Upload
ithaca
View
25
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Relations from Below1
David L. Blaney and Naeem Inayatullah
Critical theorists seek to defeat claims about
modernity’s exhaustion by revealing the unrealized
‘emancipatory’ potential of the current social order.
Critical theory thereby locates itself mostly within
modernity. An ‘IR from below,’ by contrast, necessarily
locates itself both within and beyond an ‘IR from above’.
The ‘below’ implies a geopolitical space as well as an
evaluative threshold: as space it connotes the global South
or the Third World; as threshold it points to those below a
certain civilizational or material level, and specifically
below the vital ability of shaping the world according to
their own vision.2 Those who envision themselves as living
‘below’ have, by necessity, a multiple and complex critical
vision: they live within the theory and practice of a world
1 We thank Tarak Barkawi, Gurminder Bhambra, Shampa Biswas, Matt Davies,Kevin Dunn, Xavier Guillaume, Sankaran Krishna, Mark Laffey, Siddharth Mallavarapu, Himadeep Muppidi, and Arlene Tickner for invaluable comments. 2 It might also point to the everyday or the feminine, which are treatedas below the threshold of the international or the political. Feminist critiques and engagements with the everyday can be considered as homologous with an ‘IR from below.’
1
largely created by those ‘above,’ but also in worlds partly
defined by alternative visions that critique praxis ‘from
above.’ Speaking from this critical position invites
disparagement from above and casts ‘IR from below’ beyond
the disciplinary pale. Interestingly, this displacement of
‘IR from below’ is constitutive of the IR discipline. From
its position as simultaneously ‘cast out’ of IR and as the
necessary constitutive other of IR, ‘IR from below’
challenges the ontological atomism of dominant
modern/western theories by highlighting the historical co-
construction of contemporary institutions and processes
(including the mutual constitution of ‘above’ and ‘below’)
and by proposing alternative futures usually prohibited by
modernity’s focus on potential or realized progress.
Lessons Foretold: The Dismissal of Dependency Theory
The dependency thinkers of the 1960s presage the status
of an ‘IR from below.’ Dependency theories offer a
“counter-analysis” of the workings of the international
2
system—the origins of which are traced to the experience of
peripheries as imperial subjects (Slater 2004, 118-120) or
to the non-aligned movement’s political language of “neo-
colonialism” (Young, 2001, 44-5, 51). Primarily associated
with Latin American authors, the most prominent of which,
not least because their work is available in English,
include Cardoso (1972; 1977; Cardoso and Falleto, 1979),
Sunkel (1969; 1973), and Dos Santos (1970), dependency
thinkers and other associated theorists of unequal
development, such as Amin (1974; 1976), argue that the
historical development of the international system – the
structures of the state-system and the capitalist global
division of labor – produce forms of systematic
underdevelopment (stagnation in some places and deformed
processes of development elsewhere). 3 Mechanisms of
dependence, including external military domination,
transnational investment, unequal trade relations, and
global financial arrangements, condition national
3 Many useful summaries of the contributions of dependency theory are available. See Slater (2004, 118-127); Valenzuela and Valenzuela (1981); and Chilcote (1984).
3
development prospects by subjecting the peripheries to
domination by the system’s centers. Though global, the
system’s loci of dynamism, its social structures and
attendant class relations, are transnational, existing both
internally and externally in relation to the peripheral
countries and regions. Nevertheless, these structures of
dependence and domination marginalize large zones. The
experience of the peripheries cannot, then, reproduce that
of the advanced regions since the later have already
asymmetrically integrated the former into this wider system
of production and goverance. Representations of peripheries
as traditional or less developed are, therefore, ideological
deflections and conventional policy advice guarantees
continued marginalization. Alternative approaches might
foster distinctive forms of national economic integration or
involve selective de-linking from the structures of global
capitalism, though any effective response requires the
realignment of class forces within the periphery and,
eventually, a transformation of global structures.
