International Relations Theory; A Critical Introduction

“Cindy Weber’s International Relations Theory has always been both an impres-sive pedagogical tool and forward-thinking theoretically. Teaching it, I have found that the movie examples both make IR accessible to students and encourage them to engage; reading it, I have always learned something new. The new edition is no exception – it is groundbreaking theoretically, without peer pedagogically, engagingly written, and intellectually creative. I enthusiastically recommend its widespread use.”

–Laura Sjoberg, Royal Holloway University of London,UK and University of Florida, USA

“In this classic text, now in its fifth edition, Cynthia Weber’s approach to International Relations (IR) theory as and through myth, and her pairing of IR theories’ myths with film, continues to be as unique as it is important for the critical study of IR. The inclusion of a chapter on global LGBT theory and queer theory in this latest edition is a key addition that further highlights the originality of the text, but also speaks to its critical conceptual and political currency. No other IR textbook comes as close as International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (5th edition) in enabling students to think critically about their world.”

–Linea Cutter and François Debrix, Virginia Tech, USA

“Cynthia Weber’s International Relations Theory is an imaginative and innova-tive disquisition on the narratives and myths that have structured the discipline of International Relations and its theoretical developments. With each chapter, Weber disrupts conventional ‘truths’ about the discipline and inspires us to see, understand and grapple with the complexities of international politics in novel and creative ways. An essential resource for students and scholars of international relations alike.”

–Suwita Hani Randhawa, University of the West of England, UK

“Weber’s textbook leads the field in delivering the cutting edge content and cul-turally relevant teaching materials that today’s students demand. Using popu-lar films to illustrate IR theories is both appealing to students and pedagogically effective. Contributing both sophisticated and accessible analyses, this updated edition excels with a chapter on global queer theory and a companion website that is as good as it gets. What’s not to love?!”

–V Spike Peterson, Professor of International Relations,University of Arizona, USA.

https://taylorandfrancis.com

International Relations Theory

The fifth edition of this innovative textbook introduces students to the main theo-ries in International Relations. It explains and analyzes each theory, allowing stu-dents to understand and critically engage with the myths and assumptions behind them. Each theory is illustrated using the example of a popular film.

Key features of this textbook include:

• Discussion of all the main theories: realism and neorealism, idealism and neoidealism, liberalism, constructivism, postmodernism, gender, globaliza-tion, neo-Marxism, modernization and development theory, environmen-talism, anarchism, and queer theory.

• A new chapter focused on global LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans) theory and queer theory, Hillary Clinton’s policy myth that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights,” and the film Love is Strange.

• Innovative use of narrative from films that students will be familiar with: Lord of the Flies, Independence Day, Wag the Dog, Fatal Attraction, The Truman Show, East Is East, Memento, WALL-E, The Hunger Games, and Love is Strange.

• An accessible and exciting writing style, boxed key concepts, and guides for further reading.

• A comprehensive Companion Website featuring a complete set of lectures for every major theory and film covered in the textbook, additional work-shop and seminar exercises, slides to accompany each lecture, and an exten-sive bank of multiple-choice, short-answer, and essay questions and answers for every chapter.

This breakthrough textbook has been designed to unravel the complexities of international relations theory in a way that gives students a clearer idea of how the theories work, and of the myths associated with them.

Cynthia Weber is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Sussex, UK. She is the author of several books and numerous articles in the field of Inter-national Relations.

Praise for the previous editionCindy Weber’s International Relations Theory is an extraordinarily au courant text in terms of both its theoretical attunement and its attention to genre. While many IR texts fail to heed the pedagogical value of incorporating innovations in visual technologies and culture, Weber’s does so with nuanced presentations and inter-pretations, which she articulates skillfully with the text’s theoretical treatments. It is an outstanding resource for courses in international relations/studies.

Michael J. Shapiro, University of Hawai’i, Manoa, USA

Cynthia Weber’s new edition is good news for all of us—teachers and students. She manages here to enliven IR theories by making us all think afresh about the stories we tell ourselves and each other about international politics, and to take a closer look at the lessons we imagine our favorite stories yield.

Cynthia Enloe, author of Seriously! Investigating Crashes and Crises as If Women Mattered

International Relations

TheoryA Critical Introduction

Fifth Edition

Cynthia Weber

Fifth edition published 2020by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN

and by Routledge52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2021 Cynthia Weber

The right of Cynthia Weber 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.

First edition published by Routledge 2001Fourth edition published by Routledge 2013

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: Weber, Cynthia, author. Title: International relations theory : a critical introduction / Cynthia Weber. Description: Fifth edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020000638 (print) | LCCN 2020000639 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367442699 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367442712 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003008644 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: International relations–Philosophy. Classification: LCC JZ1305 .W43 2020 (print) | LCC JZ1305 (ebook) | DDC 327.101–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020000638LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020000639

ISBN: 978-0-367-44269-9 (hbk)ISBN: 978-0-367-44271-2 (pbk)ISBN: 978-1-003-00864-4 (ebk)

Typeset in Times NR MT Proby KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Visit the companion website: https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/_author/weber-9780367442699

https://lccn.loc.gov

https://lccn.loc.gov

https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/_author/weber-9780367442699

https://routledgetextbooks.com/textbooks/_author/weber-9780367442699

For Lyn and Charles Weber

and

for Bob DiClerico

Learning depends upon freeing the message from the constraints of the situation at hand.

