IR and The Problem of Difference- Discussion
In the book, IR and the Problem of Difference, Inayatullah and Blaney investigate their main
research idea: IR has not incorporated notions of difference, thus theories are
based on cultural assumptions and biases that are not acknowledged. They draw
from several “spheres of inquiry,” including IPE, ID, Social Theory, Political
Philosophy, and Intercultural/Cross-Cultural literature. Their research method is
based on an examination of texts to “uncover” the subjectivity of authors and contextualize
the authors historically within political/ethical issues. This “process of
recovery” includes looking at the work of often referenced political
philosophers and a reexamination of dominant narratives of sovereignty. The conclusion asks for dialogue, where self-interest and
the language of ethics can overlap in acknowledgement of self in other and other in
self.
Question one:
On page 94, they speak to a “logical overlap of IR and
modernization theory, especially their theoretical treatment of the cultural
difference presented by third-world others.”
Who
is part of the conversation (who are they talking to) when difference
spheres of inquiry are referenced? How do the overlaps in the literature
reflect overlaps
of I/other? How are the concepts of chaos and order problematized in
this text? Did you see that their underlying purpose was to collapse the
binaries of inside/outside, chaos/order as
categories? Question two:
On page 74, the authors write that, “the Indians serve as a medium for the exchange
of messages between the religious opponents- as a site of struggle between their respective views concerning the
tolerance of difference.”
How does this relate to the notion of contact zones? Who is
having contact with whom and where? What is overlap? How does that apply to
international norms and implementation of norms? Where are the contact zones in scholarship on difference?
posted by WW at 12:08 PM
2 Comments:
1. I believe Inayatullah and Blaney are primarily talking to IR scholars and professionals. Though at the end they suggest that the “third world” (other) needs to learn the language of the powerful in order to engage in a dialogue with the West (self). Here it is not clear whether Inayatullah and Blaney are engaging the “third world” as a geopolitical composition or the “third world” IR scholars. For Inayatullah and Blaney modernization and dominant IR theories overlap on ideas of universalization. Hence, in espousing the teleological perspective of
modernity, IR has developed a totalizing notion of the state, which is clearly an attempt to infuse categorical differentiation in the way different societies organize their political space. Thus, Inayatullah and Blaney argues that IR theories have failed to include alternative forms of political organization.
2. I also have questions with respect to the “contact zone.” Quite brilliantly and forcefully, Inayatullah and Blaney make a compelling case that IR has failed to fully integrate cultural differences in theorizing about the world. Central to this failure is the binary and rigid separation of self and other. However, when it comes to the “contact zone” Inayatullah and Blaney seem to suggest that there is only one contact zone, the zone of encounter between the oppressed and the oppressor, the West and others. This is why they suggest that the oppressed should engage in a dialogue with the oppressor. Yet, on page 74 as Willow points out the “Indians” (other) are represented as the “contact zone” where the Catholic and the Protestant meet. Just as much as French, Germans, Portuguese, Belgians, and British met at different contact zones during the scramble of Africa, for instance, it seems to me that there are many contact zones: oppressed meets oppressed; oppressed meets oppressed through the oppressor, oppressor meets oppressor, oppressor meets oppressor through the oppressed, etc. In accordance with Mary Louise Pratt (1992), the contact zone is the milieu and the moment of encounter where self meet other, if this is the case, why is the West (in spite of its plurality and complexity) considered as a coherent unit while the so called “Third World” is considered as the other unit. This is a form of binary that Inayatullah and Blaney argue against. In addition, are we to assume that the dialogical context offers an opportunity for “fair” interactions between self and other? In other words, does the dialogue preclude the emergence of a dominant discourse?
1. I agree with Patrick that IR scholars are the primary audience, but I do not think it is terribly relevant whether, when discussing the “third world,” Inayatullah and Blaney refer to a geopolitical composition or a category of scholars. Regardless of that distinction, the idea is the same. The “third world”—as a spatial construct, or as a categorization of ideas/scholars/etc.—is temporally/vertically different according to a number of the theoretical perspectives the authors discuss. As a result, the spatial constructs and the categorization of ideas are both subjected to Todorov’s double movement. Just as the geopolitical “third world” is considered inferior on account of being different and can only be accepted if it assimilates, so too scholars from the “third world” might be perceived by Western scholars as inferior (perhaps on account of rejecting neo-positivist ontological assumptions or bringing up scientific ontological views that deviate from the mainstream) and acceptable only insofar as they assimilate Western notions of what constitutes “proper” scientific research and “relevant” research questions. Although it is beyond the scope of this book, the discussion of Todorov’s double movement opens up the possibility that these and other authors can more reflexively analyze the conduct IR science itself, not just its substantive objects of research.
2. On this question, I have two thoughts. First, the quote provided in the question suggests that contact zones open up not only through direct contact with the “other” but also through discursive arguments about the other. In this case, Reformist and Catholics engaged in sustained dialogue with one another as they tried to explain the “discovery” of the “New World,” and it was through this dialogue—which does not seem to require sustained direct engagement with the “other”—that the contact zone emerged. This is important for a number of reasons. The fact that a contact zone between Catholics and Reformists was created by their respective discursive engagement on the topic of the Amerindian implies that contact zones are not all equally helpful (in attaining the sort of pluralistic “dialogue, where self-interest and the language of ethics can overlap in acknowledgement of self in other and other in self”). Instead, contact zones that have an object of discussion separate from the groups directly engaged in that discussion might have a different character than those where discussants are the sole objects. Likewise, in the latter type of case (where the object of discussion separate from the groups directly engaged in that discussion), we may witness a higher degree of power inequality between the discussants and the object of the discussion. The object—in the case provided by Inayatullah and Blaney, the Amerindians—has limited access to shape the debate among others.
Second, the issue of contact zones is very important to the authors’ central thesis—indeed, if contact zones did not exist, there would be no struggle between dominant and recessive representations of the self and other, and without such tension there would be little if any possibility for reflection. I see contact zones occurring anywhere were (1) there is difference, (2) the subjects are aware of their differences, and (3) subjects engage with one another and with themselves (externally discursively or internally reflexively) to reflect upon the meanings and consequences of those differences. My interpretation of the primary purpose of this book is precisely to overcome the fact that the existence of contact zones requires contact, and that in IR scholarship theoretical contact among scholars is marked by paucity. Insofar as that is true, Inayatullah and Blaney attempt to create a contact zone by opening up the dialogue regarding the theoretical poverty of the discipline in addressing the problem of difference.
Post a Comment
<< Home