4
Leading North American scholars justify the brief sway
of dependency theory in disciplinary terms, though perhaps
better linked to the waning of the oppositional politics of
the Third World Movement.4 Theories of dependency, as
Gabriel Almond (1990, 229-30, 233) claims, are “inescapably
ideological” -- “a backward step” measured against the
conventions of social science. Pakenham (1992, 29-30, 43,
103-4) likewise stresses that dependency theory is
unscientific because its critical status makes it
“unfalsifiable.” Confirming its origins in ‘backward’
zones, Pakenham (1992, 255-60) associates dependency
proponents, not with science or reason, but with “theatre,”
“drama,” or “symbol and ritual.” Not surprisingly, then,
dependency theorists ignore the dictates of rationality,
eschewing the obvious mutual gains from interdependence
(Pakenham 1992, 306).
Others are more deliberative but still place dependency
theory beyond the disciplinary pale. In a review, Caporaso
4 Despite this, theories of dependency sustain interest in Latin America. Tickner (2003, 317-8) argues that “autonomy” continues to finda central place in Latin American IR, quite by contrast with contemporary North American IR.
5
(1980, 622-3) recognizes Cardoso and Faletto’s very
different stance towards history; they reject a Newtonian
notion of time -- “homogeneous, infinitely divisible, and
purely formal” -- that facilitates generalization, favoring
instead a “lumpy” or “qualitative” notion that limits our
capacity to generalize beyond particular times and places.5
Rather than evaluating dependency theory on its own terms,
Caporaso (1980, 615) defends disciplinary standards of
“falsifiability and verification” without which “the
scientific enterprise cannot succeed.” Even in this more
generous reading, dependency theory is displaced beyond IR
-- an outside whose pre-scientific and politically imprudent
(irrational) status serve to confirm the epistemic
superiority of IR proper. Cardoso (1977, 15-16) saw the
writing on the wall. To gain disciplinary respectability,
theories of dependency were boxed into uniform, static, and
thereby testable propositions that misrepresented their
historical approach based on a dynamic and dialectical
analysis of concrete situations. This “straw man” is “easy
5 Cardoso and Faletto (1979, x-xiv, xxiii) defend their emphasis on analyzing concrete situations. See Palma (1978).
6
to destroy.” Caporaso (1993, 470), himself, in later
reflections, notes that “dependency theory died out more
from neglect than frontal criticism.”
The construction of dependency theory as beyond the
pale of acceptable knowledge production and policy relevance
reveals a crucial feature of IR: the suppression of
alternative and competing themes opposed to the standard
theory of modern progress. The political and ethical
possibilities of modern life rest on a tension between
wholes and parts within the theory of progress. On the one
hand, political and economic development is seen as
isomorphic with the extension of modern Western civilization
to encompass the entire global cultural space. On the other
hand, since the early modern failure of the project to
universalize a common blueprint within Europe, political and
economic development is also linked to sovereignty, a
principle putatively allowing each state to find its own
version of meaningful development. IR theory “proper”
conventionally navigates this tension by embracing a monadic
vision, by positing that the promise of modernity (i.e.
7
political and economic development) is possible only within
states. IR’s self-limiting understanding acts to suppress
the larger social theory within which this monadic vision
nests.
Dependency theorists, by contrast, revive the tension
between wholes and parts and between IR and its larger
context by exploring the strains between the imperatives of
sovereignty and those of global capitalism.6 By emphasizing
the relations of domination central to the global logic of
capitalism, they reveal the lie: that development is a set
of separable, national projects. Rather, development
proceeds within the processes of the global system,
enriching some and marginalizing others. Dependency theory
thereby is a powerful form of immanent criticism, rooted in
a description of current global political and economic
arrangements. The spotlight on the ambitions of various
Third World states and peoples for development and self-
determination should not obscure its deeper insight: the
conditions of the periphery are expressions of internal
6Blaney (1996).
8
tensions within the values and visions of modern
international society itself.
Cardoso (1977, 9-10) himself argued that dependency
studies were not something new, either methodologically or
in terms of their critical purpose. Rather, they
“constitute part of this constantly renewed effort to
reestablish a tradition of analysis of economic structures
and structures of domination.” The difference in this case
is that “a current which was already old in Latin American
thought managed to make itself heard in the discussions that
were taking place in institutions normally closed to it,”
including various official agencies and “the North American
academic community.” Here, Cardoso stresses more than the
Latin American phase of critical thinking; he places this
work in a long history of radical responses to modernity
(Cardoso 1977, 8-9). He implies that theories of dependency
revive a recessive current of thought within modern
understandings of social and political life. If so, then
despite dependency theory’s rightful place as internal to
traditions from “above,” it is shunted aside, constructed as
9
outside of the process of knowledge production and rational
political practice.