Roland Barthes

i x

Contents

LIST OF FIGURES xiiiLIST OF TABLES xivLIST OF BOXES xviPREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION xviii

1 Introduction: culture, ideology, and the myth function in IR theory 1Culture 3

Ideology 4

The myth function in IR theory 6

Why myths? 7

Plan of the book 8

Suggestions for further thinking 10

Topic 1 Mythology as methodology 10

Topic 2 Culture, form, and IR theory 11

Topic 3 Thinking beyond film to other “other worlds” 12

2 Realism: is international anarchy the permissive cause of war? 15What does the myth say? 19

Lord of the Flies 24

The function of fear in Waltz’s anarchy myth 31


Topic 1 Neorealism 33

Topic 2 The uses of fear in IR theory 34

C o n t e n t s

x

Topic 3 The predictive power of realism?—from the Cold War to the War on Terror 35

Note on the US film of Lord of the Flies 36

3 Idealism: is there an international society? 39What does the myth say? 42

Independence Day 48

Fear and leadership in Independence Day 54


Topic 1 Cooperation under anarchy 58

Topic 2 Morality and ethics in IR 59

Topic 3 The Arab Spring as an ideal(ist) moment of mass communication 60

Media note 61

Classroom activity 61

4 Constructivism: is anarchy what states make of it? 63What does the myth say? 65

Wag the Dog 71

Practice, seduction, and dead authorship 77


Topic 1 Constructivism 80

Topic 2 Postmodernism 81

Topic 3 Practice theory and international relations 82

5 Gender: is gender a variable? 85What does the myth say? 88

Fatal Attraction 94

Placing feminism in IR? 100


Topic 1 Feminism 104

Topic 2 Masculinity 105

Topic 3 Queer international relations 106

6 Globalization: are we at the end of history? 109What does the myth say? 113

The Truman Show 118

Liberalism’s internal contradiction, or is the end ever really the end? 125


Topic 1 Globalization 127

C o n t e n t s

x i

Topic 2 The uses of history 128

Topic 3 Digital cultures, mediascapes, and surveillance 129

Topic 4 Biopolitics, the liberal subject, and martial politics 130

7 Neo-: is Empire the new world order? 133What does the myth say? 137

So what exactly is Empire? 138

Memento 144

Truth, ontology, and desire 152


Topic 1 Imperial IR 157

Topic 2 Memory in IR 158

Topic 3 Disciplining resistance 159

Topic 4 Liquid modernity 160

8 Modernization and development theory: is there a clash of civilizations? 163What does the myth say? 169

East Is East 175

Identity, desire, and culture 184


Topic 1 Critiques of modernization and development theory 186

Topic 2 Critiques of identity 187

Topic 3 Difference is dangerous 188

Topic 4 The politics of development aid: Making “Africa” 189

Postscript 189

9 Environmentalism: is human-made climate change an inconvenient truth? 191What does the myth say? 197

WALL-E 206

It’s not easy being Gore’s shade of green 213


Topic 1 Environmentalism and IR 215

Topic 2 Green governmentality 215

Topic 3 The Anthropocene 216

10 Anarchism: are we the 99 percent? 219What does the myth say? 222

The Hunger Games 229

C o n t e n t s

x i i

Are we the 99 percent? 238


Topic 1 Collective action, debt, and justice 240

Topic 2 Libertarianism, diplomacy, and war 241

Topic 3 New communisms 242

11 Global LGBT studies: are gay rights human rights, and are human rights gay rights? 245Queer IR theories 250

What does the myth say? 256

Love is Strange 263

Love is regulated 271


Topic 1 Postcolonial and Decolonial Queer IR 272

Topic 2 Thinking with and beyond (US) romantic love 274

12 Conclusion: what does it all mean? 277How IR theory makes sense of the world 278

Making sense of IR theory 283

The politics of the popular 286

Where does all of this leave us? 288

BIBLIOGRAPHY 289

INDEX 307

x i i i

Figures

3.1 Democratically organized state and society 463.2 Autocratically organized state and society 463.3 How does Wilson enact the “domestic analogy”? 473.4 How does Kegley enact the “domestic analogy”? 483.5 How US leadership is extended in Independence Day 574.1 Wendt’s constructivist bridge between neorealists and neoliberals 676.1 The Hegelian dialectic 1146.2 The dialectical struggle in “The Truman Show” 1237.1 The dialectical logic of Empire 1438.1 Structural-functional model 1668.2 Political development timeline 166

x i v

Tables

2.1 Realism vs. neorealism 17 2.2 Causes of war for Waltz 21 2.3 Waltzian neorealism 23 2.4 How does Lord of the Flies represent hierarchy and anarchy? 25 2.5 What is typical and what is deviant in the two worlds of Lord of the Flies? 26 2.6 The locations of fear in Lord of the Flies 33 3.1 Idealism 40 3.2 What can realism explain and what can’t realism explain? 42 3.3 How do Waltz and Kegley differently characterize international politics? 44 3.4 The heroes in Independence Day 50 4.1 What do neorealists and neoliberals agree and disagree about? 66 4.2 Three stories of international anarchy 70 4.3 What seems to be typical and deviant in the world of Wag the Dog? 75 4.4 Reconsidering what is typical and deviant in the world of Wag the Dog 78 4.5 Advantages and disadvantages of the Wendtian compromise 80 5.1 What is feminism for Jones? 89 5.2 How have feminists made use of the gender variable? 90 5.3 How should feminists and nonfeminists use the gender

