffydd Jones 2006a; Shilliam 2011).2 This per-
vasive Eurocentrism of IR is largely condemned (Gruffydd Jones 2006b; Austin
2007; Gülalp 1998; Grovogui 2006; Hobson 2012). Through its ‘myopic and
unipolar conceptions of the international system’ (Tansel 2015, 76), IR con-
tributes to the legitimation of Eurocentric ‘myths’ (de Carvalho et al. 2011;
Wilson 1998).
There is a critical consensus that the dominance of ‘Western’ IR links IR
Eurocentrism with its capacity to serve ‘Western’ dominance. The relationship
between IR Eurocentrism and Western dominance thus encompasses three
dimensions. On the one hand, the Eurocentrism of the discipline is laid open. On
the other hand, scholars have demonstrated the co-­constitutive character of IR
and foreign policy (Oren 2003). Between the Eurocentrism of the discipline and
IR’s effects as a cognitive tool shaping the world order, a key element enables
‘Western’ discourses to gain a monopolistic authority: the uneven global organ-
isation of IR as a profession.
First, IR discourse is Eurocentric. Following John Hobson’s prolific work, I
identify three main dimensions of Eurocentric discourses: they implicitly qualify
‘the West’ as the world’s unique ‘proactive subject’, its ‘ideal normative refer-
ent’ and ‘the only one game in town’ (Hobson 2012, 1; 2007, 93). From these
three dimensions, I establish three criteria to identify Eurocentric discourses.

• First, is the denial of ‘Southern’ agency (‘the West’ being the unique ‘proac-
tive subject’). Here, ‘the West’ is described as the active subject while the
rest of the world is a passive object of world politics. These identities and
roles are assigned a priori in a decontextualised and timeless process of
essentialisation.
4   Introduction
• Second, is teleological self-­centredness where the West is the ‘only game in
town’. Here, ‘the West’ is represented as the unipolar core of human trans-
formation towards which global centripetal forces are naturally directed.
‘The West’ is the leading edge of world politics and the inevitable future of
history.
• Third, is universalisation with ‘the West’ as the ‘ideal normative referent’.
Here, ‘Western’ practices and values are established as universal standards,
negating the diversity of the world’s histories and experiences, and bypass-
ing any need for comparison.

Second, IR represents a cognitive tool in the service of the dominant countries

(Bertucci et al. 2014). IR has adopted the policy concerns of ‘Western’ countries
(mainly first the US, then the UK) ‘as if they were the policy concerns of the
world’ (Smith 2004, 510). IR plays its transnational role of serving US domi-
nance through mobility programmes, such as the US Fulbright scheme, or pro-
grammes sponsored by philanthropic foundations (Guilhot 2011), the production
of prescriptive studies (Russett 1993, 136) or the participation of IR scholars in
influential transnational networks (Adler 1991).
Third, the conditions of production and circulation of IR are unevenly distrib-
uted. As a professional field, IR was created in Europe and it is now massively
institutionalised in the West. The result is the overrepresentation of IR scholar-
ship from this part of the world. Scholars from the ‘Third World’ (Tickner
2003b; Thomas and Wilkin 2004), the ‘periphery’ (Aydinli and Mathews 2000)
or ‘the Global South’ (Mansour 2016) are marginalised. Their ‘voices’ are dis-
carded (Esposito and Voll 2000; Tickner 2003a), and this ‘deafening silence’
enables the hegemony of a singular worldview (Chen et al. 2009). By establish-
ing a hierarchy among scholars of diverse backgrounds, the perspectives and
interests of the different societies to which they belong are also placed in a hier-
archy. These logics contrive a double invisibility: the invisibility of ‘the non-­
West’ is naturalised by making invisible the conditions producing its absence.
As IR journals and publishers are mainly established in ‘the West’, gate-­keeping
practices enable ‘Western’ scholars to control access to the international circuits
of publication materially and symbolically. Such gate-­keeping practices prevent
the diversity of ‘Global IR’ from being expressed (Acharya 2000, 11; Tickner
2003b; Bleiker 2001). They filter and legitimise the research that matches
‘Western’ standards and interests. They force ‘non-­Western’ scholars to abandon
their specificities to follow the ‘singular logic [of] “conversion or discipline” ’
(Chen et al. 2009). Considering the global attractiveness of ‘Western IR’, gate-­
keeping practices lead to professional ‘dependence’ of periphery scholars
towards core ‘Western’ institutions (Wæver 1998, 716), their ‘alienation’
(Acharya 2000, 1) and the hegemonic homogenisation of how IR is produced
(Tickner and Wæver 2009b, 335).
This situation raises two main concerns. The first deals with knowledge
innovation: how can IR produce relevant, adapted and explanatory data when
scholars are socialised in such a biased vision of the world? The second is
 Introduction   5
ethical and political. It addresses the responsibility of IR scholars, both as crit-
ical citizens and academics producing discourses of authority: do IR discourses
reproduce rather than challenge the unequal global socio-­political order?

The solutions defended by the critical literature

Inspired by critical theory, post-­structuralism, postcolonial and subaltern studies
among others, critical scholars have put forward two solutions to deal with Euro-
centrism and Western dominance in the discipline.
The first solution is an inward-­looking invitation for ‘Western IR’ to analyse
its discriminative practices and contextualise the production of IR discourse
through reflexivity. The concept of reflexivity was introduced in IR in the 1980s,
leading those scholars who adopt this approach to be qualified as ‘reflexivists’
(Neufeld 1993; Smith 2007). Reflexivism has progressively become a common
approach in the discipline. Patrick T. Jackson’s typology, for example, recog-
nises it as one of IR’s four main ‘philosophical ontologies’ (2011). What reflex-
ivity can methodologically and epistemologically offer to tackle Eurocentrism
can be explained as follows: if academic dominance rests on the implicit
dynamics underlying academia, then reflexivity – the practice of making con-
scious and explicit our practices, beliefs and dispositions – offers helpful tools.
In IR, reflexivity is commonly understood as a practice of auto-­objectivation of
the self in the context of knowledge production (Hamati-­Ataya 2012b, 2014b;
Eagleton-­Pierce 2011; Knafo 2016). Objectivation is the process through which
social scientists transform a phenomenon from the social world into a sociologi-
cal object (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). In line with the Bourdieusian inter-
pretation, Inanna Hamati-­Ataya provides an encompassing definition of
reflexivity as praxis in service of social emancipation:

Reflexivity can be envisaged as both a ‘bending back’ and a ‘bending

forward’ of knowledge as praxis. As a bending back of knowledge on itself,
it entails a rigorous understanding of the social conditions of possibility of
our thought and our values, and hence a critical assessment of what our
world-­views and notions of truth owe to the social order in which we are
inscribed. As a bending forward, it turns this objective understanding into
an instrument of existential and social emancipation, by delineating the
structural spaces of freedom and agency that allow for a meaningful and
responsible scholarly practice.
(2014a, 46)

The second movement that critical IR scholars engage in to address their profes-
sional ‘responsibility’ (Tickner and Tsygankov 2008) is outward looking: a call
for the emergence of a truly ‘Global IR’ (Acharya 2014, 253). Critical scholars
embrace what Hobson (2007) designates as ‘a global dialogical stance’, which
promotes diversity and dialogue between existing IR traditions (Acharya 2011;
Hellman 2003; Hermann 2002; Hutchings 2011). To substitute the ‘Western IR’
6   Introduction
monologue with a ‘post-­Western’ IR (Vasilaki 2012; Shahi and Ascione 2016;
Shani 2008; Lizée 2011), these scholars aim at ‘provincialising Europe’ (Chakra-
barty 2007), ‘provincialising IR’ (Vasilaki 2012) or ‘decentring’ it (Nayak and
Selbin 2010). IR pluralism is promoted as a key disciplinary value (Eun 2016).
In this context, numerous studies on the state of IR in different countries are
being conducted (Tickner and Wæver 2009; Chong and Hamilton-­Hart 2008) in
what has been referred to as a ‘mapping of the discipline’ (Kristensen 2015;
Holden 2014). This endeavour has contributed to the creation of various book
series, such as Global Political Thinkers, Developing Non-­Eurocentric IR and
IPE, or this very Worlding beyond the West.

Assessing the Western dominance in IR

The critical literature in IR has succeeded in exposing the discipline’s lack of diver-
sity and putting Western dominance of IR on the disciplinary agenda.3 However,
not much has changed since Robert Keohane stated that reflexivists would have a
hard time convincing ‘empirical researchers’ (1988, 392). The question of the
Western dominance of IR has established itself as a professional concern, but IR
has struggled to become a scientific object of analysis. If critical scholars insisted
that Eurocentrism entailed both professional and heuristic problems, they addressed
the former without producing empirical evidence to support their claims.
Following Hobson, I argue that we need to produce innovative non-­
Eurocentric data and narratives to prevent ‘the danger of reconstructionist
refusal’ in which ‘scholars are most likely simply to default to, or retreat back
into, their Eurocentric comfort zone’ (Hobson 2007, 104).4 To do so, we need to
implement the conceptual apparatus of critical theory into an empirical research
design that is adapted to study international objects. This endeavour reveals two
problems with the way the critical literature has addressed IR Western domi-
nance; two hurdles that need to be addressed to operationalise this research.

The limits of the critical literature

First, although the literature relies on power-­knowledge as one of its main foun-
dational bases, it only offers a superficial understanding of discourses. Dis-
courses are the social and political fabric connecting the different agents
involved in the problem of international scientific domination. They should be at
the core of the analysis. Without a proper conceptualisation of the channels of
domination, and a scheme of data collection that can track the conditions for the
international circulation and performativity of discourses, the relationship
between discourses and the structuration of the social and political order is
missing. In this absence, power-­knowledge is an insatiable theoretical chimaera
capable of devouring every social object under the ever-­growing emancipatory
ambitions of critical scholarship.
Second, scholars focusing on the Western dominance of IR have judiciously
introduced concepts and frameworks from other disciplines (sociology, political
 Introduction   7
science, linguistics, history). However, they have forgotten to do IR along the
way. The result is a puzzling contradiction. On the one hand, the explicit aim of
the literature is to study the power relations occurring between academic groups
in the process of the internationalisation of IR. On the other hand, there is a lack
of problematisation of both the ‘International’ and ‘Relations’. Considering that
it has been a core aim of IR to understand the specificity of ‘the international’,
the straightforward application of the power-­knowledge framework to the glo-
balisation of IR and the role of IR discourses in shaping the world system is sur-
prising. In other words, the power-­knowledge framework, developed within
national contexts, is unthinkingly applied to study this international object.
The first objective of this book is to empirically assess the Western domi-
nance of IR and its co-­productive role with the postcolonial world system. To do
this, I examine two case studies concerning the conditions for the international-
isation of IR publication in Brazil and India. I define the internationalisation of
publication as the fact of publishing abroad. This follows how the existing liter-
ature has identified international gate-­keeping practices for publications as the
primary tool of control for the circulation of IR and its global production.
To address the two pitfalls mentioned above, the limited understanding of dis-
courses and the national, as opposed to the international, power-­knowledge
framework, I have constructed a research design, first, rooted in the social theory
of discourse and, second, in International Political Sociology and historical soci-
ology around a multi-­level international comparative case study.

Research design and methodology

If IR scholarship influences social and political order through discourse, then we
need to unpack the Foucauldian references to power-­knowledge to make sense
of this relationship. Social sciences are a set of knowledge about how human
societies are organised, created and communicated through discourses. The tra-
ditional aim of social sciences is not to state normatively what should be, but
rather to assess what is. For Pierre Bourdieu, this power of defining ‘reality’
represents one of the core tools of ‘symbolic domination’, which uses discourses
to distinguish and assign a value to things and people (Bourdieu 2001). Accord-
ingly, the term ‘discourse’ describes language in the explicit and implicit dimen-
sions of speech interaction and the broader socio-­historical context of its
production. Contrary to a vision of language as a neutral tool transferring ideas
from one mind to another, discourses are social actions. They represent how lan-
guage options are assembled, the meaning they acquire and the effects they have
in the broader social and political context of interactions.
Based on these elements, how can we make sense of the role of IR discourses
in performing ‘Western’/‘non-­Western’ relations? Robbie Shilliam highlights
tension at the core of the problem: ‘Why is it that the non-­Western world has
been a defining presence for IR scholarship and yet said scholarship has consist-
ently balked at placing non-­Western thought at the heart of its debate?’ (2011,
2). This puzzle demonstrates the interest of the concept of ‘representation’ for
8   Introduction
understanding the productive role of discourses (Hobson 2007, 93; Doty 1996;
van der Ree 2013; Edkins 1999; Rosenau 1990, 100). Representations and dis-
courses are articulated in a dynamic that displays the two most important con-
ditions of discourse performativity. First, discourses possess content that
describes the social world in a way that serves the interest of dominant groups
(symbolic dimension of representation). Second, discourses entail processes that
enable these groups to restrict access to legitimacy/visibility to challenging
alternative discourses (sociological dimension of representation).
The first dimension of representation is symbolic. Language is a medium that
links units of communication (the referents) to parts of the world they designate
(the referees) via representations. Words do not ‘naturally’ describe ‘things’;
there is a plurality of ways in which different languages categorise reality. The
everyday implementation of discursive domination happens as social agents
tacitly accept prejudicial representations. By engaging in certain conversations,
agents symbolically legitimise and reproduce a political order that may serve
them poorly. The symbolic nature of power makes its dispositif invisible, while
we are socialised to perceive those representations as natural. This is what Pierre
Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic violence’. It relies on the general ‘misunderstanding’
of the nature of power (méconnaissance), defined as the fact that political sub-
jects are socialised to believe that they know how the political order works
despite having been socialised not to do so (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 143).
The second dimension of representation is sociological: who speaks for
whom? Following the representational model of democratic politics, scholars
implicitly consider that the global plurality of world visions should be repres-
ented in the knowledge published by the discipline. Publishing is an activity at
the core of the academic profession: the institutionally embedded production of
discourse, through a genre, support, format and audience, in the form of written
texts. Publishing has a material purpose, as the act of writing is the main way of
publicly disseminating the results of research. It also serves a symbolic objective:
the medium used to publish impacts the visibility and authority of the content, as
well as scholars’ reputation in a cumulative process that enables them to gain
further influence in the field. Academic peer-­reviewing is an institutionalised
instance of the social control for discourses’ visibility and legitimacy. Peer-­
review explicitly operates through distinction and ranking, by selecting articles
that fit the ‘proper’ area of knowledge and meet the expected standards of the
journal (Delmotte 2007, 45). The struggle between ‘Western’ and ‘non-­Western’
discourses in IR occurs in an international arena characterised by the uneven dis-
tribution of IR journals in favour of the ‘West’. This situation raises concerns
regarding the capacity of ‘non-­Western’ IR scholars to publish internationally.
To assess the manifestations of Western dominance of IR, I focus my analysis
on how Eurocentric gate-­keeping practices impact the internationalisation of IR
publications in Brazil and India. Based on the literature, India and Brazil appear
to be optimal cases. On the one hand, they belong to ‘the Global South’.5 Thus,
allegedly, they suffer from the Western dominance of IR. Within ‘the Global
South’, however, they are democratic states endowed with robust academic
 Introduction   9
systems and global foreign policy outreach. These characteristics enable us to
assess whether the Eurocentrism of ‘Western’ scholars affects the international-
isation of national IR production while neutralising the local conditions that
could impede the development of IR in other national cases (such as embryonic
higher education systems, and authoritarian regimes). On the other hand, the
status of Brazil and India as ‘emerging global powers’ or ‘BRICS’ (Brazil,
Russia, India, China and South Africa) invites the literature to identify them as
‘rising’ countries engaged in anti-­hegemonic IR strategies (Tickner 2013;
Tickner and Wæver 2009; Acharya and Buzan 2010). Due to their resources and
positions, more than other countries in ‘the rest’, India and Brazil are optimal
cases for the production of IR ‘outside the West’, and are expected to provide
‘new spaces for the study of international relations’ (Eun 2016, 25) and develop
‘dissident scholarship’ (Hamati-­Ataya 2012a, 638).
To conduct this research, I undertook sociological fieldwork in three main
centres of IR production in each of India and Brazil, namely New Delhi, Chennai
and Pondicherry in India, and São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Brasilia in Brazil.6 I
constructed a methodology that could address the Eurocentric biases critiqued by
the literature. To acknowledge ‘the voices and perspectives of the Global South’,
I conducted seventy-­nine semi-­structured interviews with three different social
groups, with thirty-­three interviews in Brazil and forty-­six in India. IR scholars
and PhD students were the main groups I studied. Here, I investigate their tra-
jectories, professional habits and experiences.7
Three generations of scholars were identified in the interviews. The first gen-
eration started their careers in the 1970s and the 1980s, the second in the 1990s
and early 2000s, and the third in the mid-­2000s. This third group also comprised
PhD students. As CVs are online and standardised in Brazil, I completed the
analysis of the interview transcripts by a quantitative analysis of the seventy
résumés of the Brazilian scholars affiliated to the three main IR centres in Brazil
to triangulate the interviewees’ discourses with some quantified elements: the
University of Brasilia (UnB), University of São Paulo (USP) and Pontifical
Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-­Rio) (see pp. 34–6, 56–8 of the book).
Alongside scholars, the second group I interviewed comprised individuals
currently or previously holding responsibilities in the main national scientific
agencies. In Brazil, this is the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nivel Superior (CAPES), the Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP) and
the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq).8
In India, this is the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Indian Council
of Social Science Research (ICSSR).9 Finally, I interviewed key representatives
of fields connected to IR like diplomacy, academic publishing and the media. To
complement the interviews, I constructed and analysed a corpus of all articles
published on IR in India and Brazil by Indian and Brazilian scholars (180
articles).10
To prevent IR’s Eurocentric tendency towards universalisation, I rooted the
analysis in local contexts. This research thus also relies on two periods of parti-
cipant observation of three months each as a visiting scholar at the Instituto de
10   Introduction
Relações Internacionais at USP and the School of International Studies (SIS) at
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), in New Delhi.11 I also constructed a histor-
ical sociology of IR in Brazil and India starting in the 1930s, for which I used
online archives on official websites, internal documents provided by the inter-
viewees, as well as secondary sources on the history of science and foreign
policy in these countries.12