Nonetheless, residues of the dependency analysis keep
emerging. We find one example in the claim that the
position of the ‘Third World’ necessitates a shift in our
understandings of international security. For Ayoob (1989,
1995), the violent incorporation of these areas into
international society gives Third World states an intruder
status, but it also constructs modern state-building as the
main task of Third World political elites. The challenge of
modernization thereby appears to leaders as a central
security issue. Thus, we can read the ‘economic’ demands of
the Third World coalition during its heyday in the 1960s and
70s as also concerned with securing the state and the
position of the elites within it (Ayoob 1995, 2; Murphy
1984). The Third World coalition eventually was forced into
submission, and IR in its realist and liberal versions could
return, respectively, to the machinations of great powers,
pushing the “internal” problems of Third World states to the
margins, or to the building of a liberal global order,
10
constructing these areas as objects of progressive
modernization. But we then miss much about the nature of
the conflict and insecurity intrinsic to the very structures
of international society. Following the underlying insight
of dependency theory, we might push deeper. Barkawi and
Laffey (2006, 333, 344-52) attribute the failure of security
studies to an inability to “study the weak and the strong
together, as jointly responsible for making history.” An
ontological individualism, rooted in a state of nature
mythology or an analogy to neoclassical economics, leads
security studies to diagnose conflict originating in the
non-West as a lack, as due to the absence of modernization.
What is missed is the “mutually constitutive character of
world politics” and the insight that the sources of
contemporary conflict can be found, not in the “separate
objects” that IR imagines, but in the “relations” between
West and non-West.
Constitutive Otherness
11
If dependency theory focuses our attention on the
differential experience of Third World spaces within the
international system, this difference is nevertheless
expressed within narrow, often modernist limits. As
Chakrabarty (2000a: 41) puts it: “European imperialism and
third-world nationalisms” together achieved “the
universalization of the nation-state as the most desirable
form of political community.” In its embrace of national
autonomy, dependency theory obscures the multiplicity of
identities and spaces that express and shape varying
experiences of domination and alternative representations of
social experience (Slater 2004, chapter 6; Manzo 1991, 8-9).
A search for a “politics in different guises” was also the
result of the eclipse of North-South relations from the
agenda of world politics and the sense that the political
economy issues raised by dependency theorists had now been
‘resolved’ through the engineering of a liberal ‘consensus’
about free trade and good governance (Darby 2004, 2, 5-6).
Though a postcolonial movement expressing an interest in
identity and difference had grown up within social theory by
12
the late 1970s, Darby and Paolini (1994) would later note
that its impact on IR was relatively meager. Chowdhry and
Nair (2002, 1) later confirmed that postcolonial work
remains largely marginal to IR.
Proponents of a postcolonial stance often see their
work as a frontal assault on the basic conceptions and
methods of IR. 7 Paolini (1999, 5) argues that the
discipline’s fixation on states and sovereignty leads
scholars to overlook questions about “identity,
subjectivity, and modernity” as they apply across global
space. He intimates that IR fails to dig into the
“elementary human realm of culture and identity” because it
is in that realm, not in its status as science, that its
privileged vantage point actually lies. In this respect,
the concerns of postcolonial scholars dovetail with
deconstructionist work emerging in IR. For example,
Campbell (1996, 164-65) suggests that IR is constituted by a
discourse of the state that “settles” questions of identity;
the centrality of the state is treated as “simply reflecting
7Just as postcolonial thought more broadly provides a challenge to Western modes of representation. See Gandhi (1998) and Mongia (1996).
13
a reality” that can be objectively apprehended, not as an
assertion of authority that obscures other possibilities.
Perhaps closer to the spirit of postcolonial scholarship,
Doty (1996, 3, 8) calls our attention to the “imperial
encounters” at the heart of IR: “asymmetrical encounters in
which one entity has been able to construct ‘realities’ that
were taken seriously and acted upon and the other entity has
been denied equal degrees or kinds of agency.” Here IR,
even in its critical moment, appears as a set of
“representational practices” in which the imperial West has
constructed the other, fixing the categories of identity in
which people and scholars “make sense.”