variable in the future? 92 5.4 Jones’s characterization of feminism vs. Peterson’s

characterization of feminism 94 5.5 The place of woman in Fatal Attraction 98 5.6 What is typical and what is deviant in the world of Fatal Attraction? 99 5.7 Gendered perspectives in Fatal Attraction and traditional IR theory 101 6.1 Neoliberal and historical materialist takes on globalization 111 6.2 Hegelian and Marxist understandings of history 115 6.3 Ideological challengers to liberalism 116 6.4 What is typical and deviant in the historical world of the

television program “The Truman Show”? 123 6.5 What is typical and deviant in the posthistorical world

of the film The Truman Show? 125

t a b l e s

x v

7.1 Marx’s vs. Hardt and Negri’s understanding of history 135 7.2 Modernism vs. postmodernism 143 7.3 What is typical and deviant in the world of Memento? 148 8.1 Assumptions of political development 167 8.2 What is typical and deviant in the world of East Is East? 181 9.1 Gore’s idealist assumptions 193 10.1 Differences in how IR theorists and anarchists value states and anarchy 223 10.2 Three basic assumptions of anarchism 224 10.3 Key concepts of (new) anarchism 22510.4 How to understand Katniss Everdeen 235 11.1 Differences between global LGBT Studies and Queer IR 249 12.1 How does IR theory make sense of the world? 279 12.2 What is typical and deviant for IR theory? 283 12.3 IR theory’s myth function 285

x v i

Boxes

1.1 What is culture? 3 1.2 What is ideology? 5 1.3 Examples of conscious and unconscious ideologies 5 1.4 What is an IR myth? 6 1.5 What is the myth function in IR theory? 7 2.1 Three assumptions of the international anarchy myth 16 2.2 Where does fear figure in Waltz’s myth as enacted in Lord of the Flies? 29 3.1 What is typical in the world of Independence Day? 51 3.2 What is deviant in the world of Independence Day? 53 4.1 What’s wrong with rationalism? 67 4.2 Three fundamental principles of constructivist social theory 69 4.3 How does Wag the Dog make sense of the world? 74 5.1 What would it mean for gender to be a variable? 87 5.2 How does Fatal Attraction make sense of the world? 97 5.3 The “wrong” questions feminism asks of traditional IR theory 102 7.1 What Empire is and isn’t 138 7.2 Who are the multitude? 142 7.3 How Memento makes sense of the world 148 8.1 How East Is East makes sense of the world 178 9.1 The core premise of environmental/green theory 194 9.2 What An Inconvenient Truth says and how it says it 200 9.3 What An Inconvenient Truth does not say and how it does not say it 201 9.4 How does the film WALL-E make sense of the world? 209 9.5 What is typical in the world of WALL-E? 210 9.6 What is deviant in the world of WALL-E? 211 9.7 What must go without saying in order for Gore’s myth

to appear to be true? 212 10.1 What is typical in the world of The Hunger Games 232 10.2 What is deviant in the world of The Hunger Games 232 10.3 What must go without saying for the myth “We are

the 99 percent” to appear to be true 239

b o x e s

x v i i

11.1 How are understandings of sexes, genders, and sexualities naturalized so they can inform IR theories and policies? 251

11.2 What is heteronormativity? 251 11.3 What is homonormativity? 252 11.4 Who is Clinton’s “the LGBT”? 259 11.5 Who is Clinton’s “LGBT in the shadows”? 261 11.6 How are Clinton’s “the LGBT” and “the LGBT

in the shadows” internationalized? 262 11.7 How does the film make sense of the world? 265 11.8 Typical and deviant 265 12.1 Why pair IR theory with popular films? 287

x v i i i

Preface to the fifth edition

This new edition has its origins in the 2009 International Studies Conference. There, in the lobby of a Time Square hotel, I met Laura Sjoberg for the first time. Laura and Ann Tickner had asked me if I might be writing a book that would be appropriate for a book series they were proposing. I had arranged to meet Laura to pitch her my book idea. Going into that meeting, I had two firmly held ideas: my proposed book would be perfect for this series, but it would be a hard sell to the series editors. It seems the editors agreed with me on the first point, but not the second. To my surprise, Laura, Ann, and the Oxford University Press series edi-tor Angela Chnapko embraced and supported the project from start to finish. It took me 7 years to see the project through to publication, which finally appeared in 2016 as Queer International Relations: Sovereignty, Sexuality and the Will to Knowledge.

One of the things that gave Queer International Relations legitimacy amongst IR academics and policymakers was the fact that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had in a sense made the case for it in 2011. That’s when Clinton gave her famous “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” speech. By elevating gay rights as human rights to a central component of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy, Clinton’s speech offered a clear example of how gender, sex, and sexuality were central issues in the study and conduct of interna-tional politics, which required Queer IR investigations and analyses.

Of course, Clinton’s speech didn’t come out of nowhere. It was proceeded by decades of on-the-ground activist work by gender variant, gender nonconform-ing, and gender expanding people and their allies to secure recognition and rights for what Clinton called “LGBTs” (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans people) and for other gender and sexually minoritized people. And it was rooted in academic arguments coming from what has come to be called Global LGBT Studies.