The narrative of Western dominance

One year into conducting this project, I found myself in a theoretical and episte-
mological paradox. Critical studies emphasise the need to take into account the
implicit dimensions of the (re)production of the social and political order, stating
that the efficacy of power lies in its invisibility and that social agents are social-
ised not to perceive the implicit dimensions of power. However, this theoretical
standpoint raises a methodological challenge. As social agents ourselves, how do
we assess the implicit dimensions of our discourses, which, by definition, we
have been socialised not to perceive? Socialisation is the lifelong process of
acquiring dispositions, identities and values necessary for individuals to parti-
cipate in society. As an IR scholar, I have been socialised in a professional field
proven to be Eurocentric. I acknowledged the existence of Eurocentrism, and I
positioned myself against this problem. Apart from that, at the point I became
aware of the paradox, I had not engaged in any endeavour to make explicit the
implicit aspects of my world vision, or to deconstruct the Eurocentrism I may
have acquired through my socialisation. Accordingly, the chances were high that
I perceived the world through the unquestioned dispositions I adopted in IR and
IR critical studies, that I shared the common sense of the discipline and that the
discourses I produced would also be Eurocentric.
I looked into the literature for tools that scholars had implemented to address
this paradox. How did they ensure the discourse they produced did not fall into
the same pitfalls as the discourses they criticised? Where were the results of the
comparative analyses that proved scholars had successfully emancipated them-
selves from the biases they critiqued? Which non-­Eurocentric framework did
they construct and use? How did they become reflexive? How did they account
for their transformation?
I did not find any response to these questions. Some critical scholars,
however, were also aware of this tension between the critical framework and the
practice of critical scholars, and expected critical IR to be Eurocentric too. Alina
Sajed and John Hobson (2017, 547) stress that ‘while [critical IR theory] is cer-
tainly critical of the West, nevertheless its tendency towards “Eurofetishism” –
by which Western agency is reified at the expense of non-­Western agency – leads
it into a “critical Eurocentrism” ’. Amitav Acharya argues that the literature
reduces ‘scholars from the Global South’ to their national or ethnic background
as if national traditions are ‘internally homogeneous or externally exclusive’
(2011, 624). Ilan Kapoor emphasises how critical scholars describe ‘the non-­
West’ as a submissive and an idealised alternative to ‘the West’, thus falling into
 Introduction   11
the same traps they denounce regarding the ‘representations of the Third world’
(2004, 628). Pinar Bilgin underlines that it is not only illusory to expect all that
is designated as ‘non-­European’ to be ‘different’. It is also dangerous to explain
the absence of this difference by invoking assumptions of ‘teleological Western-
isation’ (2008, 5). Kimberly Hutchings encourages critical scholars to abandon
the categories ‘West’ and ‘East’ as they create the very disciplinary borders such
scholars aim to avoid (2011, 640).
Other critical scholars also lament the failure of the ‘reflexive turn’ (Hamati-­
Ataya 2012b, 2). Inanna Hamati-­Ataya emphasises the fact that reflexivity has
been perceived as an ‘epistemic’ problem that has not translated into empirical
research (2012b, 12, 14). The challenge is double. First, it raises what Margaret
Kohn and Kelly McBride (2011) call the ‘problem of foundations’ that can be
summarised as follows: if we aim at breaking with a certain mode of thinking,
from which foundations can we build the alternative mode of thinking we aim
for? Second, the reflexivists exclude themselves from the need for the auto-­
objectivation that they promote. Gerard Holden underlines this paradox in his
article ‘Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers?’ putting forward that ‘critical
authors’ identify themselves as possessing ‘a privileged vantage-­point’ (2002,
255). Patrick T. Jackson follows this argument and stresses the contradiction
between the theoretical postulates of the reflexivists, where academic knowledge
serves social interests, and their allegedly professional non-­partisan attitudes
(2011, 168–9). As Samual Knafo points out: ‘reflexive scholars assume they can
be objective about the very thing they have the least reasons to be objective
about: themselves’ (2016, 26).
This project adds to this collective doubt. While critiquing the lack of contex-
tualisation of knowledge production as a core element of dominance, the critical
literature excludes itself from its object of inquiry. Despite its reflexive ambi-
tions, it focuses only on the discourses and practices of others (‘mainstream’ IR,
or ‘non-­Western’ IR). Only by finding a solution to this paradox will we be able
to address the issue of the Western dominance of IR both socio-­politically (to be
consistent with our pluralistic values), and heuristically (to be able to identify
and explain the internationalisation of IR without the Eurocentric biases identi-
fied). Like a sword of Damocles, my failure to implement a reflexive practice
ran the risk of turning my research into yet another snake biting its own tail by
reproducing the problem.
The research design had to be amended accordingly, to reintroduce me and
the critical literature into the analysis. The objective was to adopt a methodology
consistent with the requirements of critical theory. I argue that the paradox in
which IR critical scholars find themselves is a result of their incapacity to
account for the recursivity of their situation. Used in mathematics, linguistics or
informatics, the concept of recursivity enables us to think about the existence of
an element included within itself. It is, for example, a recursive programme that
requires an algorithm that uses itself to reach its results. ‘Western’ IR scholars
trying to shape the internationalisation of their discipline by understanding
how  the work of ‘Western’ IR scholars affects the internationalisation of their
12   Introduction
professional field is a case of participant observation/action-­research that
stretches ‘the recursive nature of social life’ (Giddens 1987, 11) to its limits. If
symbolic power operates through naturalisation, then a priority for critical
studies is to investigate its own common sense. To achieve this objective, I
adopted a Foucauldian approach to discourse analysis that I adapted to match the
reflexive ambitions of critical IR literature.
In History of Sexuality, Foucault (1976) investigates how the common sense
of historians regarding the history of sexuality produces sexual norms. He argues
that the description of the Victorian period as repressive implicitly creates the
image of an emancipated contemporary sexual order, thus naturalising the power
relations existing within the new sexual order. To track the effects of this
discourse, Foucault identifies the core common sense of historian literature on
Victorian sexuality that he calls ‘the repressive hypothesis’ (‘l’hypothèse répres-
sive’). He then shows how this discourse serves the interests of the self-­
designated sexual emancipators and is concealed further by these very interests.
The theory of power-­knowledge, thus, did not imply that people who identify
themselves as ‘critical’ produce discourses capable of escaping performativity,
nor are prevented from reproducing the very system they critique (Boltanski
2011). Indeed, what if the self-­identified emancipators of the system contribute
to its reproduction? This double concealment would seal the cognitive and social
resources for the denaturalisation of the implicit dimensions of power while
letting people believe there is actually a subversive dynamic at work. ‘Problema-
tizing’ the critique, therefore, becomes a priority (Boland 2013, 110). Acknow-
ledging this breaks us free from the unempirical aegis, or shield, of critical
self-­immunity.
What, thus, is the common sense of the literature that critiques the Western
dominance of IR? At the core of the critique of the Western dominance of IR is
the assumption that IR is dominated by ‘the West’. As shown on pp.  3–5,
Western dominance in IR is taken for granted, and inferred from the Eurocen-
trism of IR. The Western dominance of IR is the lens through which critical IR
scholars study what they aim to deconstruct. Following Foucault’s method in
History of Sexuality, I designate the core argument of the critical literature as:
‘the narrative of Western dominance’. Based on a literature review comprising
300 articles (summarised above), I identified the narrative of Western dominance
as the common sense of critical IR literature regarding the global structuration of
the discipline. It goes as follows: ‘IR’s Western dominance lies in the capacity
of Western scholarship to impose its Eurocentric vision of the world by prevent-
ing scholars from the Global South from internationalising their research.’
A new research question emerges: does the narrative of Western dominance
participate in the Eurocentrism it critiques? In other words: IR is Eurocentric but
does critical denunciation of the Western Dominance of the field resulting from
the acknowledgement of this Eurocentrism reproduce the Eurocentrism it
denounces? To answer this, I undertook two main initiatives. First, I evaluated
the empirical value of the narrative of Western dominance using the results from
fieldwork on the conditions of internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India.
 Introduction   13
Second, I assessed the narrative of Western dominance according to the criteria
of Eurocentrism exposed above. Other endeavours have complemented this
decentring process. For example, I compared the description of IR in the critical
literature with the discourses of Indian and Brazilian scholars. I also engaged in
participatory observation in fifteen international congresses and workshops about
the topic of Western dominance of IR. I presented my work and observed other
scholars’ presentations to experience first-­hand how the narrative of Western
dominance was expressed in interactions and the types of resistance its question-
ing generated.

Objectives
After denaturalising the obviousness of the Western dominance of IR and
showing the importance of designing this research as a reflexive work, I can now
reformulate the research question to encompass the two dimensions of the reflex-
ive problem. This leads to two research questions that are in fact two faces of the
same coin. They produce the same reflexive knowledge, the difference between
them being the object they primarily focus upon:

1 What are the conditions of the internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India

and what do these empirical findings tell us about the Eurocentrism of the
narrative of Western dominance?
2 Does the narrative of Western dominance reproduce the Eurocentrism it
denounces, and, if so, what would a non-­Eurocentric narrative about the
internationalisation of IR ‘in the Global South’ look like?

By empirically assessing the narrative of Western dominance through an Inter-

national Political Sociology of the internationalisation of IR publications in
Brazil and India, this book offers three main contributions. First, it explores the
nature of the relationship between the internationalisation of social sciences and
global political order. Second, it investigates the politics of the critique and prob-
lematises the alleged emancipatory role of critique regarding power relations
(Boltanski 2011; Boland 2013; Hutchings 2007). Finally, this research con-
tributes to the development of methodological tools for critical theory. It offers a
much-­needed methodological demonstration of how to implement reflexivity so
as to produce innovative empirical findings (Lefebvre 2006; Denis 2002), com-
plementing the already existing works focusing on discourses and narratives in
international politics (Inayatullah and Dauphinee 2016; Suganami 2008; Roberts
2006; Miskimmon et al. 2016).

Chapter outline
Reflexive knowledge has a double object: what the knowledge refers to and the
producers of this knowledge (to which we belong as scholars producing
academic discourses). To communicate this knowledge, I have written this book
14   Introduction
as a spiral movement. The discourse analysis of the narrative is the helix struc-
turing the writing. It first mainly exposes knowledge referred to by critical
scholars (the internationalisation of IR), moving more and more towards taking
as an object of inquiry the subjects of this discourse, or, more specifically, their
dispositions. The steady denaturalisation of the main assumptions of the nar-
rative of Western dominance provides new grounds for questioning the social
and political effects of this narrative as well as its methodological and epistemo-
logical implications for the discipline. To ease reading, each chapter starts with a
simple question that each time challenges deeper the assumptions of the common
sense.

Is IR as diverse as the critical literature assumes it to be, and do such

differences represent comparative disadvantages for the
internationalisation of publications?
The first chapter questions the way ‘difference’ and ‘local specificities’ are
addressed by the critical literature. It challenges the assumption that ‘scholars
from the Global South’ are excluded because of their alleged ‘non-­Western’ spe-
cificities. It investigates the existence of local specificities described by the crit-
ical literature, focusing on the contributions of India and Brazil to theoretical,
thematic and demographic diversity of ‘Global IR’. It then examines the value
attributed to these specificities by Indian and Brazilian scholars, and the con-
sequences of demonstrating such specificities for internationalisation.
Two main conclusions can be drawn. First, in the case of IR in India and
Brazil: (i) there is no theoretically specific production; (ii) thematic differences
(focusing on national foreign policy and regional studies) exist but are experi-
enced as national traditions rather than invested as a counter-­hegemonic stance;
(iii) the fact that very few people were working in IR before the 1990s explains
the invisibility of national scholars at the international level. Second, the adoption
of these criteria represents comparative advantages for the internationalisation of
research. The first chapter shows the lack of ‘anti-­hegemonic’ engagement of
Indian and Brazilian scholars and sheds lights on how the narrative of Western
dominance essentialises ‘non-­Western’ IR as inherently different.

Do Indian and Brazilian IR scholars aim to publish in foreign IR

journals?
The second chapter assesses the position of Indian and Brazilian scholars
regarding the internationalisation of their publications. Thus, it questions the
implicit consensus that ‘scholars from the Global South’ naturally aspire to
publish abroad. First, it investigates the target audience and privileged publica-
tion formats for IR in these countries. Second, it draws up a socio-­history of the
field of IR in Brazil and India to account for the development of IR scholars’
profession in its relationship with the state and government through an inter-­
generational comparison.
 Introduction   15
These investigations demonstrate the existence of two models of professional
engagement. In both countries, IR has been constructed as a foreign policy tool
to support postcolonial states’ need for international expertise and their construc-
tion as international political subjects. However, publication strategies have
drastically changed in Brazil since the 2000s. Since then, Brazilian scholars have
started to prioritise internationalisation and have not encountered difficulties in
doing so. During this same period, Indian scholars did not change in the same
way. They remained in favour of non-­peer-reviewed publications, which mainly
address national and regional elites. Chapter 2, therefore, demonstrates the plu-
rality of IR professional practices and objectives around the globe. It exposes the
assumption of a universal model of professionalisation and publication made by
the narrative of Western dominance.

What are the conditions determining the internationalisation of IR

publication?
The third chapter investigates the factors determining the internationalisation of
IR research in Brazil and India. Thus, it questions the fact that the international-
isation of IR from ‘the Global South’ is prevented by ‘Western’ scholars. Con-
trary to the assumptions of the literature, the internationalisation of IR in Brazil
and India is determined by variation within the national context: the robustness of
the national publishing market, the criteria used for research evaluation and the
extent to which they are important in career advancement, the relative incentives
to produce policy-­oriented research, and the nature of national scientific public
policies (including the legal framework behind the organisation of universities,
the funding allocated to each discipline and the availability of grants for inter-
nationalisation). This comparison shows that the current state of international-
isation of IR in Brazil, which is not occurring in India, directly results from a
major transformation of these factors in the late 1990s/early 2000s. Chapter 3,
therefore, reveals that the internationalisation of IR is multi-­polar and that the nar-
rative of Western dominance denies the agency of ‘the Global South’ states,
despite them being the main actors influencing scholars’ publishing strategies.

What is the relationship between ‘the national’ and ‘the

international’ in regards to the internationalisation and
diversification of IR?
The fourth chapter deconstructs the implicit relationship between the commonly
used categories of thought: ‘the national’ and ‘the international’. It offers a
decentred account of IR in Brazil and India to show how processes identified as
‘international’ or ‘national’ interact and affect the relationship between the inter-
nationalisation and diversification of IR. First, it deconstructs the ‘national’ char-
acter of Indian and Brazilian IR traditions by exposing their international origin
and sub-­national diversity. Second, it shows that processes of diversification and
professional engagement in IR’s national and international spaces are not only
16   Introduction
different but can also be contradictory. Finally, it explores the experiences and
perceptions of Indian and Brazilian scholars regarding ‘the national’ and ‘the
international’ to show that the value attributed to those objects by the narrative
of Western dominance is not necessarily shared by the scholars the narrative
aims to emancipate. Chapter 4, therefore, demonstrates how the narrative of
Western dominance reifies, merges and opposes ‘the national’ and ‘the inter-
national’ in a way that reproduces the Eurocentrism it denounces.