The task of a “post-colonial analytical sensibility,”
with its focus on “difference, agency, subjectivity, and
resistance,” follows from this: it fundamentally challenges
these “Western discourses of . . . progress, civilization,
modernization, development and globalization” (Slater 2004,
163-4). For Tickner (2003, 302-7) disrupting the
universalist and unilinear conceptions central to IR
recovers knowledge lodged in different cultural spaces and
14
times, something IR has failed to do thus far. Put more
sharply perhaps, Chakrabarty (2000a, 29) claims that what
passes for social science “has been produced in relative,
and sometimes absolute, ignorance of the majority of
humankind—that is, those living in non-Western countries.”
IR lives in, as Muppidi (2004, 3) implies, a state of global
illiteracy. Thus, postcolonial scholarship represents an
oppositional “frame of reference in [its] mapping of
identity in, through, and beyond the colonial encounter”; it
celebrates “the particular and the marginal” and hopes to
see “peoples of the Third World carving out independent
identities in a de-Europeanized space of recovery and
difference” (Paolini 1999, 6) This process has been spoken
of as a “decolonization of the imagination” and a
“revalorization of cultural plurality” (Pieterse and Parekh
1995, 4 and 14).
However, Chowdhry and Nair (2002:1) claim that a
postcolonial stance requires more. Postcoloniality
highlights the “workings of power” that elide “the
racialized, gendered, and class processes that underwrite
15
global hierarchies,” focusing our attention more
convincingly on questions of “global inequality and
justice.”8 Similarly Krishna (1999, xviii) calls for a
“politics of postcolonial engagement,” moving us beyond the
process of denaturalizing “all identities (national, ethnic,
linguistic, religious)” to joining the struggle, not so much
to transcend identity, but to “fight for justice and
fairness in the world we do inhabit.” With the move to the
postcolonial, we join, says Slater (2004, 199-200), a
struggle over the very definition of the global (see also
Muppidi, 2004), the uneven consequences of globalization
(see also Biswas, 2002), and contemporary definitions of
security imperatives (see also Barkawi and Laffey, 2006). A
post-colonial IR perhaps includes but also moves beyond the
concerns of dependency thinkers.
However, postcolonial IR (as well as other critical
approaches, like certain feminisms or poststructuralism,
that challenges the modern) receives nary a mention in
8 The role of gender in the constitution of global structures has a somewhat longer legacy in IR. The role of race has arisen mostly alongside of and within postcolonial IR (see Persaud and Walker 2001; Manzo 1996).
16
accounts of the state of the discipline (Walt 1998; Snyder
2004). This is not surprising since, as Keohane (1989, 162,
173) argues, a reflexive emphasis on epistemological and
ontological questions merely diverts scholars from the real
task of studying “world politics”; without adopting the
model of a proper “research program,” critical versions of
IR “will remain on the margins of the field, largely
invisible to the preponderance of empirical researchers.”
This notion of the profession leaves little space for those
who decline the orthodoxy.
Recognizing this, Darby and Paolini (1994, 371) call
for a “bridging” of the “diplomatic isolation” of IR from a
postcolonial “IR from below.” The bridging metaphor may not
be apt, however, since the oppositional stance of the
postcolonial is both outside and inside “IR from above.”
More precisely, the representational practices and the
processes of identity construction central to the
postcolonial are constitutive of IR itself: a proper IR
‘research program’ is an effect of a prior assertion of
colonial power. We suggested above that dependency analysts
17
shift our vision, insisting that we more fully recognize how
the parts, namely states, are determined by the whole of the
states system and the capitalist division of labor (and it
imperial history) and therefore are always already inside
the whole. Postcolonial analysis calls for a similar shift
but, crucially, holds on to the excluded status of
otherness. That is, postcolonial visions also call for a
broader social theoretical scope that brings our attention
to how actors and identities ‘from below’ are determined by
larger systems of westernization and modernity. Unlike
dependency theory, the postcolonial turn, drawing on a
poststructuralist rhythm of argument (Young 2001, 418), sees
the non-Western and non-modern not merely as outside, but
also as the excluded other against which the West and the
modern are defined. Mitchell (2000; 4-5, 12-13) refers to
this status as the “constitutive outside.” He argues that a
distinct European identity is a product of the colonial
management of difference—forged in relation to “distinctions
of race, sexuality, culture and class.” Modernity, for
18
Mitchell, “depends upon, even as it refuses to recognize,
forbears and forces that escape its control.”