Yet as welcome as Clinton’s championing of gay rights as human rights is, many people argue that it does not go far enough. This view is borne out by the empirical evidence which shows that Clinton’s “LGBTs” are a select and narrow slice of gender variant, gender nonconforming, and gender expanding people. Indeed, as many activists and scholars have pointed out, Clinton’s “LGBT” is

P r e f a C e t o t h e f i f t h e d i t i o n

x i x

typically a white, able-bodied, bourgeois, properly masculine, usually Christian, and almost always cisgendered Westerner. Because Clinton’s “LGBT” is so nar-rowly conceived, Clinton’s speech primarily helps to secure rights for who she calls “LGBTs,” but it doesn’t necessarily do the same for those gender and sex-ually minoritized people who do not fit Clinton’s implicit understanding of “the LGBT.” What this means is that Clinton’s speech gave us the IR myth that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights,” without this myth being fully realized in practice.

The argument this edition of International Relations Theory makes is this: As important as Global LGBT Studies are for IR (and my view is that they are vitally important), they cannot fully correct the shortcomings of Clinton’s myth because Global LGBT Studies is the intellectual tradition that generated these shortcomings. If we want to understand the limitations of Clinton’s call for gay rights as human rights, and if we want to correct some of these limitations, then we need to use a Queer International Relations perspective to do so. This is because the things a Global LGBT Studies perspective takes as its intellectual and political foundations are the very things a Queer IR perspective critically interrogates and reworks. What helps us see these shortcomings is the film Love is Strange, which traces how the lives of a New York City cis-gay couple fall apart when they exer-cise their gay right and human right to marry.

Of course, a Queer IR perspective in and of itself is insufficient to tackle all of the issues Clinton’s speech raises. Critiques of Clinton’s myth need to be intersectional, meaning they need to take seriously how not just gender, sex, and sexuality function in international politics but how gender, sex, and sexuality are always part and parcel of power relations intertwined to differing effect around race, class, (settler)coloniality, religion, and (de)bility, for example. In this respect, IR scholars and practitioners need to utilize IR theories that do not just rightly call the discipline of IR to account for its foundational racism (Vitalis, 2015) but that also aim to bring into being postcolonial and decolonized IRs (pretty much everything Lily Ling ever wrote, as well as the work of Robbie Shilliam, Alexander Anievas, and Meera Sabaratnam, for example). This work is essential to Queer IR analyses, as Anna Agathangelou, Rahul Rao, Melanie Richter-Montpetit, Darcy Leigh, Razan Ghazzawi, Amira Abdelhamid, and may more Queer IR scholars teach us. All of their insights contributed to this edition.

Like so much of my work, this new chapter and my broader work on Queer IR is as deeply rooted in the pathbreaking work of my long-ago PhD supervisor Rick Ashley as it is in queer theory. While Rick’s work on “statecraft as man-craft” is not made explicit in this new chapter, it is one of the primary intellec-tual foundations of the piece. Neither this chapter nor much else I’ve ever written would have been possible without Rick’s pathbreaking work. I also benefited from the careful reading of the new chapter by Darcy Leigh, Spike Peterson, and five anonymous referees. Darcy and Spike were supportive in other ways throughout, for which I am grateful. And, of course, the new work wouldn’t exist without the project’s initial support by Laura Sjoberg, Ann Tickner, and Angela Chnapko. But my biggest debt for this edition is owed to Laura Jung, who not only oversaw the revisions for the entire edition and its online materials, while writing new lec-tures and exams for the textbook’s complementary website; she also pushed me to rethink and clarify my framing of the new chapter, making it much stronger

P r e f a C e t o t h e f i f t h e d i t i o n

x x

as a result. Consultations with her proved—as always—to be both delightful and insightful. All of these people were very patient with me, as intermittent peri-ods of ill health and a debilitating accident stalled the completion of this edition for several years. My editor Rob Sorsby deserves recognition on this score, as does Anne-Marie Fortier, whose care, humor, and intellectual stimulation saw me through these difficult years. I thank them all.

The person I’ve missed the most while finishing this new edition is my dear friend Lily Ling, who passed away in 2018. Lily and I met when we were both newly appointed to our first jobs. Throughout my entire professional life, I have benefited from Lily’s generous and innovative intellect. Her support of my Queer IR work was just one instance of her many kindnesses to me, for example, when she enthusiastically organized the US launch of the book at the New School on short notice. Lily was one of my most trusted readers and conversationalists. It was at times unbearable finishing the new chapter without her. I am lucky to have had her as a colleague and friend, and I will carry the personal, political, and intellectual lessons she taught me with me always. This one’s for you, Lily.

1

C h a p t e r 1

IntroductionCulture, ideology, and the myth function in IR theory

Culture 3Ideology 4The myth function in IR theory 6Why myths? 7Plan of the book 8Suggestions for further thinking 10

2

i n t r o d u C t i o n

International politics is a huge field. It explores everything from wars to revolu-tions to global gender inequalities to demands for international human rights to international trade. To try to make sense of international politics, we often turn to International Relations (IR) theory. IR theory makes organizing generalizations about international politics. IR theory is a collection of stories about the world of international politics. And in telling stories about international politics, IR the-ory doesn’t just present what is going on in the world out there, but it also imposes its own vision of what the world out there looks like.