What are the social effects of the narrative of Western dominance’s

anti-­Eurocentric Eurocentric discourse on the field of IR?
The first four chapters demonstrate that the narrative of Western dominance is
Eurocentric according to the three dimensions of Eurocentrism identified in the
Introduction. Chapter 5 exposes how the narrative of Western dominance is
embedded in a discursive entanglement composed of three other discourses:
social evolutionism, the technicisation of scientific knowledge, and the critical
dichotomy between ‘dominant’ and dominated social groups. Behind their
apparent diversity and contradictions, these discourses naturalise the inevitabil-
ity of the advent of a global academic order organised around a publication
system that rather than benefiting the (vaguely defined) ‘West’ matches more
precisely US and UK IR academia.
Chapter 5 shows how the narrative of Western dominance not only repro-
duces the Eurocentrism it critiques but illustrates the emergence of a new form
of Eurocentrism that I call postcolonial Eurocentrism. It also contributes to the
normalisation of academic models by naturalising gate-­keeping practices and
identities outside the critique’s scope.

How did critical scholars exclude themselves from their object of

inquiry, and what did I do to include myself back into the analysis?
Chapter 6 offers a reflexive account of three of the endeavours I undertook to
produce an alternative discourse to the narrative of Western dominance. I argue
that the core reason explaining the recursive paradox in which IR critical
scholars find themselves is that they exclude themselves from their object of
study. To face this issue, I first show how I theorised reflexivity to understand
what its object is, and what the obstacles to including ourselves in our research
are. Second, I show how the current conceptualisation of diversity (or lack
thereof ) prevents us from understanding the power relationships created through
the circulation of knowledge as well as enabling critical scholars to exclude
themselves from their object of study. Finally, I describe some examples of how
I adapted qualitative methods (research design and interviews) so as to include
myself better into my object of analysis.

Through presenting a counter-­intuitive and innovative account of the inter-

nationalisation of publication, this book aims at challenging the Eurocentric
 Introduction   17
common sense that lies at the heart of not only IR but also the social sciences
and the dominant visions of globalisation. By doing so, this work will be of great
interest for scholars and students of International Relations, Political Theory,
Sociology, and Latin American and South Asian Studies. This book shows how
to rethink traditional questions in these disciplines and areas of study, through
the lenses of knowledge and power relations. It also urges adoption of critical
tools to transform our perception of the world, for this transformation is an
underinvested reflexive methodological front of collective and cumulative
emancipation.

Notes
  1 All the quotes from non-­English publications are my translations.
  2 The exact scope of Eurocentrism is rarely well defined and varies from ‘Western
Europe’ to ‘the West’ (I will use the latter as defined p. 1). Etymologically, the cat-
egory ‘Western-­centrism’ would be more accurate to describe what the literature
refers to. However, the category ‘Eurocentrism’ – popularised in the 1970s – remains
prevalent.
  3 As shown by the theme of the 2015 International Studies Association Congress,
‘Global IR and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies’ (‘New
Orleans 2015’ 2015).
  4 For examples of works challenging Eurocentric narratives on topics other than IR
Western dominance, see Shilliam (2015) and Grovogui (2006).
  5 In this book, I use categories such as ‘the West’ and ‘the Global South’ with inverted
commas to underline that they are emic categories employed by the scholars I study.
Instead of assuming that all these IR fields can fall under the scope of this binary divi-
sion, I start my research with two national cases. This methodological choice later
enables me to question the discursive effects of these categories (see Chapter 5).
  6 As we will see, IR in India is characterised by its Delhi-­centrism. I selected two cities
other than Delhi to offer contrasting viewpoints from the Delhi perspective. Pon-
dicherry has been selected as it represents an established regional school of inter-
national studies; Chennai because of its thematic specialisation and the presence of
think tanks.
  7 I define as ‘Indian’ and ‘Brazilian’ IR scholars the researchers and teacher-­researchers
who are primarily affiliated with an IR (academic or non-­academic) institution or hold
an IR position in a non-­IR institution (for example a Department of Political Science)
in Brazil and India. I have selected interviewees affiliated to the range of existing
research and higher education institutions. In Brazil, the scholars belong to nine
different institutions: state institutions (USP, Universidade de Campinas, Universi-
dade Estadual Paulista, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro), a federal institu-
tion (UnB) and private institutions (Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de
Janeiro – PUC-­Rio, Instituto Rio Branco, Fundação Getulio Vargas – FGV, Centro
Universitário de Brasília). In India, the scholars belong to thirteen different institu-
tions: central universities (JNU, Delhi University – DU, Jamia Milia Islamia Univer-
sity, University of Pondicherry), a state university (Madras University), an
engineering institute (Indian Institute of Technology Madras), an intergovernmental
university (South Asia University), a private university (Pandit Deendayal Petroleum
University), two colleges (Deshbandhu College, Madras Christian College), think
tanks and research institutes (Observer Research Foundation, Indian Council of
World  Affairs, Institute of Chinese Studies). In order to clarify the argument of the
book, I will mainly use the name of the universities in order to designate their IR
departments.
18   Introduction
  8 The CAPES is an agency of the Ministry of Education funding programmes, scholars
and students. The CNPq is an agency of the Ministry of Science and Higher Educa-
tion offering fellowships and research and mobility grants. The FINEP acts like a
bank investing and loaning funds for innovation either directly or through the CNPq.
These three agencies operate at the federal level. Other organisations run at the state
level like the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) or
the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ).
  9 The UGC is the main funding and regulating higher education agency in India. The
ICSSR is a governmental organisation supporting and funding social sciences.
10 In Brazil, the literature was almost exclusively in Portuguese and, in India, in English.
The interviews were conducted in Portuguese, English, French and Spanish according
to the preferences of the interviewees. The anonymity of the interviewees is even
more important than usual in this research as this book addresses the professional field
they belong to. This situation makes it also easier for the reader to recognise them. As
a consequence, I chose to give as little information about them as possible, as some-
times only accompanying excerpts with institutional affiliations would be enough to
identify them. However, in the cases where interviews and publications were over-
lapping, I selected the use of publications.
11 I engaged in the daily activities of these research centres such as attending seminars,
professional lunches and meetings between scholars and their students. I presented
my work in seminars and engaged with the university administration. I also experi-
enced first-­hand what it was to travel to work every morning in those busy cities, the
life on the campus and the material conditions of working in those environments (IT,
library capacity, climate conditions etc.).
12 As we will see, the social sciences have different statuses and values in Brazil and
India. As a consequence, data exists about Brazilian social sciences while it is almost
non-­existent in India. The lack of information concerns core elements such as the
number of programmes and faculty per discipline as confirmed by the agency in
charge of collecting and producing data about social sciences, the ICSSR: 
State governments, by contrast, have shown little interest in promoting and
funding social research by independent academic institutions, with the exception
of labour studies, rural development and public administration. But even in respect
of these, information on the size and composition of their faculty, sources of
funding areas of research and research output is not readily available. Information
for most others is scanty. 
(2007, 10–11)

References
Acharya, Amitav. 2000. ‘Ethnocentrism and Emancipatory IR Theory’. In (Dis)Placing
Security: Critical Evaluations of the Boundaries of Security, edited by Samantha
Arnold and J. Marshall Beier, 1–18. Toronto: York Centre for International and
Security Studies.
Acharya, Amitav. 2011. ‘Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations The-
ories Beyond the West’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 619–37.
Acharya, Amitav. 2014. Rethinking Power, Institutions and Ideas in World Politics:
Whose IR? Oxford, New York: Routledge.
Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan, eds. 2010. Non-­Western International Relations
Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London, New York: Routledge.
Adler, Emanuel. 1991. ‘Arms Control, Disarmament, and National Security: A Thirty
Year Retrospective and a New Set of Anticipations’. Daedalus 120 (1): 11–18.
 Introduction   19
Adler, Emanuel, and Steven Bernstein. 2005. ‘Knowledge in Power: The Epistemic Con-
struction of Global Governance’. In Power in Global Governance, edited by Michael
Barnett and Raymond Duval, 294–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Asad, Talal. 1973. Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter. New York: Prometheus
Books.
Austin, Gareth. 2007. ‘Reciprocal Comparison and African History: Tackling Conceptual
Eurocentrism in the Study of Africa’s Economic Past’. African Studies Review 50
(3): 1–28.
Austin, J.L. 1962. ‘How To Do Things With Words: The William James Lectures
Delivered at Harvard University in 1955’. Journal of Symbolic Logic 36: 513.
Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. 2000. ‘Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The
Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations’. International
Studies Perspectives 1 (3): 289–303.
Bertucci, Mariano E., Fabián Borges-­Herrero, and Claudia Fuentes-­Julio. 2014. ‘Toward
“Best Practices” in Scholar-­Practitioner Relations: Insights from the Field of Inter-­
American Affairs’. International Studies Perspectives 15 (1): 54–72.
Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. ‘Thinking Past “Western” IR?’ Third World Quarterly 29 (1): 5–23.
Bleiker, Roland. 2001. ‘Forget IR Theory’. In The Zen of ‘International Relations’: IR
Theories from East to West, edited by Stefan Chan and Peter Mandaville, 37–66.
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boland, T. 2013. ‘Critique Is a Thing of This World: Towards a Genealogy of Critique’.
History of the Human Sciences 27 (1): 108–23.
Boltanski, Luc. 2011. On Critique: A Sociology of Emancipation. London: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1982. Ce Que Parler Veut Dire: l’Economie Des Echanges Linguis-
tiques. Paris: Fayard.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Langage et Pouvoir Symbolique. Paris: Editions Fayard.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J.D. Wacquant, eds. 1992. Réponses: Pour Une Anthropologie
Réflexive. Réponses. Paris: Le Seuil.
Chen, Boyu, Ching-­Chane Hwang, and L.H.M. Ling. 2009. ‘Lust/Caution in IR: Demo-
cratising World Politics with Culture as a Method’. Millennium – Journal of Inter-
national Studies 37: 743–66.
Carvalho, Benjamin de, Halvard Leira, and John Hobson. 2011. ‘The Myths that Your
Teachers Still Tell You About 1648 and 1919’. Millennium – Journal of International
Studies 39 (3): 735–58.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh. 2007. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chan, Stefan, and Peter Mandaville, eds. 2001. The Zen of International Relations: IR
Theory from East to West. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chong, A., and N. Hamilton-­Hart. 2008. ‘Teaching International Relations in Southeast
Asia: Historical Memory, Academic Context, and Politics – an Introduction’. Inter-
national Relations of the Asia-­Pacific 9 (1): 1–18.
Delmotte, Stephanie. 2007. ‘La Formalisation Des Publications Scientifiques:
Les Sciences Humaines et Sociales À La Recherche de Fondements Scientifiques’.
Paris X-­Nanterre.
Denis, Jérôme. 2002. ‘L’Ecriture Comme Dispositif d’Articulation Entre Terrain et
Recherche’. Alinéa. Sciences Sociales et Humaines 12: 93–106.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in
North-­South Relations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
20   Introduction
Eagleton-­Pierce, Matthew. 2011. ‘Advancing a Reflexive International Relations’. Mil-
lennium – Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 805–23.
Edkins, Jenny. 1999. Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Polit-
ical Back In. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Esposito, John L., and John O. Voll. 2000. ‘Islam and the West: Muslim Voices of Dia-
logue’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 29 (3): 613–39.
Eun, Yong-­Soo. 2016. Pluralism and Engagement in the Discipline of International Rela-
tions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les Mots et Les Choses. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 1975. Surveiller et Punir. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 1976. Histoire de La Sexualité I, La Volonté de Savoir. Paris:
Gallimard.
Giddens, Anthony. 1987. Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Policy
Press.
Grenier, Félix. 2015. ‘Explaining the Development of International Relations: The Geo-­
Epistemic, Historiographical, Sociological Perspectives in Reflexive Studies on IR’.
European Review of International Studies 2 (1): 72–89.
Grovogui, Siba N’Zatioula. 2006. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy : Memories of
International Order and Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gruffydd Jones, Branwen, ed. 2006a. Decolonizing International Relations. Lanham,
MD, Boulder, CO, New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Gruffydd Jones, Branwen. 2006b. ‘Introduction: International Relations, Eurocentrism,
and Imperialism’. In Decolonizing International Relations, edited by Branwen Gruff-
ydd Jones, 1–22. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2011. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the
Rockfeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Gülalp, Haldun. 1998. ‘The Eurocentrism of Dependency Theory and the Question of
“Authenticity”: A View from Turkey’. Third World Quarterly 19 (5): 951–61.
Halperin, Sandra. 2006. ‘International Relations Theory and the Hegemony of Western
Conceptions of Modernity’. In Decolonizing International Relations, edited by Jones
Branwen Gruffydd, 43–64. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2012a. ‘IR Theory as International Practice/Agency: A Clinical-­
Cynical Bourdieusian Perspective’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 40
(3): 625–46.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2012b. ‘Reflectivity, Reflexivity, Reflexivism: IR’s “Reflexive
Turn” – and Beyond’. European Journal of International Relations 1–26.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2014a. ‘Outline for a Reflexive Epistemology’. Epistemology and
Philosophy of Science 42 (4): 46–56.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2014b. ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Know-
ledge In-­Between: The Subject In/of “Strong Reflexivity” ’. Review of International
Studies 40: 153–75.
Hellman, Gunther. 2003. ‘Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Rela-
tions?’ International Studies Review 5: 123–53.
Hermann, Margaret. 2002. ‘One Field, Many Perspectives : Shifting from Debate to Dia-
logue’. In Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field, edited by
Donald Puchala, 42–61. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Hobson, John M. 2007. ‘Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western
Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a Post-­Racist Critical IR’. In Critical
 Introduction   21
International Relations Theory after 25 Years, edited by Nicholas John Rengger and
Tristram Benedict Thirkell-­White, 91–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, John M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western Inter-
national Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holden, Gerard. 2002. ‘Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History
and the Discourse about IR Discourse’. Review of International Studies 28 (2): 253–70.
Holden, Gerard. 2014. ‘Worlding Beyond the West’. Cooperation and Conflict 49 (1):
133–40.
Hutchings, Kimberly. 2007. ‘Happy Anniversary! Time and Critique in International
Relations Theory’. Review of International Studies 33 (S1): 71–89.
Hutchings, Kimberly. 2011. ‘Dialogue between Whom? The Role of the West/Non-­West
Distinction in Promoting Global Dialogue in IR’. Millennium – Journal of Inter-
national Studies 39 (3): 639–47.
Inayatullah, Naeem, and Elizabeth Dauphinee, eds. 2016. Narrative Global Politics:
Theory, History and the Personal in International Relations. Oxford, New York:
Routledge.
Indian Council of Social Science Research. 2007. ‘Restructuring the Indian Council of
Social Science Research: Report of the Fourth Review Committee’. New Delhi. www.
icssr.org/finalreport.pdf.
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations:
Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York:
Routledge.
Kapoor, Ilan. 2004. ‘Hyper-­Self-Reflexive Development ? Spivak on Representing the
Third World “Other” ’. Third World Quarterly 25 (4): 627–47.
Keohane, Robert O. 1988. ‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’. International
Studies Quarterly 32 (4): 379–96.
Knafo, Samuel. 2016. ‘Bourdieu and the Dead End of Reflexivity: On the Impossible
Task of Locating the Subject’. Review of International Studies 42 (1): 25–47.
Kohn, Margaret, and Keally McBride. 2011. Political Theories of Decolonization: Post-
colonialism and the Problem of Foundations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2015. ‘Revisiting the “American Social Science”: Mapping the
Geography of International Relations’. International Studies Perspectives 16 (3):
246–69.
Lefebvre, Muriel. 2006. ‘Les Ecrits Scientifiques En Action: Pluralité Des Ecritures et
Enjeux Mobilisés’. Sciences de La Société 67: 3–15.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1952. Race and History. Paris: UNESCO.
Lizée, Pierre. 2011. A Whole New World: Reinventing International Studies for the Post-­
Western World. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mansour, Imad. 2016. ‘A Global South Perspective on International Relations Theory’.
International Studies Perspectives 18.
Miskimmon, Alister, Ben O’Loughlin and Laura Roselle, eds. 2016. Forging the World:
Strategic Narratives and International Relations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michi-
gan Press.
Muppidi, Himadeep. 2012. Colonial Signs of International Relations. London:
Hurst & Co.
Nayak, Meghana, and Eric Selbin. 2010. Decentering International Relations. London:
New York: Zed Books.
Neufeld, Mark. 1993. ‘Reflexivity and International Relations Theory’. Millennium –
Journal of International Studies 22 (1): 53–76.
22   Introduction
‘New Orleans 2015’. 2015. International Studies Association. www.isanet.org/Confer-
ences/New-­Orleans-2015.
Oren, Ido. 2003. Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political
Science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Press.
Ree, Gerard van der. 2013. ‘The Politics of Scientific Representation in International
Relations’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 42 (1): 24–44.
Roberts, Geoffrey. 2006. ‘History, Theory and the Narrative Turn in IR’. Review of Inter-
national Studies 32: 703–14.
Rosenau, Pauline. 1990. ‘Once Again into the Fray: International Relations Confronts the
Humanities’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 19 (1): 83–110.
Russett, Bruce M. 1993. ‘Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-­Cold War
World’. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 26 (1): 173.
Sajed, Alina, and John Hobson. 2017. ‘Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of
Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non-­Western Agency’.
International Studies Review 19 (4): 547–72.
Saurin, Julian. 2006. ‘International Relations as the Imperial Illusion: Or the Need to
Decolonize IR’. In Decolonizing International Relations, edited by Branwen Gruffydd
Jones, 23–42. Lanham, MD, Boulder, CO, New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Shahi, Deepshikha, and Gennaro Ascione. 2016. ‘Rethinking the Absence of Post-­
Western International Relations Theory in India: ’Advaitic Monism as an Alternative
Epistemological Resource’. European Journal of International Relations 22 (2):
313–34.
Shani, Giorgio. 2008. ‘Toward a Post-­Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical
International Relations Theory’. International Studies Review 10 (4): 722–34.
Shilliam, Robbie. 2011. International Relations and Non-­Western Thought: Imperialism,
Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity. London, New York: Routledge.
Shilliam, Robbie. 2015. The Black Pacific Anti-­Colonial Struggles and Oceanic Connec-
tions. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Smith, Steve. 2004. ‘Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory
and September 11’. International Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 499–515.
Smith, Steve. 2007. ‘Introduction’. In Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Rela-
tions Theory, edited by Timothy Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, 1–12. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Suganami, Hidemi. 2008. ‘Narrative Explanation and International Relations: Back to
Basics’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 37 (2): 327–56.
Tansel, Cemal Burak. 2015. ‘Deafening Silence? Marxism, International Historical Soci-
ology and the Spectre of Eurocentrism’. European Journal of International Relations
21 (1): 76–100.
Thomas, Caroline, and Peter Wilkin. 2004. ‘Still Waiting after All These Years: “The
Third World” on the Periphery of International Relations’. British Journal of Politics
and International Relations 6: 241–58.
Tickner, Arlene B. 2003a. ‘Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations
Studies’. International Studies Perspectives 4 (4): 325–50.
Tickner, Arlene B. 2003b. ‘Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World’. Millen-
nium – Journal of International Studies 32 (2): 295–324.
Tickner, Arlene B. 2013. ‘Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations’.
European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 627–46.
Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. 2009a. ‘Conclusion’. In International Relations
Scholarship Around the World. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
 Introduction   23
Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. 2009b. International Relations Scholarship around
the World. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Tickner, Arlene B., and Andrei P. Tsygankov. 2008. ‘Responsible Scholarship in Inter-
national Relations: A Symposium’. International Studies Review 10: 661–6.
Vasilaki, Rosa. 2012. ‘Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-­Western IR
Theory’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 41 (1): 3–22.
Wæver, Ole. 1998. ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and
European Developments in International Relations’. International Organization 52 (4):
687–727.
Wilson, Peter. 1998. ‘The Myth of the “First Great Debate” ’. Review of International
Studies 24 (5): 1–16.
 Diversity   45
4 Based on the permanent and emeritus scholars with exclusive dedication staff whose
profiles are listed on the website of the institutions (IREL, IR research centres at PUC-­
Rio and USP) in January 2017. Articles surveyed fall under the Lattes category:
‘Artigos completos publicados em periódicos’.
5 Contrary to India and other Latin American countries, Brazil (as well as Chile) has
imposed quota restrictions for students to avoid this situation (Garreton 2005, 560).
However, the institutionalisation boom of the discipline in Brazil has also put pressure
on the second generation of scholars in terms of administrative duties.
6 An exception is JNU, which was created as a ‘research university’ and offers a lighter
teaching load for its academic staff.