This refusal to recognize how the non-West and non-
modern are already integrated as constitutive forces within
the West and the modern is precisely how the colonial comes
to be externalized. Much of the work of postcolonial
theorists is, as it was for dependency thinkers, immanent,
revealing the suppression of this other within IR. In
contrast with the dependency theorists’ demands that
modernity’s promises be fulfilled, the positive aspect of
postcolonial critiques is the hope that these revelations of
suppressed others help us locate alternative resources for
imagining our world (Chakrabarty 2002, xx, chapter 3). For
example, Escobar (1995) claims that denaturalizing the
discourse of development opens space for suppressed, often
localized, imaginations of social life. However, it is not
clear that a postcolonial stance itself immediately
identifies such alternatives. For IR, it may require
turning to sources beyond the usual fare, like consulting
the anthropological or historical archives for accounts of
19
ways of life and organizations of complex intercultural
relations previously suppressed or now treated as irrelevant
(see Manzo 1999; Euben 2002).
We can read IR, then, through its refusal to recognize
the denial of its own constitution.9 The binary of
‘modernity/anarchy’ is pivotal in this suppression: anarchic
disorder acts as the urgent ‘problem’ to which the
‘solution’ of modernization, with its civilizing logic,
appears as the sole antidote. Therefore, systemic anarchy
increasingly is seen as that which must be tamed via the
modernization of global relations: international economic
interdependence, the community of liberal polities, and
global civil society. In this way, an ‘IR from above,’
including seemingly critical approaches that rely on claims
of the progressive unfolding of modernity, locates itself on
an imagined boundary between the modern and the
savage/barbarian. In contrast, ‘IR from below,’ because it
attempts to represent, cultivate, and retrieve the voice of
the savage/barbarian, appears both as something beyond IR
9 Inayatullah and Blaney (2004, especially Part I).
20
and something central to its very constitution. To extend
Darby and Paolini’s metaphor, what we need is not a bridge,
but an excavation; a mining of the culture of IR in order to
reveal the representational practices that hide what is
central to its constitution and through which we may find
the resources for IR’s re-imagination.
The Recovery and Critique of Political Economy
Despite its claims to confront global structures of
power, the postcolonial turn to cultural analysis has not
adequately engaged the domain of political economy. Darby
(2004, 16-7) laments this surprising neglect by postcolonial
thinkers within IR, suggesting that it is part of a general
culture of complacency that assumes there is no alternative
to globalization. Paolini (1999, 204) notes a general
tendency of postcolonial thought to float “above the fray of
material circumstances.” Both sense something significant
in this neglect.
21
“Economy,” claims Mitchell (1998, 84), is thought to
refer to a “realm with an existence prior to and separate
from its representations, and thus to stand in opposition to
the more discursive constructs of social theory.” The
economy is associated with the natural—fixed laws, unfolding
across homogenous time. The postcolonial, in contrast,
operates in the domain of human culture(s); it is about
revealing that which has been dehistoricized and
denaturalized. As Thrift (2000, 692, 698-9) warns, this
emphasis on culture has led many thinkers to take
“remarkably little . . . note of economics.” Or, suggesting
that this opposition is constitutive of the cultural turn
itself, he notes that “[c]ulture was culture because it had
been purified of the taint of the economic.” Recent
histories of the subaltern movement hint that this
separation has been constitutive of cultural studies
(Chaturvedi 2000; Chakrabarty 2000b). Sarkar (2000, 304-5)
explains that fears of falling into an economic reductionism
led postcolonial scholars to the “bifurcation” of a socio-
economic world of “domination” from a spiritual world of
22
“autonomy.” Dirlik (1994, 331) has been more pointed:
Postcolonial critics have relieved themselves of the
necessity of facing their own role in “contemporary
capitalism” by “repudiating a foundational role of
capitalism in history.”
But there is little reason to limit postcolonial
studies in this way. Like Mitchell above, Dirlik (1994,
350) argues that Eurocentrism is “built into the very
structure of…capitalist culture;” thus, it is difficult to
imagine any serious de-centering or provincializing of the
West that does not directly confront political economy.