We use IR theory to make sense of the world of international politics. But how do we make sense of IR theory? Of course, we can learn all the stories IR theory tells us about the world. We call these stories IR traditions and name them neorealism, neoidealism, historical materialism, constructivism, gender, globali-zation, neo-Marxism, modernization and development theory, environmental-ism, anarchism, and global LGBT studies. But just learning the stories IR theory tells doesn’t tell us much about IR theory itself. It doesn’t tell us, for example, how IR theory works. What makes the stories IR theory tells about international politics so compelling? What makes the stories IR theory tells about the world of international politics appear to be true?

My answer is that IR theory—a collection of stories about international politics—relies upon IR myths in order to appear to be true. What is an IR myth? An IR myth is an apparent truth, usually expressed in slogan form that an IR theory relies upon in order to appear to be true. IR myths, in other words, are the building blocks of IR theory, of the stories IR theory tells about the world of international politics. They are that part of the story that is so familiar to us that we take it for granted. And our taking IR myths for granted is necessary for IR theories to appear to be true.

For example, think of the slogans “international anarchy is the permissive cause of war” and “there is an international society.” Such slogans are IR myths. Realists rely upon the knowledge that “international anarchy is the permissive cause of war” to explain why sovereign nation-states inevitably find themselves in conflict with one another and why balance of power politics is the key to man-aging such conflict. Idealists, in contrast, rely upon the knowledge that “there is an international society” in order for them to be able to tell their stories about progress among sovereign nation-states on a global scale to the point that conflict among them might be transcended. If we questioned these IR myths, then the sto-ries told by IR traditions like realism and idealism would not necessarily appear to be true.

Why do I refer to these building blocks of IR theory as IR myths? Is it because I believe that IR myths—like myths generally—are false? Absolutely not! IR myths may be true, and they may be false. The truth or falsity of an IR myth is not important for understanding how IR myths function as the building blocks of IR theory. So why call the building blocks of IR stories IR myths? I call them IR myths because of the “mythologizing function” or “myth function” they perform. It is the myth function of these building blocks of IR theory that makes the stories told by IR theory appear to be true.

What is the myth function in IR theory? How do IR myths make an IR the-ory appear to be true? And why is it important for us to study the process by which IR myths make IR theories appear to be true?

3


These are the questions I address in this chapter. I do so by considering IR theory’s relationship to three concepts—culture, ideology, and the myth function in IR theory.

Raymond Williams, a pioneer in the field of cultural studies and cultural theory, noted of the term culture that it is “one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language” (Williams, 1983: 87). Williams has a point. Culture is one of those terms that everyone seems to understand, but no one seems to be able adequately to define.

Often, when we think of culture, we think of traditional arrangements within particular states or societies. For example, we may say that there is something called US culture or UK culture. But this way of thinking about culture suggests that there is something stable, identifiable, and generalizable that we can point to as a culture. When we unpack a term like “US culture,” we find so many contra-dictions, incompatibilities, and complexities within it that the term itself seems to mean little. For example, how can we meaningfully make sense of the militia move-ment, the religious right, rugged individualism, and anticapitalism not to mention regional, rural, class, race, sexuality, and age “subcultures” collected under the one term “US culture?” Not very easily.

For this reason, theorists who think about what culture is have tried to come up with less static and more open definitions of culture. These definitions focus on how culture is related to meaning rather than trying to pin culture to a particular place at a particular time, like the contemporary US (see Box 1.1). According to Stuart Hall, this is because “culture … is not so much a set of things—novels and paintings or TV programmes and comics—as a process, a set of practices,” what others have called “signifying practices” (Hall, 1997: 2; Storey, 2012: 2). For Hall, “culture is concerned with the production and the exchange of meanings—the ‘giving and taking of meaning’—between members of a society or group” (1997: 2). Or, as John Hartley defines it, culture is “The social production and reproduction of sense, meaning, and consciousness” (in O’Sullivan et al., 1994: 68). Culture has to do with how we make sense of the world and how we produce, reproduce, and circulate that sense.

Culture

Box 1.1 What is culture?

“Culture is concerned with the production and exchange of meanings—the ‘giving and taking of meaning’—between members of a society or group” (Hall, 1997).

“The social production and reproduction of sense, meaning, and consciousness” (John Hartley, in O’Sullivan et al., 1994).

“An ensemble of stories we tell about ourselves” (Geertz, 1975).

4


We circulate our sense about the world in many ways, and one of the ways we do this is through stories. This is why another cultural theorist, Clifford Geertz, described culture as “an ensemble of stories we tell about ourselves” (Geertz, 1975: 448). For Geertz, these stories are not always conscious. They can be com-posed of beliefs we consciously hold as well as of habits we unconsciously per-form. Cultural stories are composed of both sense (consciousness) and common sense (unconsciousness). Common sense is what we know but don’t think about, what Roland Barthes described as “what-goes-without-saying” (Barthes, 1972: 11).

Studying culture understood as “sense making,” “signifying practices,” or “an ensemble of stories, beliefs, and habits” means we have to pay attention to how meanings are made. We must think about how meaning making relies upon what is said and what goes without saying. And we must recognize that cultures aren’t just “there,” fully formed for us to study. Indeed, it may be impossible for us to identify “cultures” as objects of study at all. Studying culture means looking at how what we objectify as “culture” is made. And part of what makes culture and helps to distinguish some “cultures” from other “cultures” are cultural prac-tices that produce, organize, and circulate meanings through stories told about the world.