References
Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. 2007. ‘Why Is There No Non-­Western International
Relations Theory? An Introduction’. International Relations of the Asia-­Pacific 7 (3):
287–312.
Agnew, John. 2007. ‘Know-­Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics’. Inter-
national Political Sociology 1 (2): 138–48.
Akande, Habeeb. 2016. Illuminating the Blackness: Blacks and African Muslims in
Brazil. London: Rabaah Publishers.
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2008. ‘Asia’s Security Environment: From Subordinate to Region
Dominant System’. In The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st
Century Asia, edited by Muthiah Alagappa, 37–77. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2009. ‘Strengthening International Studies in India: Vision and
Recommendations’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 7–35.
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2011. ‘International Relations Studies in Asia: Distinctive Traject-
ories’. International Relations of the Asia-­Pacific 11 (2): 193–230.
Almeida, Paulo Roberto de. 1991. ‘Relaçoes Internacionais Do Brasil: Introduçao
Metodológica a Um Estudo Global’. Contexto Internacional 13 (2): 161–85.
Atal, Yogesh. 2003. Indian Sociology from Where to Where: Footnotes to the History of
the Discipline. Jaipur, New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. 2008. ‘Periphery Theorising for a Truly International-
ised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia’. Review of International Studies
34 (4): 693–712.
Balzacq, Thierry, and Frédéric Ramel. 2013. Traité de Relations Internationales. Paris:
Presses de Sciences Po.
Barkawi, Tarak, and Shane Brighton. 2011. ‘Powers of War: Fighting, Knowledge, and
Critique, International Political Sociology’. International Political Sociology 5 (2):
126–43.
Behera, Navnita. 2007. ‘Re-­Imagining IR in India’. International Relations of the Asia-­
Pacific 7 (3): 341–68.
Behera, Navnita. 2009. ‘South Asia: A “Realist” Past and Alternative Futures’. In Inter-
national Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole
Wæver, 134–57. Abingdon ; New York: Routledge.
Behera, Navnita. 2013. ‘Introduction’. In Political Science Vol. 4 India Engages the
World, edited by Navnita Behera. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Beier, Marshall J. 2005. International Relations in Uncommon Places: Indigeneity,
Cosmology, and the Limits of International Theory. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
46   Diversity
Beier, Marshall J. 2009. Indigenous Diplomacies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. ‘Thinking Past “Western’ IR?” ’ Third World Quarterly 29 (1): 5–23.
Bouju, Jacques. 1995. ‘Tradition et Identité: La Tradition Dogo Entre Traditionnalisme
Rural et Néo-Traditionnalisme Urbain’. Enquête 2: 95–117.
Brandi, Aleixo José Carlos. 2012. A Área de Relaçoes Internacionais Na Universidade de
Brasília. Brasília: IREL, Universidade de Brasilia.
Brown, Chris. 2011. ‘The Development of International Relations Theory in the UK:
Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives, and Trajectories’. International Relations of
the Asia-­Pacific 11 (2): 309–30.
Bruyneel, Kevin. 2007. The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of
U.S.–Indigenous Relations. Minneapolis, MN, London: University of Minnesota Press.
Cao, Qing. 2001. ‘Selling Culture: Ancient Chinese Conceptions of “the Other” in
Legends’. In The Zen of ‘International Relations’: IR Theories from East to West,
edited by Stephen Chan, Peter G. Mandaville and Roland Bleiker, 178–202. New York:
Palgrave.
Cardoso, Fernando H. 1973. Problemas Del Subdesarrollo Latinoamericano. México:
Nuestro Tiempo.
Cardoso, Fernando H., and Enzo Faletto. 1969. Dependencia Y Desarrollo En América
Latina. México: Siglo XXI.
CensusIndia. 2011. ‘A – 5: Union Primary Census Abstract – 2011’. www.censusindia.
gov.in/2011census/hlo/pca/pca_pdf/PCA-­CRC-0000.pdf.
Cervo, Amado Luiz. 2008. Formação Dos Conceitos Brasileiros. São Paulo: Saraiva.
Chakrabarty, Bidyut, and Rajendra Kumar Pandey. 2010. Modern Indian Political
Thought: Text and Context. New Delhi: Jamia Hamdard.
Chan, Gerald. 1999. Chinese Perspectives on International Relations: A Framework for
Analysis. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Chatterjee, Bishwa B. 1974. ‘Search for an Appropriate Game Model for Gandhian Saty-
agraha’. Journal of Peace Research 11 (1): 21–9.
Chatterjee, Bishwa B., and Shyam S. Bhattacharjee. 1971. ‘Meanings of Non-­Violence:
Types of Dimensions?’ Journal of Peace Research 8 (2): 155–61.
Chen, Boyu, Ching-­Chane Hwang and L.H.M. Ling. 2009. ‘Lust/Caution in IR: Demo-
cratising World Politics with Culture as a Method’. Millennium – Journal of Inter-
national Studies 37: 743–66.
Crawford, Neta C. 1994. ‘A Security Regime among Democracies : Cooperation among
Iroquois Nations’. International Organization 48 (3): 345–85.
‘Current Issue – Volume 13, Number 3 (2007): Special Issue on Indigenous Diploma-
cies’. 2007. Canada Foreign Policy – Politique Étrangère Du Canada.
Das, Veena, and Shalini Randeria. 2015. ‘Social Sciences and Public Debates: The Case
of India’. Socio 5: 81–98.
Dellios, Rosita. 1996. Mandala-­Building in International Relations as a Paradigm for
Peace. Bond University. http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=
1104&context=hss_pubs.
Fonseca, Gelson Jr. 1987. ‘Studies on International Relations in Brazil: Recent Times
(1950–80)’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 16 (2): 273–80.
Fowler, Jeaneane. 2002. Perspectives of Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Hinduism. Eastbourne: Sussex Academic Press.
Furtado, Celso. 1964. Desarrollo Y Subdesarrollo. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
Gandhi, Mahatma. 1960. My Non-­Violence. Ahmedabad: Navajivan.
 Diversity   47
Garreton, M.a. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Latin America: A Comparative Perspective –
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3):
557–93.
Gingras, Yves, and Michel Trepanier. 1993. ‘Constructing a Tokamak: Political, Eco-
nomic and Technical Factors as Constraints and Resources’. Social Studies of Science
23 (1): 5–36.
Graber, Christoph B., Karolina Kuprecht and Jessica Christine Lai, eds. 2012. Inter-
national Trade in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: Legal and Policy Issues. Northamp-
ton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Grovogui, Siba N’Zatioula. 2006. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy : Memories of
International Order and Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gupta, B.M., S.M. Dhawan and Ugrasen Singh. 2009. ‘Social Science Research in India,
China and Brazil: A Comparative Study’. DESIDOC Journal of Library and Informa-
tion Technology 29 (2): 15–24.
Gusmão, Luiz Antônio. 2012. ‘A Produção de Teses E Dissertações de Relações Interna-
cionais E Áreas Afins No Brasil’. In 8° Encontro Da ABCP. Gramado, RS.
Hage, José Alexandre Altahyde. 2013. ‘A Teoria Da Dependência: Uma Contribuição
Aos Estudos de Relações Internacionais’. Revista Política Hoje 22 (1): 106–36.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2012. ‘IR Theory as International Practice/Agency: A Clinical-­
Cynical Bourdieusian Perspective’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 40
(3): 625–46.
Heilbron, Johan. 2008. ‘Qu’est-Ce Qu’une Tradition Nationale En Sciences Sociales?’
Revue d’Histoire Des Sciences Humaines 18 (1): 3–16.
Herz, Mônica. 2002. ‘O Crescimento Da Área de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’.
Contexto Internacional 24: 7–40.
Holden, Gerard. 2014. ‘Worlding beyond the West’. Cooperation and Conflict 49 (1):
133–40.
Huysmans, Jef, and Ole Wæver. 2009. ‘International Political Sociology Beyond Euro-
pean and North American Traditions of Social and Political Thought: Introduction’.
International Political Sociology 3 (3): 327–50.
Inayatullah, Naeem, and David Blaney. 2004. International Relations and the Problem of
Difference. London, New York: Routledge.
Jatobá, Daniel. 2013. ‘Los Desarrollos Académicos de Las Relaciones Internacionales En
Brasil: Elementos Sociológicos, Institucionales Y Epistemológicos’. Relaciones Inter-
nacionales (22): 27–47.
Jayapalan, Nambiar. 2000. Indian Political Thinkers: Modern Indian Political Thought.
New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Dist.
Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Tonny Brems Knudsen. 2006. International Relations in
Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations. London: Routledge.
Julião, Tais Sandrim. 2012. ‘A Graduação Em Relações Internacionais No Brasil’.
Monções 1 (1): 13–48.
Kapoor, Ilan. 2002. ‘Capitalism, Culture, Agency: Dependency versus Postcolonial
Theory’. Third World Quarterly 23 (4): 647–64.
Kitaro, Nishida. 2002. ‘The Forms of Culture of the Classical Periods of East and West
Seen from a Metaphysical Perspective’. In Comparative Political Culture in the Age of
Globalization: An Introductory Anthology, edited by Hwa Yol Jung, 213–30. Lanham,
MD, Oxford: Lexington Books.
Klitgaard, Robert E. 2008. ‘Gandhi’s Non-­Violence as a Tactic’. Journal of Peace
Research 2 (1971): 143–53.
48   Diversity
Krishna, Venni V., and Usha Krishna. 2010. ‘World Social Science Report: Knowledge
Divides’. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 77–81. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/
188333e.pdf. 
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2015. ‘How Can Emerging Powers Speak? On Theorists,
Native Informants and Quasi-­Officials in International Relations Discourse’. Third
World Quarterly 36 (4): 637–53.
Lessa, Antônio Carlos. 2005a. ‘O Ensino de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. In O
Crescimento Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil, edited by José Flávio Sombra
Saraiva and Amado Luiz Cervo, 33–50. Brasília: IBRI.
Lessa, Antônio Carlos. 2005b. ‘Instituições, Atores E Dinâmicas Do Ensino E Da
Pesquisa Em Relações Internacionais No Brasil: O Diálogo Entre a História, a Ciência
Política E Os Novos Paradigmas de Interpretação (Dos Anos 90 Aos Nossos Dias)’.
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 48 (2): 169–84.
Liebig, Michael. 2013. ‘Endogenous Politico-­Cultural Resources: The Relevance of Kau-
tilya’s Arthashastra for Modern India’. Goethe University, Frankfurt.
Lombas, Maria Luiza de Santana. 2013. ‘A Mobilidade Internacional de Pós-Graduandos
E Pesquisadores E a Internacionalização Da Produção Do Conhecimento: Efeitos de
Uma Política Pública’. Universidade de Brasília.
Mabbett, Ian W. 1964. ‘The Date of the Arthaśāstra’. Journal of the American Oriental
Society 84 (2): 162–9.
Mahajan, Sneh. 2010. ‘International Studies in India: Some Comments’. International
Studies 47 (1): 59–72.
Mallavarapu, Siddarth. 2009. ‘Development of International Relations Theory in India:
Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories’. International Studies 46
(1–2): 165–83.
Marini, Ruy Mauro. 1973. Dialéctica de La Dependencia. Mexico: Era.
Mason, Robert. 2017. ‘China’s Impact on the Landscape of African International Rela-
tions: Implications for Dependency Theory’. Third World Quarterly 38(1).
Mattoo, Amitabh. 2009a. ‘Upgrading the Study of International Relations’. Hindu. www.
thehindu.com/todays-­paper/tp-­opinion/Upgrading-­the-study-­of-international-­relations/
article16620464.ece.
Mattoo, Amitabh. 2009b. ‘The State of International Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 37–48.
Mayall, James. 2011. ‘Non-­Western International Relations Theory’. International Rela-
tions of the Asia-­Pacific 11 (2): 331–5.
Miyamoto, Shiguenoli. 1999. ‘O Estudo Das Relacoes Internacionais No Brasil: O Estado
Da Arte’. Revista de Sociología E Política 12: 83–98.
Modelski, George. 1964. ‘Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the
Ancient Hindu World’. American Political Science Review 58 (3): 549–60.
Mohan, Raja. 2006. ‘India and the Balance of Power’. Foreign Affairs 85 (4): 17–32.
Nandy, Ashis. 2002. ‘The Beautiful, Expanding Future of Poverty: Popular Economics as
a Psychological Defense’. International Studies Review 4 (2): 107–21.
Nandy, Ashis. 2012. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Natraj, V.K., Manabi Majumdar, Ananta Kumar Giri and V. Chandrasekara Naidu. 2016.
‘Social Science: Dialogue for Revival’. Economic and Political Weekly 36 (33):
3128–33.
Packenham, Robert. 1992. The Dependency Movement: Scholarship and Politics in
Development Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
 Diversity   49
Padhy, K.S. 2011. Indian Political Thought. New Delhi: New Arrivals – PHI.
Paremmakkal, Thomman Cathanar. 1971. The Varthamanappusthakam. Roma: Pont.
Institutum Orientalium Studiorum.
Portal MEC. 2013. ‘Padrões de Qualidade Para Os Cursos de Relações Internacionais’.
Brasília. http://portal.mec.gov.br/sesu/arquivos/pdf/padreli.pdf.
Pouillon, J. 1975. ‘Tradition: Transmission Ou Reconstruction’. In Fétiches sans Fétich-
isme, edited by J. Pouillon, 155–73. Paris: Maspéro.
Puchala, Donald. 2002. Visions of International Relations. Columbia, SC: University of
South Carolina Press.
Rajan, M.S. 2005. ‘Golden Jubilee of the School of International Studies: An Assess-
ment’. International Studies 42 (3–4): 195–204.
Sahni, Varun. 2009. ‘The Fallacies and Flaws of Area Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 49–68.
Salmon, Jack. 1988. ‘Can Non-­Violence be Combined with Military Means for National
Defense?’ Journal of Peace Research 25 (1): 69–80.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. 2014. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epis-
temicide. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Santos, Norma Breda Dos. 2005. ‘História Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil: Esboço
de Uma Avaliação Sobre a Área’. História (São Paulo) 24 (1): 11–39.
Sarkar, Benoy Kumar. 1919. ‘Hindu Theory of International Relations’. American Polit-
ical Science Review 13 (3): 400–14.
Sharma, Devika. 2009. ‘Mapping International Relations Teaching and Research in
Indian Universities’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 69–88.
Sharma, Urmila, and S.K. Sharma. 2001. Indian Political Thought. Boston, MA: Atlantic
Publishers & Dist.
Sharp, Gene. 1959. ‘The Meanings of Non-­Violence: A Typology (Revised)’. Journal of
Conflict Resolution 3 (1): 41–66.
Shilliam, Robbie. 2011. ‘Non-­Western Thought and International Relations’. In Inter-
national Relations and Non-­Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investiga-
tions of Global Modernity, 1–11. London, New York: Routledge.
Singh, Mahendra Prasad, and Himanshu Roy. 2011. Indian Political Thought: Themes
and Thinkers. New Delhi: Pearson Education India.
Singh, Yogendra. 2004. Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology. Jaipur, New Delhi:
Rawat Publications.
Song, Xinning. 2001. ‘Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteris-
tics’. Journal of Contemporary China 10 (26): 61–74.
Statistics Canada. 2015. ‘NHS Aboriginal Population Profile, Canada, 2011’. www12.
statcan.gc.ca/nhs-­enm/2011/dp-­pd/aprof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=PR&Code1
=01&Data=Count&SearchText=nain&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&A1=
Aboriginal peoples&Custom=.
Strange, Susan. 1995. ‘ISA as a Microcosm’. International Studies Quarterly 39 (3):
289–95.
Tamaki, T. 2007. ‘Confusing Confucius in Asian Values? A Constructivist Critique’.
International Relations 21 (3): 284–304.
Thomas, Caroline, and Peter Wilkin. 2004. ‘Still Waiting after All These Years: “The
Third World” on the Periphery of International Relations’. British Journal of Politics
and International Relations 6: 241–58.
Tickner, Arlene B. 2008. ‘Latin American IR and the Primacy of lo práctico’. Inter-
national Studies Review 10 (4): 735–48.
50   Diversity
Tickner, Arlene B., and David L. Blaney, eds. 2013. Claiming the International. London,
New York: Routledge.
Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. 2009. International Relations Scholarship around
the World. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Tow, William T. 2009. Security Politics in the Asia-­Pacific: A Regional–Global Nexus.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trindade, H. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Brazil in Perspective: Foundation, Consolidation
and Diversification’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3): 283–357.
Turton, Helen. 2015. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Dis-
cipline. London: Routledge.
Valença, Marcelo M. 2014. Challenges to the Expansion of IR Studies in Brazil. Buenos
Aires: ISA/FLACSO Convention.
Vüllers, Johannes. 2014. ‘Geographical Patterns of Analysis in IR Research: Representa-
tive Cross-­Regional Comparison as a Way Forward’. GIGA Research Programme:
Power, Norms and Governance in International Relations. Hamburg: German Institute
of Global and Area Studies.
Wæver, Ole. 1998. ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and
European Developments in International Relations’. International Organization 52 (4):
687–727.
Wæver, Ole. 2007. ‘Still a Discipline After All These Debates?’ In International Rela-
tions Theory: Discipline and Diversity, 288–308. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wæver, Ole, and Arlene B. Tickner. 2009. ‘Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies’. In
International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner
and Ole Wæver, 1–31. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Wang, Yiwei. 2009. ‘China: Between Copying and Constructing’. In International Rela-
tions Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver,
103–99. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Weber, Thomas. 1999. ‘Gandhi, Deep Ecology, Peace Research and Buddhist Eco-
nomics’. Journal of Peace Research 36 (3): 349–61.
Ye, Zicheng, and Xun Pang. 2001. ‘Schools of Diplomatic Thought during the Spring and
the Autumn and Warring States Periods in China: A Comparison with the West’. World
Economics and Politics 12: 24–9.
Zaman, Rashed Uz. 2006. ‘Kautilya: The Indian Strategic Thinker and Indian Strategic
Culture’. Comparative Strategy 25: 231–47.
Zhang, Yongjin. 2002. ‘Review: International Relations Theory in China Today: The
State of the Field’. China Journal 47: 101–8.
 Regarding internationalisation   73
d­ octrine of non-­alignment incentivised policies of disconnection between Indian
IR and the rest of the discipline abroad. Close ties between IR and the state led
to successful independence from ‘Western’ networks at the cost of asphyxiating
influence of the state under a postcolonial democratic regime. In Brazil, the posi-
tivist vision of the economic and political elites traditionally favoured social sci-
ences, even during the dictatorship, anticipating the autonomisation and take off
of the discipline after the change of the regime and the internationalisation of the
discipline matching the more general opening up of the country.
These results further question the assumptions supporting the narrative of
Western dominance. They challenge the way the narrative implicitly describes
‘the West’ and ‘the international’ as the main elements structuring the inter-
nationalisation of IR: what are the conditions of internationalisation of IR publi-
cation in Brazil and India? They also challenge the idea that ‘Western scholars’
and ‘IR international academia’ are the ‘Other’ against which IR fields in ‘the
Global South’ have constructed themselves: how are ‘the national’ and ‘the
international’ connected regarding the global structuration of IR? Chapters 3 and
4 will answer these two questions.
Chapter 3 investigates the criteria which – beyond the target audience and the
relationship between IR and the state – influence publishing practices and the
internationalisation of the publication. Indeed, the greater autonomy benefiting
Brazilian IR at the end of the dictatorship does not suffice to explain the shift
taking place between scholars of the first and second generations. The loosening
of relations with the Brazilian state increases the influence of other national
fields on IR, such as higher education, publishing and expertise.