What this suggests is less combining the economic insights
of dependency theory with the cultural tools of
postcolonialism and more doing to economics and political
economy what postcolonial thinkers have already done to ‘IR
from above.’ If capitalism, economics, and political
economy are constituted by otherness in the manner of ‘IR
from above,’ then an ‘IR from below can move towards
revealing how its own status as ‘constitutive other’
contains alternative cultures of political economy.
23
Conclusion
‘IR from below’ reminds us that conventional IR–
whether structural realist, liberal institutionalist, or
constructivist – treats states or groups as parts that are
logically independent of the larger systems of capitalism or
modernity and that this methodological device serves
political purposes. In the guise of ‘science,’ ontological
individualism works to deflect our attention from the co-
constitution of times and places. While one hand severs
holistic threads in order to present states as monadic
entities, the other hand pedagogically asserts that the
present of the advanced states is the model for those that
lag behind. In revealing this sleight of hand, ‘IR from
below’ suggests that contemporary IR is an expression of the
Western theory of progress. It brings our attention to the
relation between wholes and parts—to whether development
occurs within the boundaries of states or for the system as
a whole, and to the unproductive separation between
24
economics and the analysis of capitalism, on the one side,
and representational strategies and cultural analysis on the
other. In so doing, it takes advantage of its status as
‘constitutive other’ to foreground IR’s potential as that
aspect of social theory that dedicates itself to studying
relations of self and other. And it offers us resources for
imagining the future beyond those offered by both
conventional and critical ‘IR from above.’
References
Almond, G. 1990. A Discipline Divided: Schools and Sects in
Political Science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amin S. 1974. Accumulation and development: a theoretical
model. Review of African Political Economy, 1: 9-26.
Amin, S. 1976. Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social
Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
25
Ayoob, M. 1989. The third world in the system of states:
acute schizophrenia or growing pains? International Studies
Quarterly 33: 67-79.
Ayoob, M. 1995. The Third World Security Problematic.
Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Barkawi, T. and Laffey, M. 2006. The postcolonial movement
in security studies. Review of International Studies, 32:
329-52.
Blaney, D. L. 1996. Reconceptualizing autonomy: the
difference dependency theory makes. Review of International
Political Economy, 3:459-497.
Biswas, S. 2002. W(h)ither the nation-state? National and
state identity in the face of fragmentation and
globalization. Global Society, 16: 175-198.
26
Campbell, D. 2006. Violent performances: identity,
sovereignty, responsibility. Pp. 163-180 in The Return of
Culture and Identity in IR Theory, eds. Y. Lapid and F.
Kratochwil. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Caporaso, J. A. 1980. Dependency theory: continuities and
discontinuities in development studies. International
Organization, 34: 605-28.
Caporaso, J. A. 1993. Global political economy. Pp. 451-81
in Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, ed. A.
Finifter. Washington, D.C.: APSA.
Cardoso, F.H. 1972. Dependent capitalist development in
Latin American. New Left Review, 74, 83-94.
Cardoso, F. H. 1977. The consumption of dependency theory in
the United States. Latin American Research Review, 12, 7-24.
27
Cardoso, F.H. and Faletto, E. 1979. Dependency and
Development in Latin America, trans. M. M. Urquidi.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Chakrabarty, D. 2000a. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial
Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton,NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Chakrabarty, D. 2000b. Subaltern Studies and postcolonial
historiography. Nepanta: Views from the South, 1:9-32
Chakrabarty, D. 2002. Habitations of Modernity: Essays in
the Wake of Subaltern Studies. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Chaturvedi, V. 2000. Introduction. Pp. vii-xix in Mapping
Subaltern Studies and the Postcolonial, ed. V. Chatuverdi.
London: Verso.
28
Chilcote, R.H. 1984. Theories of Development and
Underdevelopment. New York: Sage.
Chowdhry, G. and Nair, S. 2002. Introduction: power in a
postcolonial world. Pp. 1-32 in Postcolonialism and
International Relations: Race, Gender and Class, eds. G.
Chowdhry and S. Nair. New York: Routledge.