IR theory can be studied as a site of cultural practice. IR theory is “an ensem-ble of stories” told about the world it studies, which is the world of international politics. Studying IR theory as a site of cultural practice means being attentive to how IR theory makes sense of the world of international politics. We have to ask of IR theory: How do the stories it tells about the world of international politics become sense and common sense? And why do we take for granted the sense IR theory makes of our lives in relation to international politics?

My answer to these questions is that IR theory relies upon IR myths in order to transform its culturally produced stories about the world into common sense about the world that we take for granted. But before we explore this process in detail, let me introduce another important concept that plays a part in this process. This concept is ideology.

Unlike the term culture, ideology is a term for which formal definitions confi-dently abound (see Box 1.2). The most common way ideology is defined is as “a fairly coherent and comprehensive set of ideas that explains and evaluates social conditions, helps people understand their place in society, and provides a program for social and political action” (Ball and Dagger, 1995: 9). It is a ready-made set of meanings and interpretations that can help us to make sense of our world and tell us how to act in relation to our world.

This way of defining ideology assumes that all ideologies are consciously held. And many are. Examples of “conscious ideologies” are liberalism, conserv-atism, socialism, feminism, ecologism, and even vegetarianism. Conscious ideolo-gies are easily identifiable. We know what they are, and we can subscribe to them or reject them.

While conscious ideologies like liberalism and conservatism are powerful because they can politically mobilize people and “raise consciousness” about political situations, another type of ideologies—“unconscious ideologies”—are

Ideology

5


arguably even more politically powerful. Unlike neatly packaged, easily identifia-ble, named ideologies, unconscious ideologies lack proper names. This makes us less likely to be able to identify them as ideologies. This is why they are also called “anonymous ideologies” (Barthes, 1972).

An example of an unconscious ideology is “boys will be boys.” It would be difficult to attribute this ideology to anyone, in particular, both because no one person or one ideological tradition claims it as their own and because it appears to those who hold it to be “just the way things are” or the way things ought to be. In this sense, unconscious ideologies are “profoundly unconscious” (Althusser, 1969). We use them to help us make sense of our worlds, very often without realiz-ing it. And because we don’t realize we hold unconscious ideologies or use them to make sense of our worlds, we very rarely interrogate them. We very rarely ask dif-ficult questions about them that might upset them as common sense (see Box 1.3).

If conscious ideologies are those ideologies packaged as programs for polit-ical action that we debate in the political arena, unconscious ideologies are the foundations of our ideological and political thinking that we place beyond debate. Unconscious ideologies, in other words, “go without saying.” We don’t like to have our unconscious ideologies—our common sense—articulated, much less ques-tioned. When they are, our way of making sense of the world is potentially threatened.

How is ideology related to culture? If culture is a site of meaning produc-tion, ideology is a site where meanings that are culturally produced are trans-formed into just the way things are or the way things ought to be. Some of this is done explicitly. For example, if you declare your allegiance to a particular named

Box 1.2 What is ideology?

Conscious ideology: “a fairly coherent and comprehensive set of ideas that explains and evaluates social conditions, helps people understand their place in society, and provides a program for social and political action” (Ball and Dagger, 1995).

Unconscious ideology: ideology that is not formally named and that is therefore difficult to identify. It is the common sense foundation of our worldviews that is beyond debate.

Box 1.3 Examples of conscious and unconscious ideologies

Conscious ideologies Unconscious ideologies

Liberalism Boys will be boys

Conservatism America has a classless society

Socialism English people are white

Feminism Everyone I know is straight

6


conscious ideology like conservatism, you are declaring that conservatism really truly describes how the world is and how it ought to be. You are consciously trans-forming your cultural views about the world into the view of the world as it natu-rally is.

But a lot of the transformation from the cultural to the ideological goes with-out saying because it employs anonymous, unconscious ideologies. In this respect, unconscious ideologies are akin to cultural habits. We enact them all the time without thinking about them. And, in the case of unconscious ideologies, these unconscious habits in our thinking transform what is cultural or produced into what appears to be natural or just the way things are (Barthes, 1972).

It is this process of transforming meanings from cultural to natural that I want to explore in relation to IR theory and IR myths. And it is this process that is explained through the myth function in IR theory.

IR theory is a site of cultural practice in which conscious and unconscious ideolo-gies are circulated through stories that appear to be true. The stories we recognize and hold consciously we call IR traditions (like realism and idealism). The stories we don’t recognize as ideologies because we don’t have names for them and hold unconsciously I call IR myths (like “international anarchy is the permissive cause of war” and “there is an international society”) (see Box 1.4).

While we debate the “truth” of IR stories organized into IR tradition, we rarely reflect on what makes these stories seem to make so much sense. In other words, we rarely consider how unconscious ideologies or IR myths function in these stories called IR traditions. Rather, we generally accept IR myths as forth-right expressions of how the world works, and we allow these IR myths to function as the building blocks of IR traditions that narrate complicated explanations of how the world is and how it ought to be (see Box 1.5).