Notes
1 Even at JNU, the access to online platforms like JSTOR is recent.
2 A total of 38 per cent illiteracy according to UNICEF for the period 2008–2012 (‘Sta-
tistiques’ 2013).
3 Publications in Mexican journals were included in the category ‘Latin America’.
4 This position is, for example, exemplified in the policies led by Benjamin Constant
Botelho de Magalhães (1836–1891), a positivist and adept military man, who became
Minister of Education after being Minister of Defence, and who introduced sociology
into military schools (Garreton 2005, 567).
5 See also Wagner et al. (1991) and Heilbron (2008) for the relationship between nation
states and social sciences in Europe.
6 Sharma does not provide more information about what she designates as ‘young’.

References
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2009. ‘Strengthening International Studies in India: Vision and
Recommendations’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 7–35.
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2011. ‘International Relations Studies in Asia: Distinctive Traject-
ories’. International Relations of the Asia-­Pacific 11 (2): 193–230.
Almeida, Paulo Roberto de. 1991. ‘Relaçoes Internacionais Do Brasil: Introduçao
Metodológica a Um Estudo Global’. Contexto Internacional 13 (2): 161–85.
74   Regarding internationalisation
Almeida, Paulo Roberto de. 1993. ‘Estudos de Relações Internacionais Do Brasil: Etapas
Da Produção Historiográfica Brasileira (1927–1992)’. Revista Brasileira de Política
Internacional 1: 11–36.
Almeida, Paulo Roberto de. 1999. O Estudo Das Relações Internacionais Do Brasil. São
Paulo: Unimarco Editora.
Almeida, Paulo Roberto de. 2006. O Estudo Das Relações Internacionais Do Brasil : Um
Diálogo Entre a Diplomacia E a Academia. Brasília: LGE Editor.
Anderson, Laurie. 2013. ‘Publishing Strategies of Young, Highly Mobile Academics: The
Question of Language in the European Context’. Language Policy 12 (3): 273–88.
Arend, Hugo. 2010. Brazilian Readings of International Relations: Foundations Built on
Sand? São Paulo: IPSA-­ECPR Joint Conference Hosted by the Brazilian Political
Science Association.
Arvanitis, Rigas, and Jacques Gaillard, eds. 1992. ‘Les Indicateurs de Science Pour Les
Pays En Developpement = Science Indicators for Developing Countries’. In Con-
férence Internationale Sur Les Indicateurs de Science Dans Les Pays En Développe-
ment. Paris, Unesco: ORSTOM/CNRS.
Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. 2000. ‘Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The
Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations’. International
Studies Perspectives 1 (3): 289–303.
Bajpai, Kanti. 2005. ‘International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home’. In
International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, edited by Kanti Bajpai
and Siddarth Mallavarapu, 17–38. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Bajpai, Kanti. 2009. ‘Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations’. Inter-
national Studies 46 (1–2): 109–28.
Batabyal, Rajib. 2011. ‘Area Studies: Trajectories of Disciplinary Discourse’. Inter-
national Studies 48 (3–4): 325–36.
Behera, Navnita. 2007. ‘Re-­Imagining IR in India’. International Relations of the Asia-­
Pacific 7 (3): 341–68.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1966. ‘Champ Intellectuel et Projet Créateur’. Les Temps Modernes 246
(November): 865–906.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Campos, Lauro Álvares da Silva. 1973. ‘Estudo de Viabilidade de Criação Do Curso de
Relações Internacionais’. Brasília: UnB.
Das, Veena, and Shalini Randeria. 2015. ‘Social Sciences and Public Debates: The Case
of India’. Socio 5: 81–98.
Deshpande, Satish. 2002. ‘Social Science Research Capacity in South Asia: Some Ques-
tions for Discussion’. Economic and Political Weekly 37 (35): 3628–30.
Deshpande, Satish. 2015. ‘Social Science Research in the Contemporary World: The
Problems and Possibilities of “Globalisation” ’. Sociological Bulletin 52 (2): 263–70.
Fonseca, Gelson Jr. 1987. ‘Studies on International Relations in Brazil: Recent Times
(1950–80)’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 16 (2): 273–80.
Fonseca, Gelson Jr. 2011. Diplomacia E Academia: Um Estudo Sobre as Análises
Acadêmicas Sobre a Política Externa Brasileira Na Década de 70 E Sobre as Relações
Entre O Itamaraty E a Comunidade Acadêmica. Brasília: FUNAG.
Garreton, M.A. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Latin America: A Comparative Perspective –
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3):
557–93.
Gingras, Yves. 1991. ‘L’institutionnalisation de La Recherche En Milieu Universitaire et
Ses Effets’. Sociologie et Société 23 (1): 41–54.
 Regarding internationalisation   75
Goel, Kamlesh, and K.C. Garg. 1994. ‘Social Science Research in India’. Collection
Management 17 (4): 95–104. 
Guha, Ramachandra. 2008. ‘Autonomy and Ideology’. Economic and Political Weekly
43 (5).
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2012. ‘IR Theory as International Practice/Agency: A Clinical-­
Cynical Bourdieusian Perspective’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 40
(3): 625–46.
Heilbron, Johan. 2008. ‘Qu’est-Ce Qu’une Tradition Nationale En Sciences Sociales?’
Revue d’Histoire Des Sciences Humaines 18 (1): 3–16.
Heilbron, Johan, Nicolas Guilhot and Laurent Jeanpierre. 2009. ‘Vers Une Histoire Tran-
snationale Des Sciences Sociales’. Sociétés Contemporaines 1 (73): 121–45.
Herz, Mônica. 2002. ‘O Crescimento Da Área de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’.
Contexto Internacional 24: 7–40.
ICSSR. 2007. ‘Restructuring the Indian Council of Social Science Research, Report of
the Fourth Review Committee’. New Delhi.
Ihl, Olivier, Martine Kaluszynski and Gilles Pollet. 2003. Les Sciences de Gouvernement.
Paris: Economica.
Jatobá, Daniel. 2013. ‘Los Desarrollos Académicos de Las Relaciones Internacionales En
Brasil: Elementos Sociológicos, Institucionales Y Epistemológicos’. Relaciones Inter-
nacionales (22): 27–47.
Joshi, B.K. 2001. ‘Social Science Research in India and the Role of Donor Agencies’.
Department For International Development, India.
Julião, Tais Sandrim. 2012. ‘A Graduação Em Relações Internacionais No Brasil’.
Monções 1 (1): 13–48.
Kaluszynski, Martine, and Renaud Payre, eds. 2013. Savoirs de Gouvernement:
Circulation(s), Traduction(s), Réception(s). Paris: Economica.
Korany, Baghat. 2009. ‘IR Theory: Contributions from Research in the Middle East’. In
International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and
Ole Wæver, 173–9. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Keim, Wiebke. 2010. ‘Counter Hegemonic Currents and Internationalization of Soci-
ology: Theoretical Reflections and One Empirical Example’. International Sociology
25 (2): 1–23.
Krishna, Venni V., and Usha Krishna. 2010.‘World Social Science Report: Knowledge
Divides’. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 77–81. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/
188333e.pdf.
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2015. ‘How Can Emerging Powers Speak? On Theorists,
Native Informants and Quasi-­Officials in International Relations Discourse’. Third
World Quarterly 36 (4): 637–53.
Kuhn, Michael, and Doris Weidemann. 2010. Internationalization of the Social Sciences:
Introduction. New Brunswick. London: Transaction Publishers.
Lessa, Antônio Carlos. 2005. ‘O Ensino de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. In
O Crescimento Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil, edited by José Flávio Sombra
Saraiva and Amado Luiz Cervo, 33–50. Brasília: IBRI.
Lima, Laura. 2015. Worlding Brazil: Intellectuals, Identity and Security. London, New
York: Routledge.
Mallavarapu, Siddarth. 2009. ‘Development of International Relations Theory in India:
Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories’. International Studies 46
(1–2): 165–83.
Manheim, Karl. 1990. Le Problème Des Générations. Paris: Nathan.
76   Regarding internationalisation
Mattoo, Amitabh. 2009. ‘The State of International Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 37–48.
Mitra, Subrata Kumar. 2002. Emerging Major Powers and the International System:
Significance of the Indian View. Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative
South Asia Institute, Department of Political Science.
Miyamoto, Shiguenoli. 1999. ‘O Estudo Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. Revista
de Sociología E Política 12: 83–98.
Mohan, Raja C. 2009. ‘The Re-­Making of Indian Foreign Policy: Ending the Marginali-
zation of International Relations Community’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 147–63.
Ofuho, Cirino Hiteng. 2009. ‘Africa: Teaching IR Where Its Not Supposed to Be’. In
International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner
and Ole Wæver, 71–85. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Paul, Thazha Varkey. 2009. ‘Integrating International Relations Studies in India to Global
Scholarship’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 129–45.
Romani, Vincent. 2008. ‘Sciences Sociales et Lutte Nationale Dans Les Territoires
Occupés Palestiniens’. Revue D’anthropologie Des Connaissances 2 (3): 487–504.
Sahni, Varun. 2009. ‘The Fallacies and Flaws of Area Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 49–68.
Sharma, Devika. 2009. ‘Mapping International Relations Teaching and Research in
Indian Universities’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 69–88.
Smith, Steve. 2002. ‘The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: “Hege-
monic Country, Hegemonic Discipline” ’. International Studies Review 4 (2): 67–85.
Srivastava, Jayati. 2011. Think Tanks in South Asia Analysing the Knowledge–Power
Interface. London: Overseas Development Institute. 
‘Statistiques’. 2013. Unicef. www.unicef.org/french/infobycountry/india_statistics.html.
Subrahmanyam, Krishnaswamy. 2005. ‘The Birth of IDSA and the Early Years’. In
Selected Articles from IDSA Journals, Vol. 1, Strategic Thought: The Formative Years,
edited by N.S. Sisodia and Sujit Dutta. New Delhi: Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses.
Tan, See Seng. 2009. ‘Southeast Asia: Theory and Praxis in International Relations’. In
International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and
Ole Wæver, 120–33. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Tharoor, Shashi. 2003. Nehru: The Invention of India. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Trindade, H. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Brazil in Perspective: Foundation, Consolidation
and Diversification’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3): 283–357.
UNESCO, and ISSC. 2010. ‘World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides’. http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/188333e.pdf.
Valença, Marcelo M. 2014. Challenges to the Expansion of IR Studies in Brazil. Buenos
Aires: ISA/FLACSO Convention.
Vizentini, Paulo. 2005. ‘A Evolução Da Produção Intelectual E Dos Estudos Acadêmicos
de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. In O Crescimento Das Relações Internacionais
No Brasil, edited by José Flávio Sombra Saraiva and Amado Luiz Cervo, 17–32.
Brasília: IBRI.
Wagner, Peter, Carol Hirschon Weiss, Björn Wittrock and Hellmut Wollman. 1991.
Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wallerstein, Immanuel.1996. Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Com-
mission on the REstructuring of the Social Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
 The non-role of ‘the West’   101
force impacting the national fields from the outside. To assess Western domi-
nance and the domination relationship actually at play, one needs to unpack the
relationship between what the literature identifies as ‘the national’ and ‘the inter-
national’. Moreover, the way the narrative repetitively gives prominence to ‘the
international’ over ‘the national’ invites us to question the discursive effects of
this implicit hierarchy. The social effects of this emphasis on ‘the international’
should be reflexively investigated: could they be other elements of Eurocentrism?