Darby, P. 2004. Pursuing the political: a postcolonial
rethinking of relations international. Millennium, 33: 1-32.
Darby, P. and Paolini, A. J. 1994. Bridging international
relations and postcolonialism. Millennium, 19: 371-97.
Dirlik, A. 1994. The postcolonial aura: third world
criticism in an age of global capitalism. Critical Inquiry, 20,
328-56.
Dos Santos, T. 1970. The structure of dependence. American
Economic Review, 60: 231-6.
29
Doty, R. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of
Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Escobar, A. 1995. Encountering Development: The Making and
Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University.
Euben, R.L. 2002. Contingent borders, syncretic
perspectives: globalization, political theory and Islamizing
knowledge. International Studies Review, 4: 23-48.
Gandhi, Leela. 1998. Postcolonial Theory: A Critical
Introduction. New York: Columbia University Press.
Inayatullah, N. and Blaney, D. L. 2004. International
Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York and
London: Routledge.
30
Keohane, R. O. 1989. International Institutions and State
Power: Essays in International Relations Theory. Boulder and
London: Westview.
Krishna, S. 1993. The importance of being ironic: a
postcolonial view on critical international relations
theory. Alternatives 18: 385-417.
Krishna, S. 1999. Postcolonial Insecurities: India, Sri
Lanka, and the Question of Nationhood. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Manzo, K. 1991. Modernist discourse and the crisis of
development theory. Studies in Comparative International
Development, 26: 3-36.
Manzo, K. 1996. Creating Boundaries: The Politics of Race
and Nation. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
31
Manzo, K. 1999. The international imagination. Review of
International Studies, 25: 493-506.
Mitchell, T. 1998. Fixing the Economy. Cultural Studies, 12:
82-101.
Mitchell, T. 2000. The stage of modernity. Pp. 1-34 in
Questions of Modernity, ed. T. Mitchell. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Mongia, P. 1996. Contemporary Postcolonial Theory. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Muppidi, H. 2004. The Politics of the Global. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Murphy, C. 1984. The Emergence of the NIEO Ideology. Boulder
and London: Westview.
32
Pakenham, R. A. 1992. The Dependency Movement: Scholarship
and Politics in Development Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Palma, G. 1978. Dependency: a formal theory or
underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of
concrete situations of underdevelopment. World Development,
6: 881-924.
Paolini, A. J. 1999. Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism,
Identity and International Relations. Boulder: Lynne
Rienner.
Persaud, R. B. and Walker, R. B. J. eds. 2001. Special
Issue: Race in International Relations. Alternatives 26.
Pieterse, J. N. and Parekh, B. 1995. Shifting Imaginaries:
decolonization, internal decolonization, postcolinality. Pp.
1-9 in The Decolonization of Imagination: Culture,
33
Knowledge, Power, eds. J. N. Pieterse and B. Parekh. London:
Zed.
Sarkar, S. 2000. The decline of the subaltern in Subaltern
Studies. Pp. 300-323 in Mapping Subaltern Studies and the
Postcolonial, ed, V. Chaturvedi. London: Verso.
Slater, D. 2004. Geopolitics and the Post-colonial:
Rethinking North-South Relations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Snyder, Jack. 2004. One world, rival theories. Foreign
Policy November/December: 53-62.
Sunkel, O. 1969. National development policy and external
dependence in Latin America. Journal of Development Studies,
623-48.
Sunkel, O. 1973. Transnational capitalism and national
disintegration in Latin America. Social and Economic
Studies, 22: 132-76.
34
Thrift, N. 2000. Pandora’s box? Cultural geographies or
economies. Pp. 689-704 in The Oxford Handbook of Economic
Geography, eds. G. L. Clark, M. P. Feldman, and M. S.
Gertler. New York: Oxford.
Tickner, A. 2003. Seeing IR differently: notes from the
third world. Millennium, 32: 295-324.
Valenzuela, J.S. and Valenzuela, A. 1981. Modernization and
dependency: alternative perspectives in the study of Latin
American underdevelopment. Pp. 15-42 in From Dependency to
Development: Strategies to Overcome Underdevelopment and
Inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Walt, S. M. 1998. International relations: one world, many
theories. Foreign Policy Spring: 29-46.
Young, R. J. C. 2001. Postcolonialism: An Historical
Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
35