If IR theory narrates a particular view of the world from the perspective of various IR traditions, an IR myth is what helps make a particular view of the world appear to be true. The myth function in IR theory is the transformation of what is particular, cultural, and ideological (like a story told by an IR tradition) into what appears to be universal, natural, and purely empirical. It is naturalizing meanings—making them into common sense—that are the products of cultural practices (Barthes, 1972). Put another way, the myth function in IR theory is mak-ing a “fact” out of an interpretation.

The myth function in IR theory

Box 1.4 What is an IR myth?

An IR myth is an apparent truth, usually expressed as a slogan, that an IR theory or tradition (like realism or idealism) relies upon in order to appear to be true.

Examples: “international anarchy is the permissive cause of war” and “there is an international society.”

7


Why describe this process as the myth function in IR theory? Because this process of making what is cultural and disputed into what is natural and therefore goes without saying is the work or the function IR myths perform in IR theory.

Analyzing how these transformations from cultural meanings into natural-ized facts occur in our everyday encounters with IR theory is the purpose of this book. And by undertaking this analysis, we are not only examining the inter-sections of IR theory and everyday cultural practices, we are also analyzing the intersections of IR theory and political power. Why is this the case?

Transforming the cultural into the natural is a highly political practice that depends upon all sorts of complex configurations of power. Precisely how power works to mythologize something cultural into something natural varies from con-text to context. But in a general sense, power works through myths by appearing to take the political out of the ideological. This is because something that appears to be natural and unalterable also appears to be apolitical. Yet these sorts of “natu-ral facts” are arguably the most intensely political stories of all, not just because of what they say (what the specific myth is) but because of what they do (they remove themselves and the tradition they support from political debate). This is why Barthes refers to myths as “depoliticized speech” (Barthes, 1972).

“Re-politicizing” IR theory and IR myths requires us to suspend our inter-est in the “truth” of IR theory (whether or not a specific theoretical interpretation is really right or wrong), so we can refocus our attention on how cultural configu-rations of power and ideology make a theory or story appear to be true.

Why focus our attention on IR myths? Why disrupt our sacred IR stories by pro-claiming them to be composed of myths? And why consider the myth function in IR theory? Is the point to rid IR theory of culture and ideology? Certainly not! Cultural practices will always mediate our encounters with the so-called “facts” of international politics. And ideologies will always force us to consider questions of truth.

Asking questions about what makes IR theories function as if they were true is not the same thing as asking us to abandon our beloved myths. Nor does it amount to exposing IR myths as false because the truth or falsity of an IR myth can never be validated or invalidated. That’s part of what makes it so powerful. By asking questions about the myth function in IR theory, we will not lose our precious IR myths. Rather, these IR myths bound up in IR theories will lose some of their apparent truth. They will return to the realms of interpretation,

Why myths?

Box 1.5 What is the myth function in IR theory?

The myth function in IR theory is the transformation of what is particular, cultural, and ideological (like a story told by an IR tradition) into what appears to be universal, natural, and purely empirical.

Cultural interpretation → Myth function → “Natural fact”

8


culture, and ideology and cease to make unopposed claims to a status as com-mon sense, natural, or purely empirical. In other words, IR myths will return to the realm of the political where what they say and what they do can be analyzed and debated.

By disrupting the apparent truth of IR myths, opportunities arise for new theories of IR to be written. Yet these, too, will be myths. So why bother interro-gating the myth function in IR theory if we will never escape it? The answer to this question is in the question itself. Because we will never escape the myth function in IR theory, we had better interrogate it. We had better prepare ourselves to be the best critical readers of IR myths we possibly can be. Otherwise, we will just be repeating cherished stories about IR without grasping what makes these stories appear to be true, without appreciating what makes them function. We will be circulating a particular way of making sense of the world without knowing how to make sense of that sense. That would make us look pretty naive.

In the following chapters, we will interrogate the myth function in IR theory by addressing three aspects of everyday IR myths:

1 What does the myth say?Before we can analyze critically how a myth works (its function), we must first be familiar with what the myth says (its content). We will do four things to help us understand the content of each myth:

a select a classic IR or a contemporary global policy text that uses the myth

b situate the IR/global policy text in its particular IR tradition (like realism or idealism)

c summarize the textd explore how the IR/global policy text makes use of the IR mythFor example, for the IR myth “international anarchy is the permissive cause of war,” we will do the following four things: select Kenneth Waltz’s texts Man, the State, and War and Theory of International Politics, situate them in relation to the IR traditions of realism and neorealism, summarize their main arguments, and explore how they use the IR myth “international anar-chy is the permissive cause of war.”

2 How does the myth function?If the myth function in IR theory is to succeed, it has to be invisible. We have to forget it is even taking place that cultural meanings are being trans-formed into common sense. And, in all of the IR myths explored in this book, the myth function in IR theory is extremely successful. But this pre-sents us with a problem. How can we identify the myth function in IR the-ory? And how can we critically analyze the myth function in IR theory if IR theory does such a good job of explaining our world to us—to the point that we believe IR myths are true and the worlds they help to create are just the way things are?

Plan of the book

9


One answer is to think about IR theory in relation to “other worlds.” As critical readers of myths, we are more likely to recognize and be able to interrogate myths in worlds in which we do not live—other “cultures,” other times, other locations. But where can we find “other worlds” that are both different enough to our own so that we can critically read the myths in them and similar enough to our own so that we can identify with them enough for them to make sense to us?