Notes
1 Quoting the authors: Scopus is an ‘international multidisciplinary bibliographical data-
base [which] covers more than 17,000 peer-­reviewed journals, 600 trade publications,
350 book series and 3.7 million conference papers from proceedings’ (Gupta et al.
2013, 34). The category of social sciences includes ‘management and accounting, deci-
sion sciences, economics and finance, psychology and social sciences-­general’ (Gupta
et al. 2013, 34).
2 See the Qualis list, available for example on the USP website (USP-­IRI 2013).
3 The library is an integral part of a project being developed by FAPESP – Fundação
de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, in partnership with BIREME – the
Latin American and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information. Since 2002,
the Project has also been supported by CNPq – Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvi-
mento Científico e Tecnológico.
(SciELO 2017a)

References
Bajpai, Kanti. 2005. ‘International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home’. In
International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, edited by Kanti Bajpai
and Siddarth Mallavarapu, 17–38. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Bajpai, Kanti. 2009. ‘Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations’. Inter-
national Studies 46 (1–2): 109–2.
Bajpai, Kanti, and Siddarth Mallavarapu, eds. 2005. International Relations in India:
Bringing Theory Back Home. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Behera, Navnita. 2007. ‘Re-­Imagining IR in India’. International Relations of the Asia-­
Pacific 7 (3): 341–68.
Benjamin, Joseph. 2014. ‘Challenges before Social Science in India’. Loyola Journal of
Social Science XXXI (1): 83–96.
Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. 2001. ‘Why International Relations Has Failed as an
Intellectual Project and What to Do About It’. Millennium – Journal of International
Studies 30 (1): 19–39.
Canedo, Leticia Bicalho. 2009. ‘Les Boursiers de La Fondation Ford et La Recomposi-
tion Des Sciences Sociales Brésiliennes: Le Cas de La Science Politique’. Cahiers de
La Recherche Sur L’éducation et Les Savoirs Hors serie: 33–55.
Caporaso, James. 1997. ‘Across the Great Divide: Integrating Comparative and Inter-
national Politics’. International Studies Quarterly 41 (4): 563–92.
Cardoso, Luiz Claudio, and Guy Martinière. 1989. France-­Brésil: Vingt and de Coopéra-
tion (Science et Technologie). Paris: Éditions de l’IHEAL, Presses universitaires de
Grenoble (PUG).
102   The non-role of ‘the West’
Cesa, G. 2012. Relações Internacionais no Enade: Desafios e Perspectivas. IX ANPED
SUL Seminario de Pesquisa en educação na região Sul.
Chatterjee, Partha. 2002. ‘Institutional Context of Social Science Research in South Asia’.
Economic and Political Weekly 37 (35): 3604–12.
Chernilo, Daniel. 2011. ‘The Critique of Methodological Nationalism: Theory and
History’. Thesis Eleven : Critical Theory and Historical Sociology 106 (1): 98–117.
Das, Veena, and Shalini Randeria. 2015. ‘Social Sciences and Public Debates: The Case
of India’. Socio 5: 81–98.
Deshpande, Satish. 2002. ‘Social Science Research Capacity in South Asia: Some Ques-
tions for Discussion’. Economic and Political Weekly 37 (35): 3628–30.
Deshpande, Satish. 2015. ‘Social Science Research in the Contemporary World: The
Problems and Possibilities of “Globalisation” ’. Sociological Bulletin 52 (2): 263–70.
DIFD – South Asia Research Hub. 2011. ‘Social Science Research in India: A Mapping
Report’. New Delhi.
Downie, Andrew. 2010. ‘Brazilian Universities Find Challenges in Internationalization’.
Chronicle of Higher Education, 4 September. www.chronicle.com/article/Brazilian-­
Universities-Find/124312.
Ferreira, Marcos Alan S.V. 2016. ‘The Rise of International Relations Programs in the
Brazilian Federal Universities: Curriculum Specificities and Current Challenges’.
Journal of Political Science Education 12 (3): 241–55. Fyfe, Aileen. 2015. ‘Peer
Review: Not as Old as You Might Think’. The World University Ranking. www.
timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-­review-not-­old-you-­might-think.
Garreton, M.A. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Latin America: A Comparative Perspective –
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3):
557–93.
Gibbs, Wayt. 1995. ‘Lost Science in the Third World’. Scientific American 273: 92–9.
Gingras, Yves. 1991. ‘L’institutionnalisation de La Recherche En Milieu Universitaire et
Ses Effets’. Sociologie et Société 23 (1): 41–54.
Gingras, Yves. 2008. ‘Du Mauvais Usage de Faux Indicateurs’. Revue D’histoire
Moderne et Contemporaine 55 (4): 67–79.
Guha, Ramachandra. 2008. ‘Autonomy and Ideology’. Economic and Political Weekly
43 (5).
Guimarães, Reinaldo. 2002. ‘A Diáspora: Um Estudo Exploratório Sobre O Desloca-
mento Geográfico de Pesquisadores Brasileiros Na Década de 90’. Revista de Ciências
Sociais 45: 705–50.
Gupta, B.M., B.D. Kumbar and Ritu Gupta. 2013. ‘Social Science Research in India: A
Scientometric Analysis of Publications (2001–10)’. DESIDOC Journal of Library and
Information Technology 33 (6): 442–50.
Held, David, and Anthony McGrew. 2003. ‘The Great Globalization Debate: An Intro-
duction’, edited by Anthony Held, David and McGrew. Global Transformations
Reader, 1–50. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hellmann, G. 2014. ‘Methodological Transnationalism: Europe’s Offering to Global IR’.
European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 25–37.
Hirst Paul Q., and Grahame Thompson. 1999. Globalization in Question, 2nd edn. Cam-
bridge: Polity Press.
Hobson, John M. 2015. ‘Decolonising Sovereignty: Globalisation and the Return
of  Hyper-­Sovereignty’. In The Concept of the State in International Relations, edited
by Robert Schuett and Peter M.R. Stirk, 135–62. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
 The non-role of ‘the West’   103
Huang, Futao. 2014. ‘The Internationalisation of the Academic Profession’. In The Inter-
nationalization of the Academy: Changes, Realities and Prospects, edited by Futao
Huang, Martin Finkelstein and Michele Rostan, 1–22. New York, London: Springer.
ICHR. 2011. ‘Report of the Committee to Review the Functioning of the Indian Council
of Historical Research (ICHR)’. New Delhi. http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/
files/document-­reports/Report-­ICHR.pdf.
ICSSR. 2007. ‘Restructuring the Indian Council of Social Science Research, Report of
the Fourth Review Committee’. New Delhi.
ICSSR. 2017. ‘International Collaboration’. www.icssr.org/ic_main.htm.
Kayaoglu, Turna. 2010. ‘Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory’.
International Studies Review 12: 193–217.
Kehm, Barbara M., and Ulrich Teichler. 2007. ‘Research on Internationalisation in Higher
Education’. Journal of Studies in International Education 11 (3–4): 260–73.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. 1971. ‘Transnational Relations and World
Politics: An Introduction’. International Organization 25 (3): 329–49.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph S. Nye Jr. 2003. ‘Globalization: What’s New? What’s
Not? (And So What?)’. In The Global Transformations Reader, edited by Anthony
Held and David McGrew, 75–97. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Krishna, Venni V., and Usha Krishna. 2010. ‘World Social Science Report: Knowledge
Divides’. UNESCO, Paris, pp. 77–81. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001883/
188333e.pdf.
Lefèvre, Jean-­Paul. 1993. ‘Les Missions Universitaires Françaises Au Brésil Dans Les
Années 1930’. Vingtième Siècle. Revue D’histoire 38: 24–33.
Lessa, Antônio Carlos. 2005a. ‘O Ensino de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. In O
Crescimento Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil, edited by José Flávio Sombra
Saraiva and Amado Luiz Cervo, 33–50. Brasília: IBRI.
Lessa, Antônio Carlos. 2005b. ‘Instituições, Atores E Dinâmicas Do Ensino E Da
Pesquisa Em Relações Internacionais No Brasil: O Diálogo Entre a História, a Ciência
Política E Os Novos Paradigmas de Interpretação (dos Anos 90 Aos Nossos Dias)’,
Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 48 (2): 169–84.
Lombas, Maria Luiza de Santana. 2013. ‘A Mobilidade Internacional de Pós-Graduandos
E Pesquisadores E a Internacionalização Da Produção Do Conhecimento: Efeitos de
Uma Política Pública’. Universidade de Brasília.
Mattoo, Amitabh. 2009. ‘The State of International Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 37–48.
Mitra, Subrata Kumar. 2010. ‘Internationalization of Education in India: Emerging
Trends and Strategies’. Asian Social Science 6 (6): 105–10.
Miyamoto, Shiguenoli. 1999. ‘O Estudo Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. Revista
de Sociología E Política 12: 83–98.
Miyamoto, Shiguenoli. 2003. ‘O Ensino Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. Revista
de Sociologia Política 20: 103–14.
Nandy, Ashis. 2012. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Pandian, M.S.S. 2002. ‘Social Sciences in South India: A Survey’. Economic and Polit-
ical Weekly 37 (35): 3613–27.
Papola, T.S. 2010. Social Science Research in Globalising India: Historical Development
and Recent Trends. New Delhi: ISID.
Paul, Thazha Varkey. 2009. ‘Integrating International Relations Studies in India to Global
Scholarship’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 129–45.
104   The non-role of ‘the West’
Pellegrino, Adela. 2001. ‘Trends in Latin American Skilled Migration: “Brain Drain” or
“Brain Exchange”?’ International Migration 39 (5): 111–32.
Pourmokhtari, Navid. 2013. ‘A Postcolonial Critique of State Sovereignty in IR: The
Contradictory Legacy of a “West-­Centric” Discipline’. Third World Quarterly 34 (10):
1767–93. 
Plataforma Sucupira. 2017. ‘Qualis Periódicos’. https://sucupira.capes.gov.br/sucupira/
public/consultas/coleta/veiculoPublicacaoQualis/listaConsultaGeralPeriodicos.jsf.
Robertson, Roland. 1994. ‘Globalisation or Glocalisation?’ Journal of International Com-
munication 1 (1): 25–44.
Sajed, Alina, and John Hobson. 2017. ‘Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of
Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non-­Western Agency’.
International Studies Review 19 (4): 547–72.
Santana Lombas, Maria Luiza de. 2013. ‘A Internacionalização Da Formação Pós-Gradu-
ada E Da Produção Do Conhecimento: Efeitos de Uma Política Pública Do Brasil’.
Sociedade E Estado 28 (3): 723–5.
SciELO. 2017a. ‘SciELO’. www.scielo.br/.
SciELO. 2017b. ‘SciELO Analytics’. https://analytics.scielo.org/w/publication/article?
collection=.
Scimago Lab. 2017. ‘Scimago Journal & Country Rank’. www.scimagojr.com/.
Sharma, Devika. 2009. ‘Mapping International Relations Teaching and Research in
Indian Universities’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 69–88.
Srivastava, Jayati. 2011. Think Tanks in South Asia Analysing the Knowledge: Power
Interface. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Trindade, H. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Brazil in Perspective: Foundation, Consolidation
and Diversification’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3): 283–357.
UGC. 2007. ‘Financial Support’. www.ugc.ac.in/financialsupport/ guideline_33.html.
UGC. 2009. ‘Guidelines for Area Studies Centres in Universities’. www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/
xplanpdf/ascu.pdf.
UGC. 2010. ‘Application Format for Promotion under Career Advancement Scheme as
per the Revised UGC Regulations: 2010’. www.gauhati.ac.in/files/download_form/
University%20Staff/APPLICATION%20FORMAT%20FOR%20PROMOTION%20
UNDER%20CAREER%20ADVANCEMENT%20SCHEME%20AS%20PER%20
THE%20REVISED%20UGC%20REGULATIONS%202010.pdf.
UOL Vestibular. 2008. ‘Publicidade e Propaganda lidera a concorrência do vestibular
2009 da USP’. 7 November. https://vestibular.uol.com.br/ultnot/2008/11/07/ult798u23
729.jhtm.
USP-­IRI. 2013. ‘Listas de Revistas Científicas Em Relações Internacionais, Ciência
Política E Direito: Avaliações JCR (Thomson Reuters) E QUALIS (CAPES-­CNPq)’.
São Paulo.
Valença, Marcelo M. 2014. Challenges to the Expansion of IR Studies in Brazil. Buenos
Aires: ISA/FLACSO Convention.
Vizentini, Paulo. 2005. ‘A Evolução Da Produção Intelectual E Dos Estudos Acadêmicos
de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. In O Crescimento Das Relações Internacionais
No Brasil, edited by José Flávio Sombra Saraiva and Amado Luiz Cervo, 17–32.
Brasília: IBRI.
Wilkinson, Claire. 2007. ‘The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitiza-
tion Theory Useable Outside Europe?’ Security Dialogue 38 (1): 5–25.
134   The national and the international
References
Acharya, Amitav. 2014. ‘Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds’. Inter-
national Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 647–59.
Adell, Nicolas. 2011. Anthropologie Des Savoirs. Paris: Armand Colin.
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2009. ‘Strengthening International Studies in India: Vision and
Recommendations’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 7–35.
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2011. ‘International Relations Studies in Asia: Distinctive Traject-
ories’. International Relations of the Asia-­Pacific 11 (2): 193–230.
Alejandro, Audrey. 2016. ‘Walking the Reflexive Talk’. E-­International Relations.
www.e-­ir.info/2016/09/17/walking-­the-reflexive-­talk/.
Alejandro, Audrey. 2017. ‘International Relations and Foreign Policy in India: Policy-­
Oriented Works between Discipline and State’. In Theorizing Indian Foreign Policy:
Opening Up and Assessing the Toolbox for the Twenty-­First Century, edited by Mischa
Hansel, Raphaёlle Khan and Mélissa Levaillant, 29–46. London: Routledge.
Batabyal, Rajib. 2011. ‘Area Studies: Trajectories of Disciplinary Discourse’. Inter-
national Studies 48 (3–4): 325–36.
Basaran, Tugba, Didier Bigo, Emmanuel-­Pierre Guittet and R.B.J. Walker, eds.
2016.  International Political Sociology: Transversal Lines. New York, London:
Routledge.
Basrur, Rajesh M. 2009. ‘Scholarship on India’s International Relations: Some Discip-
linary Shortcomings’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 89–108.
Behera, Navnita. 2007. ‘Re-­Imagining IR in India’. International Relations of the Asia-­
Pacific 7 (3): 341–68.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. ‘The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions
of the Progress of Reason’. Social Science Information 14 (6): 19–47.
Brandi, Aleixo José Carlos. 2012. A Área de Relaçoes Internacionais Na Universidade de
Brasília. Brasília: IREL, Universidade de Brasilia.
Breda dos Santos, Norma, and Fúlvio Eduardo Fonseca. 2009. ‘A Pos-­Graduacão Em
Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. Contexto Internacional 31 (2): 353–80.
Buzan, Barry. 1995. ‘The Levels of Analysis Problem in International Relations Recon-
sidered’. In International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve
Smith, 198–216. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Castro, Eduardo Viveiros di. 2009. Métaphysiques Cannibales. Paris: Presses Universi-
taires de France.
Chimni, Bhupinder S., and Siddarth Mallavarapu. 2012. International Relations: Per-
spectives for the Global South. New Delhi: Pearson.
Cusset, F. 2005. French Theory, Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze & Cie et les mutations de la
vie intellectuelle aux États-Unis. Paris: La Découverte.
Das, Veena, and Shalini Randeria. 2015. ‘Social Sciences and Public Debates: The Case
of India’. Socio 5: 81–98.
Ferguson, James, and Akhil Gupta. 2002. ‘Spatializing States: Toward an Ethnography of
Neoliberal Governmentality’. American Ethnologist 29 (4): 981–1002.
Ferreira, Marcos Alan S.V. 2016. ‘The Rise of International Relations Programs in the
Brazilian Federal Universities: Curriculum Specificities and Current Challenges’.
Journal of Political Science Education, 12 (3): 241–55.
Guillaume, Xavier. 2011. ‘The International as an Everyday Practice’. International
Political Sociology 5 (4): 446.
 The national and the international   135
Harshe, Rajen. 1997. ‘The Status of International Relations Studies: An Agenda for the
Future’. In International and Area Studies in India, edited by Mannaraswamighala
Sreeranga Rajan, 68–90. New Delhi: Lancers Books.
Herz, Robert. 1928. Sociologie Religieuse et Folklore: Recueil de Textes Publiés Entre
1907 et 1917. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Huysmans, Jef, and Joao Pontes Nogueira. 2016. ‘Ten Years of IPS: Fracturing IR’. Inter-
national Political Sociology 10 (4): 299–319.
IDSA. 2012. ‘Endogenous Politico-­Cultural Resources: Kautilya’s Arthashastra and
India’s Strategic Culture – Michael Liebig April 19, 2012’. www.idsa.in/event/Kautil-
yasArthashastraandIndiasStrategicCulture.html.
Jatobá, Daniel. 2013. ‘Los Desarrollos Académicos de Las Relaciones Internacionales En
Brasil: Elementos Sociológicos, Institucionales Y Epistemológicos’. Relaciones Inter-
nacionales (22): 27–47.
Julião, Tais Sandrim. 2012. ‘A Graduação Em Relações Internacionais No Brasil’.
Monções 1 (1): 13–48.
Kayaoglu, Turna. 2010. ‘Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory’.
International Studies Review 12: 193–217.
Keohane, Robert O., and Joseph Nye. 1977. Power and Interdependence. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown & Co.
Knutsen, Torbjorn L. 2014. “Western Approaches.” Millennium - Journal of International
Studies 42 (2): 448–55.
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2014. ‘Southern Sensibilities: Advancing Third Wave Soci-
ology of International Relations in the Case of Brazil’. Journal of Internatonal Rela-
tions and Development 1–27.
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2017. ‘Southern Sensibilities: Advancing Third Wave Soci-
ology of International Relations in the Case of Brazil’. Journal of International Rela-
tions and Development. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0107-z.
Mac Ginty, Roger, and Oliver P. Richmond. 2013. ‘The Local Turn in Peace Building: A
Critical Agenda for Peace’. Third World Quarterly 34 (5): 763–83.
MacKay, Joseph, and Jamie Levin. 2015. ‘Hanging Out in International Politics: Two
Kinds of Explanatory Political Ethnography for IR’. International Studies Review 17
(2): 163–88.
Mahajan, Sneh. 2010. ‘International Studies in India: Some Comments’. International
Studies 47 (1): 59–72.
Mallavarapu, Siddarth. 2009. ‘Development of International Relations Theory in India:
Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories’. International Studies 46
(1–2): 165–83.
Mattoo, Amitabh. 2009. ‘The State of International Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 37–48.
Montison, J. 2010. ‘Research (Im)possibilities: Reflections from Everyday International
Relations’. Altérités 7 (2): 79–94.
Needham, Rodney. 1973. Right and Left: Essays in Dual Symbolic Classification.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Paul, Thazha Varkey. 2009. ‘Integrating International Relations Studies in India to Global
Scholarship’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 129–45.
Rana, A.P., and S. Misra. 2005. ‘Communicative Discourse and Community in Inter-
national Relations Studies in India: A Critique’. In International Relations in India:
Bringing Theory Back Home, edited by Siddarth Mallavarapu and Kanti Bajpai,
71–122. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
136   The national and the international
Rancatore, Jason P. 2010. ‘It Is Strange: A Reply to Vrasti’. Millennium – Journal of
International Studies 39 (1): 65–77.
Renouvin, Pierre, and Jean-­Baptiste Duroselle. 1964. Introduction À l’Histoire Des Rela-
tions Internationales. Paris: Armand Colin.
Risse-­kappen, Thomas. 1996. ‘Exploring the Nature of the Beast: International Relations
Theory and Comparative Policy Analysis Meet the European Union’. JCMS: Journal
of Common Market Studies 34 (1): 53–80.
Roland, Bleiker. 2000. Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosenau, James, and Ernst-­Otto Czempiel. 1992. Governance without Government:
Order and Change in World Politics. Governance without Government. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sagar, Rahul. 2009. ‘State of Mind: What Kind of Power Will India Become?’ Inter-
national Affairs 85 (4): 801–16.
Santos, Norma Breda Dos. 2005. ‘História Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil: Esboço
de Uma Avaliação Sobre a Área’. História (São Paulo) 24 (1): 11–39.
Saskia, Sassen. 2006. Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assem-
blages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sharma, Devika. 2009. ‘Mapping International Relations Teaching and Research in
Indian Universities’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 69–88.
Shils, Edward. 1969. ‘The Academic Profession in India’. Minerva 7 (3): 345–72.
Shim, David. 2016. ‘Between the International and the Everyday: Geopolitics and Imagi-
naries of Home’. International Studies Review 18 (4): 597–613.
Shinn, Terry, Jack Spaapen and Venni Krishna. 1997. ‘Science, Technology and Society
Studies and Development Perspectives in South-­North Transactions’. In Science and
Technology in a Developing World, edited by Terry Shinn, Jack Spaapen and Venni
Krishna, 1–34. Dordrecht, Boston, MA, London: Kluwer Academic.
Slaughter, Anne-­Marie. 2005. A New World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Stehr, Nico, and Ulrich Ufer. 2010. ‘La Répartition et La Diffusion Mondiales Du
Savoir’. Revue Internationale Des Sciences Sociales 195 (1): 9–29.
Strange, Susan. 1996. The Retreat of the State: The Diffusion of Power in the World
Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TRIP. 2014. ‘Faculty Survey’. https://trip.wm.edu/home/index.php/surveys/faculty-­survey.
Vasilaki, Rosa. 2012. ‘Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-­Western IR
Theory’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 41 (1): 3–22.
Vizentini, Paulo. 2005. ‘A Evolução Da Produção Intelectual E Dos Estudos Acadêmicos
de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. In O Crescimento Das Relações Internacionais
No Brasil, edited by José Flávio Sombra Saraiva and Amado Luiz Cervo, 17–32.
Brasília: IBRI.
Vrasti, Wanda. 2008. ‘The Strange Case of Ethnography and International Relations’.
Millennium – Journal of International Studies 37 (2): 279–301.
Worlding Beyond the West. 2018. www.routledge.com/Worlding-­Beyond-the-­West/
book-­series/WBW.
164   Discursive entanglements
to the narrative of Western dominance. For those mastering these technical
skills, opposing these criteria requires challenging the economic advantages that
come with these skills; the economic resources of most of the people cited in the
critical corpus (including myself now that I work in the UK) being based on
global ranking systems that rely on the naturalisation of those criteria.
To conclude, the discourses we identify as emancipators unconsciously repro-
duce discriminations we aim to challenge, as the polemic they create does not
question the framework producing hierarchisation. Blinkered by Eurocentrism,
the narrative of Western dominance is a heuristic fiasco that fails to describe the
globalisation of knowledge empirically. It is also a methodo-­epistemological
recursive paradox that IR critical scholars experience, producing a discourse that
is implicitly counter-­productive to the anti-­Eurocentric values they advocate.
With regard to the Eurocentric dispositif, however, it is a discursive prowess.
The self-­identified emancipators of the system contribute to its reproduction.
This double concealment seals the cognitive and social resources for the denatu-
ralisation of the implicit dimensions of power while letting people believe there
is actually a subversive dynamic at work.
In the absence of problematisation of the implicit layers of ‘Global IR’ dis-
courses, the civilisational divide between ‘West’ and ‘non-­West’ appears
natural and the neo-­liberalisation of academic publication inevitable. This
double-­edged prophecy does not match, however, the explicit pluralistic and
subversive ambitions promoted by the literature. The main enabler of the
reproduction of Eurocentrism and academic hierarchies is not the complexity
of their discursive entanglements, but the simplicity of the thought that our
identification as critical towards hierarchies and prejudices suffices from pre-
venting us from producing them. It is the recursive exclusion of oneself from
the object of enquiry.

Notes
1 See David Long and Brian Schmidt’s revisionist historiography of the discipline
(2005).
2 For a more detailed panorama of international academic cooperation initiatives on IR
in the interwar period see Riemens (2011).
3 For a general review of the different positions regarding theory see Paul (2009).
4 See Cornut and Battistella (2013, 303) for the state of the literature.

References
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2009. ‘Strengthening International Studies in India: Vision and
Recommendations’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 7–35.
Alagappa, Muthiah. 2011. ‘International Relations Studies in Asia: Distinctive Traject-
ories’. International Relations of the Asia-­Pacific 11 (2): 193–230.
Althusser, Louis. 1971. ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an
Investigation)’. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 121–73. New York:
Monthly Review Press.
 Discursive entanglements   165
Amin, Samir. 1988. L’eurocentrisme: Critique D’une Idéologie. Paris: Anthropos/­
Economica.
Bajpai, Kanti. 2005. ‘International Studies in India: Bringing Theory (Back) Home’. In
International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home, edited by Kanti Bajpai
and Siddarth Mallavarapu, 17–38. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Bajpai, Kanti. 2009. ‘Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations’. Inter-
national Studies 46 (1–2): 109–28.
Batabyal, Rajib. 2011. ‘Area Studies: Trajectories of Disciplinary Discourse’. Inter-
national Studies 48 (3–4): 325–36.
Bennett, Karen. 2007. ‘Epistemicide!’ Translator 13 (2): 151–69.
Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. ‘Thinking Past “Western” IR?’ Third World Quarterly 29 (1): 5–23.
Bilgin, Pinar. 2009. ‘The International Political “Sociology of a Not so International Dis-
cipline” ’. International Political Sociology 3 (3): 338–42.
Blaut, James Morris. 1993. The Colonizer’s Model of the World: Geographical Diffusion-
ism and Eurocentric History. New York: Guilford Press.
Breitenbauch, Henrik Ø. 2013. International Relations in France: Writing between Dis-
cipline and State. Abingdon: Routledge.
Byun, Kiyong, and Minjung Kim. 2011. ‘Shifting Patterns of the Government’s Policies
for the Internationalization of Korean Higher Education’. Journal of Studies in Inter-
national Education 15 (5): 467–86.
Cornut, Jérémie, and Dario Battistella. 2013. ‘Des RI Françaises En Émergence ? Les
Internationalistes Français Dans Le Sondage TRIP 2011’. Revue Française de Science
Politique 63 (2): 303–36.
Denis, Jérôme. 2002. ‘L’Ecriture Comme Dispositif d’Articulation Entre Terrain et
Recherche’. Alinéa. Sciences Sociales et Humaines 12: 93–106.
Der Derian, James, and Michael Shapiro. 1989. International/Intertextual Relations:
Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in
North–South Relations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dunn, Kevin C., and Iver B. Neumann. 2016. Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social
Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Fourcade, Marion. 2006. ‘The Construction of a Global Profession: The Transnationaliza-
tion of Economics’. American Journal of Sociology 112 (1): 145–94.
Friedrichs, Jörg. 2004. European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House
with Many Mansions. London, New York: Routledge.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1989. ‘The End of History?’ National Interest 16: 3–18.
Gandhi, Mahatma. 1960. My Non-­Violence. Ahmedabad: Navajivan.
Gareau, Frederick H. 1981. ‘The Discipline of International Relations: A Multi-­National
Perspective’. Journal of Politics 43 (3): 779–802.
Garreton, M.A. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Latin America: A Comparative Perspective –
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3):
557–93.
Giesen, Klaus-­Gerd. 1995. ‘French Cancan Zwischen Positivismus, Enzyklopädismus
Und Historismus. Zur Struktur Und Geschichte Der Vorherrschenden Französischspra-
chigen Ansatzforschung’. Zeitschrift Für Internationale Beziehungen 1 (2): 141–70.
Gingras, Yves. (2002). ‘Les Formes Spécifiques de l’Internationalité du Champ Scienti-
fique’. Actes de La Recherche En Sciences Sociales 141–2, 31–45.
Groom, John. 2002. ‘Les Relations Internationales En France: Un Regard D’outre-
Manche’. Revue Internationale et Stratégique 47 (3): 108–17.
166   Discursive entanglements
Guilhot, Nicolas. 2011. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the
Rockfeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. ‘Technology and Science as Ideology’. In Toward a Rational
Society. London: Heinemann.
Hall, Stuart. 1985. ‘Signification, Representation, Ideology: Althusser and the Post-­
structuralist Debates’. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2 (2): 91–114.
Heilbron, Johan. 2008. ‘Qu’est-Ce Qu’une Tradition Nationale En Sciences Sociales?’
Revue d’Histoire Des Sciences Humaines 18 (1): 3–16.
Herz, Mônica. 2002. ‘O Crescimento Da Área de Relações Internacionais No Brasil’.
Contexto Internacional 24: 7–40.
Hobson, John M. 2007. ‘Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western
Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a Post-­Racist Critical IR’. In Critical Inter-
national Relations Theory after 25 Years, edited by Nicholas John Rengger and Tris-
tram Benedict Thirkell-­White, 91–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, John M. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western Inter-
national Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Holsti, Kalevi J. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International
Theory. Winchester, MA: Allen & Unwin.
Jentleson, Bruce W., and Ely Ratner. 2011. ‘Bridging the Beltway-­Ivory Tower Gap’.
International Studies Review 13 (1): 6–11.
Jung, Hwa Yol, ed. 2002. Comparative Political Culture in the Age of Globalization: An
Introductory Anthology. Lanham, MD, Boulder, CO, New York, Oxford: Lexington
Books.
Kuru, Deniz. 2016. ‘Historicising Eurocentrism and Anti-­Eurocentrism in IR: A Revisionist
Account of Disciplinary Self-­Reflexivity’. Review of International Studies 42 (2): 351–76.
Latour, Bruno. 1999. Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lepgold, Joseph, and Miroslav Nincic. 2001. Beyond the Ivory Tower: International Rela-
tions Theory and the Issue of Policy Relevance. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1952. Race and History. Paris: UNESCO.
Long, David. 2006. ‘Who Killed the International Studies Conference’. Review of Inter-
national Studies 32: 603–22.
Long, David, and Brian Schmidt. 2005. Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discip-
line of International Relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Mahajan, Sneh. 2010. ‘International Studies in India: Some Comments’. International
Studies 47 (1): 59–72.
Mallavarapu, Siddarth. 2009. ‘Development of International Relations Theory in India:
Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories’. International Studies 46
(1–2): 165–83.
Mattoo, Amitabh. 2009. ‘The State of International Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 37–48.
Miyamoto, Shiguenoli. 2003. ‘O Ensino Das Relações Internacionais No Brasil’. Revista
de Sociologia Política 20: 103–14.
Nandy, Ashis. 2012. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Natraj, V.K., Manabi Majumdar, Ananta Kumar Giri and V. Chandrasekara Naidu. 2016.
‘Social Science : Dialogue for Revival’. Economic and Political Weekly 36 (33):
3128–33.
 Discursive entanglements   167
Paul, Thazha Varkey. 2009. ‘Integrating International Relations Studies in India to Global
Scholarship’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 129–45.
Postel Vinay, Karoline. 2005. L’Occident et Sa Bonne Parole: Nos Représentations Du
Monde, de l’Europe Coloniale À l’Amérique Hégémonique. Paris: Flammarion.
Rana, A.P., and S. Misra. 2005. ‘Communicative Discourse and Community in Inter-
national Relations Studies in India: A Critique’. In International Relations in India:
Bringing Theory Back Home, edited by Siddarth Mallavarapu and Kanti Bajpai,
71–122. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
Riemens, Michael. 2011. ‘International Academic Cooperation on International Relations
in the Interwar Period: The International Studies Conference’. Review of International
Studies 37 (2): 911–28.
Rist, Gilbert. 2007. Le Développement: Histoire D’une Croyance Occidentale. Paris: Les
Presses de Science Po.
Roche, Jean-­Jacques. 2002. ‘L’enseignement Des Relations Internationales En France:
Les Aléas D’une “discipline-­Carrefour” ’. Revue Internationale et Stratégique 47 (3):
100–7.
Sahni, Varun. 2009. ‘The Fallacies and Flaws of Area Studies in India’. International
Studies 46 (1–2): 49–68.
Sajed, Alina, and John Hobson. 2017. ‘Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of
Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non-­Western Agency’.
International Studies Review 19 (4): 547–72.
Sapiro, Gisèle. 2013. ‘Le Champ Est-­Il National?’ Actes de La Recherche En Sciences
Sociales 200 (5): 70–85.
Sarma, Sushanta Kumar, and Ishan Agrawal. 2010. ‘Social Science Research in
Vernacular Language’. Economic and Political Weekly 45 (42): 36–40.
Sharma, Devika. 2009. ‘Mapping International Relations Teaching and Research in
Indian Universities’. International Studies 46 (1–2): 69–88.
Simpson, J.A., and E.S.C. Weiner, eds. 1989. ‘Palimpsest’. In Oxford English Dictionary.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Smith, Steve. 2004. ‘Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory
and September 11’. International Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 499–515.
Sundberg, Juanita. 2009. ‘Eurocentrism’. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geo-
graphy, edited by R. Kitchin and N. Thrift, 638–43. Oxford: Elsevier.
Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. 2009. International Relations Scholarship around
the World. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Trindade, H. 2005. ‘Social Sciences in Brazil in Perspective: Foundation, Consolidation
and Diversification’. Social Science Information 44 (2–3): 283–357.
UGC – Curriculum Development Centre. 1991. ‘Report of the Curricular Development
Centre in Political Science’. New Delhi.
Vitali-­Rosati, Marcello. 2017. ‘Qu’est-Ce Qu’une Revue Scientifique ? Et… Qu’est-Ce
Qu’elle Devrait Être?’ Conversation, 21 May.
Wæver, Ole. 1998. ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and
European Developments in International Relations’. International Organization 52 (4):
687–727.
WISC. 2017. ‘Our Mission’. www.wiscnetwork.org/about-­wisc/our-­mission.
Zimmern, Sir Alfred, ed. 1939. University Teaching in International Relations: A Record
of the International Studies Conference, 1938. Paris: International Institute of Intellec-
tual Co-­operation, League of Nations.
 The recursive paradox   191
object of inquiry and each socialisation. Beyond this variety, however, reflexiv-
ity is a skill that can be developed based on any topic and then applied to other
topics.
Reflexivity is not a kind of parasitic ‘second-­order knowledge’ one produces
on the side almost independently from the process of producing ‘real knowledge’
dealing with ‘objects of the world’. Reflexivity requires the capacity of experi-
encing oneself as a subject–object of the world by focusing on the implicit
dimensions of the order of things within the self. Reflexive knowledge is a
double knowledge that produces empirical innovation on both the subject(–
object) of discourses and what discourses refer to. Accordingly, auto-­
objectivation is not the finality of reflexivity, just part of the process. Indeed, as
the aim of critical theory is emancipation, once the subject realises the power
structures he/she participates in, then one acts to transform his/her dispositions
and become consistent. Among the different modes of engagement at our dis-
posal, reflexivity focuses on the individual in her everyday practices. The indi-
vidual is a small unit in the social world; however, in general, the impact one
scholar can have on oneself is higher than the impact that one scholar can have
on a state or a mega-­social group like ‘the West’. The actions and socialisation
of the individuals are constrained and shaped by structural dimensions of the
social and political order. Once these constraints are acknowledged, I believe
that at their margins, there is a lever for emancipation, a potential still largely
untapped due to the lack of tools that social sciences have produced to under-
stand the functioning of the implicit and how to navigate it.

Notes
1 Among these individuals we can quote Arjun Appadurai in anthropology (PhD and
career in the United States), Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in literature (PhD and career
in the United States), Homi Bhabha in literature (PhD in the United Kingdom and
career in the United States), Amartya Sen in economy and philosophy (PhD in the
United Kingdom, beginning of career in India and then mainly in the United Kingdom
and the United States).
2 Critical scholars being identified as ‘intellectuals interested in the voice of the Other’
(Kristensen 2015, 643).

References
Acharya, Amitav. 2000. ‘Ethnocentrism and Emancipatory IR Theory’. In (Dis)Placing
Security: Critical Evaluations of the Boundaries of Security, edited by Samantha
Arnold and J. Marshall Beier, 1–18. Toronto: York Centre for International and
Security Studies.
Adell, Nicolas. 2011. Anthropologie Des Savoirs. Paris: Armand Colin.
Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-­Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson and Nevitt Sanford.
1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Norton.
Alejandro, Audrey. 2016. ‘Walking the Reflexive Talk’. E-­International Relations.
www.e-­ir.info/2016/09/17/walking-­the-reflexive-­talk/.
192   The recursive paradox
Alejandro, Audrey. 2017a. ‘Eurocentrism, Ethnocentrism and Misery of Position: Inter-
national Relations in Europe, a Problematic Oversight’. European Review of Inter-
national Studies 4 (1): 5–20.
Alejandro, Audrey. 2017b. ‘The Narrative of Academic Dominance: How to Overcome
Performing the “Core-­Periphery” Divide’. International Studies Review 1–31.
Alejandro, Audrey. 2018. ‘Compte rendu de Inayatullah, Naeem, and Elizabeth Dau-
phinee, eds. 2016. Narrative Global Politics: Theory, History and the Personal in
International Relations. Oxford, New York: Routledge’. Revue française de sciences
politiques, forthcoming.
Aradau, Claudia, and Jef Huysmans. 2014. ‘Critical Methods in International Relations:
The Politics of Techniques, Devices and Acts’. European Journal of International
Relations 20 (3): 596–619.
Atal, Yogesh. 2003. Indian Sociology from Where to Where: Footnotes to the History of
the Discipline. Jaipur, New Delhi: Rawat Publications.
Azevedo, Celia M. 1987. Onda Negra, Medo Branco: O Negro No Imaginário Das Elites
Século XIX. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Ball, Eve, Nora Henn and Lynda Sanchez. 1980. Indeh, an Apache Odyssey. Provo, UT:
Brigham Young University Press.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 1976. Towards a Critical Sociology: An Essay on Commonsense and
Emancipation. London & Boston, MA: Routledge.
Bell, P.F. 1991. ‘The Impact of the United States on the Development of Social Sciences
in Thailand’. Social Science Models and Their Impact on the Third World XX: 95–116.
Bouju, Jacques. 1995. ‘Tradition et Identité: La Tradition Dogo Entre Traditionnalisme
Rural et Néo-Traditionnalisme Urbain’. Enquête 2: 95–117.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. ‘Espace Social et Pouvoir Symbolique’. In Choses Dites, 147–66.
Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1987. ‘Fieldwork in Philosophy’. In Choses Dites, 19–31. Paris: Le
Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1992. ‘Double Bind et Conversion’. In Réponses: Pour Une Anthropol-
ogie Réflexive, 217–24. Paris: Le Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997. Méditations Pascaliennes. Paris: Le Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J.D. Wacquant, eds. 1992. Réponses: Pour Une Anthropologie
Réflexive. Réponses. Paris: Le Seuil.
Bourdieu, Pierre, Jean-­Claude Chamboredon and Jean-­Claude Passeron. 1973. Le Métier
de Sociologue: Préalables Épistémologiques. Mouton, Paris: La Haye.
Brigg, Morgan, and Roland Bleiker. 2010. ‘Autoethnographic International Relations:
Exploring the Self as a Source of Knowledge’. Review of International Studies 10 (4):
97–109.
Brincat, Shannon. 2012. ‘On the Methods of Critical Theory: Advancing the Project of
Emancipation beyond the Early Frankfurt School’. International Relations 26 (2):
218–45.
Brohman, John. 1995. ‘Universalism, Eurocentrism, and Ideological Bias in Development
Studies: From Modernisation to Neoliberalism’. Third World Quarterly 16 (1):
121–40.
Bueger, Christian. 2012. ‘From Epistemology to Practice: A Sociology of Science for
International Relations’. Journal of International Relations and Development 15 (1):
97–109.
Caratini, Sophie. 2004. Les Non-­Dits de l’Anthropologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de
France.
 The recursive paradox   193
Carvalho, José M. 2012. The Formation of Souls: Imagery of the Republic in Brazil.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Catton, William R. 1960. ‘Society for the Study of Social Problems: The Functions and
Dysfunctions of Ethnocentrism : A Theory’. Social Problems 8 (3): 201–11.
Comte, Auguste. 1851. ‘Préface’. In Système de Politique Positive: Ou Traité de Sociolo-
gie, Instituant La Religion de L’humanité. Le Discours Préliminaire, et L’introduction
Fondamentale, Volume 1. Paris: Mathias.
Devita, Philip R., ed. 2000. Stumbling toward Truth: Anthropologists at Work. Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press Inc.
Dirlik, Arif. 2007. ‘The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global
Capitalism’. Comparative and General Pharmacology 20 (2): 328–56.
Dower, Nigel. 1996. ‘Is the Idea of Development Eurocentric?’ In Challenging the
Orthodoxies, edited by Richard M. Auty and John Toye, 85–102. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Durkheim, Émile. 2009. Les Règles de La Méthode Sociologique. Paris: Payot.
Durkheim, Émile, and Marcel Mauss. 1903. ‘De Quelques Formes de Classification: Con-
tribution À l’Etude Des Représentations Collectives’. Année Sociologique 6: 1–72.
Eagleton-­Pierce, Matthew. 2011. ‘Advancing a Reflexive International Relations’. Mil-
lennium – Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 805–23.
Eriksen, Jens-­Martin, and Frederik Stjernfelt. 2009. ‘Culturalism: Culture as Political
Ideology’. Eurozine, 9 January.
Firoz, N. 2006. ‘Writing For/With Subaltern: A Study of Contemporary Indian Fiction
with Focus on Mahasweta Devi’s Works’. University of Calicut.
Freire, Lucas G. 2013. ‘The Potential and the Pitfalls of Metatheory in IR’. Estudos Inter-
nacionais 1 (2): 271–302.
Friedberg, Claudine. 2005. ‘Ethnoscience et Autres Ethno “machins” Aujourd’hui’.
Journal de La Société Des Océanistes 120 (1): 27–30.
Fourcade, Marion. 2006. ‘The Construction of a Global Profession: The Transnationaliza-
tion of Economics’. American Journal of Sociology 112 (1): 145–94.
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les Mots et Les Choses. Paris: Gallimard.
Haley, James L. 1997. The Apaches: A History and Culture Portrait. Norman, OK:
University of Oklahoma Press.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2012a. ‘Beyond (Post)Positivism: The Missed Promises of Sys-
temic Pragmatism’. International Studies Quarterly 56 (2): 291–305.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2012b. ‘IR Theory as International Practice/Agency: A Clinical-­
Cynical Bourdieusian Perspective’. Millennium – Journal of International Studies 40
(3): 625–46.
Hamati-­Ataya, Inanna. 2014. ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Know-
ledge In-­Between: The Subject In/of “Strong Reflexivity” ’. Review of International
Studies 40: 153–75.
Huysmans, Jef, Claudia Aradau, Nadine Voelkner and Andrew W. Neal, eds. 2014. Crit-
ical Security Methods: New Frameworks for Analysis. London, New York: Routledge.
Inayatullah, Naeem. 2011. Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR. London, New
York: Routledge.
Inayatullah, Naeem, and Elizabeth Dauphinee, eds. 2016. Narrative Global Politics:
Theory, History and the Personal in International Relations. Oxford, New York:
Routledge.
Jucquois, Guy, and Gilles Ferreol. 2003. Dictionnaire de L’altérité et Des Relations Inter-
culturelles. Paris: Armand Colin.
194   The recursive paradox
Knafo, Samuel. 2016. ‘Bourdieu and the Dead End of Reflexivity: On the Impossible
Task of Locating the Subject’. Review of International Studies 42 (1): 25–47.
Krishnaswamy, Revathi. 2005. ‘Globalization and Its Postcolonial (Dis)contents’. Journal
of Postcolonial Writing 41 (1): 69–82.
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2015. ‘How Can Emerging Powers Speak? On Theorists,
Native Informants and Quasi-­Officials in International Relations Discourse’. Third
World Quarterly 36 (4): 637–53.
Lapid, Yosef. 1989. ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a
Post-­Positivist Era’. International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235–54.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1952. Race and History. Paris: UNESCO.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1961. A World on the Wane. London: Hutchinson.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1983. Le Regard Éloigné. Paris: Plon.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1996. ‘Race et Histoire’. In Race et Culture, 377–422. Paris: Plon.
Löwenheim, Oded. 2010. ‘The “I” in IR: An Autoethnographic Account’. Review of
International Studies 36 (4): 1023–45.
McDanial, S.A. 2003. ‘Introduction: The Currents of Sociology Internationally – Prepon-
derance, Diversity and Division of Labour’. Current Sociology 51 (6): 593–7.
McMillan, Kevin. 2012. ‘Beyond Geography and Social Structure: Disciplinary Sociolo-
gies of Power in International Relations’. International Relations and Development 15:
131–44.
Maniglier, Patrice. 2013. ‘The Order of Things’. In A Companion to Foucault, edited by
Christopher Falzon, Timothy O’Leary and Jana Sawicki, 104–21. Chichester, UK: John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Mignolo, W.D. 2009. ‘Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial
Freedom’. Theory, Culture and Society 26: 159–81.
Mills, Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. London: Oxford University Press.
Rees, Emma. 2015. ‘Self-­Reflective Study: The Rise Of “Mesearch” ’. Times Higher
Education. www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/self-­reflective-study-­the-rise-­of-
mesearch/2019097.article.
Ritzer, George. 2007. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Sociology. Malden, MA: Black-
well.
Savransky, Martin. 2017. ‘A Decolonial Imagination: Sociology, Anthropology and the
Politics of Reality’. Sociology 51 (1): 11–26.
Schmidt, Brian. 2006. ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’. In
Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and
Beth A. Simmons, 3–22. London: Sage.
Schuft, Laura. 2014. ‘Devenir “Demi” En Polynésie Française’. Anthropologie et Sociétés
38 (2): 67.
Sumner, William. 1906. Folkways: A Study of the Sociological Importance of Usages,
Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. Boston, NY: Ginn & Co.
Swartz, Marc J. 1961. ‘Negative Ethnocentrism’. Journal of Conflict Resolution 5 (1):
75–81.
‘The Nandy Affair’. 2013. New Yorker. www.newyorker.com/news/news-­desk/the-­
nandy-affair.
Tucker, Vincent. 1999. ‘The Myth of Development: A Critique of a Eurocentric Dis-
course’. In Critical Development Theory: Contributions to a New Paradigm, edited by
Ronaldo Munck and Denis O’Hearn, 1–26. London, New York: Zed Books.
Vasquez, John A. 1995. ‘The Post-­Positivist Debate: Reconstructing Scientific Enquiry
and International Relations Theory After Enlightment’s Fall’. In International
 The recursive paradox   195
Relations Theory Today, edited by Steve Smith and Ken Booth, 217–40. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2016. ‘Back to “Mother” and “Father”: Overcoming the Eurocentrism
of Kinship Studies through Eight Lexical Universals’. Current Anthropology 57 (4):
408–29.
 204   Conclusion
Social scientists have studied almost all social groups on Earth, yet, little is
known about the implicit. In that sense, I believe reflexivity is today the biggest
leverage that qualitative methods have for innovation and social transformation.

References
Comte, Auguste. 1851. ‘Préface’. In Système de Politique Positive: Ou Traité de Sociolo-
gie, Instituant La Religion de L’humanité. Le Discours Préliminaire, et L’introduction
Fondamentale, Volume 1. Paris: Mathias.
Wittgenstein Ludwig, 1993, Tractatus logico-­philosophicus, Paris, Gallimard.

View publication stats