My answer is to look to popular films for these “other worlds.” Popular films provide us with ready-made, somewhat delimited “other worlds.” In the vast cinemascapes of popular culture, there is no shortage of worlds for us to view critically. Even if a film is set in our “culture,” in our sovereign nation-state, and in our times, the world the film presents is not “our” world, for we do not occupy this cinemascape. Yet because the film tries to depict our world, we usually understand this “other world” and identify with it. This gap between occupying a cinematic world and identifying with it ena-bles us to critically read “other worlds” and the myths in them.

Another reason for turning to popular films is because they are one of the narrative spaces of visual culture. They are a way in which stories get told in visual culture. Nicholas Mirzoeff argues that “visual culture used to be seen as a distraction from the serious business of text and history. It is now the locus of cultural and historical change” (1999: 31). If that is the case, we had better learn how to read visual culture and the transformative processes that occur within it.

Accessing visual culture through popular films allows us to consider the connections between IR theory and our everyday lives. Using popular films in this way helps us to get a sense of the everyday connections between “the popular” and “the political.” We can see, for example, how IR myths become everyday IR myths—because they are circulated, received, and crit-icized in and through everyday, popular forms like films.

Drawing upon these ideas, we will interrogate the myth function in IR theory by doing three things:

a select a film that illustrates the myth function in a particular IR myth;

b summarize the film; andc relate the film to the IR myth. Here we will ask two important

questions:

• How does the film make sense of the world (Dyer, 1985)?• What does the film say is typical and deviant in that world (Dyer,

1985)?

The popular films used to explore the myth function in IR theory are: Lord of the Flies, Independence Day, Wag the Dog, Fatal Attraction, The Truman Show, Memento, East is East, WALL-E, The Hunger Games, and Love is Strange. Lord of the Flies reconsiders the realist/neorealist myth “interna-tional anarchy is the permissive cause of war”; Independence Day looks at the idealist myth “there is an international society”; Wag the Dog offers insights into the constructivist myth “anarchy is what states make of it” and introduces us to the social constructivist/poststructuralist debate; Fatal

1 0


Attraction illustrates and critiques the gender myth “gender is a variable” while exploring the gender/feminist debate; The Truman Show demonstrates how the neoliberal myth “it is the end of history” makes neoliberal theories of globalization function at the expense of historical materialist theories of globalization; Memento explores how the neo-Marxist myth “Empire is the new world order” selectively remembers the neo-Marxist/postmodern-ist debate; East is East questions the notion of “civilizations” upon which the myth “there is a clash of civilizations” depends; WALL-E explores just how convenient or inconvenient combating human-made climate change is, for whom, and with what environmental (and environmentalist) conse-quences; The Hunger Games reconsiders the new anarchist understanding of debt and its new myth “We are the 99 percent”; and Love is Strange queries whether homosexuals are really accepted as universally and unequivocally as Hillary Clinton’s myth “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights” suggests.

3 What does this critical analysis of the myth function in IR theory tell us about IR theory culturally, ideologically, and popularly?

This question will be considered in the conclusion by asking two ques-tions that take us directly to the power politics of IR theory:

• How does IR theory make sense of the world?• What does IR theory say is typical and deviant in that world?

These questions take us to the heart of how IR theory produces and circu-lates meanings about international politics. They also point to the relation-ships among the politics of IR theory, the politics of the popular, and the politics of storytelling.

Suggestions for further thinking

Topic 1: Mythology as methodology

Roland Barthes proposed semiology as a methodology for exploring the ideolog-ical function of myths in his book Mythologies. While his early work focused on exposing and putting right the “ideological abuse” hidden in myths (and especially in “bourgeois norms”), Barthes’ later work explored more complex ways of think-ing about how meanings are pluralized through reading and writing. Reading Barthes’ early work on myths through his later writings, like S/Z, produces what Laura Kipnis calls a “postmodernized Barthes.” It is a postmodernized Barthes who Craig Saper constructs and deploys in his book Artificial Mythologies. It is a similarly postmodernized Barthes who informs my reading of IR myths. For a sense of how to apply some of these ideas to reading films, James Monaco’s chap-ter on signs and syntax is helpful.

Suggested reading

Barthes, Roland (1972) “Myth Today,” in Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers. New York: The Noonday Press.

11


Barthes, Roland (1974) S/Z: An Essay, trans. Richard Miller. New York: Hill and Wang, pp. 3–16.

Monaco, James (2000) “The Language of Film: Signs and Syntax,” in How to Read a Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 152–225.

Saper, Craig (1997) “Introduction,” in Artificial Mythologies. See also the “Preface” by Laura Kipnis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Topic 2: Culture, form, and IR theory

The conversation about “cultures” is an old one in international politics, espe-cially in those variants of international studies that tend toward what might be called “area studies”—studies of particular regions of the world. Some very rigid ways of thinking about culture continue to be circulated in IR theory, especially in the wake of the end of the Cold War, as the work of Samuel Huntington illus-trates (see Chapter 8).

Another strain of discussions involves critical ways of thinking about cul-ture, cultural forms, and their relationships to IR theory. Some of these have been ushered into the field of international studies. Thanks to critical ways of thinking about identity politics. Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil, for example, chal-lenge IR theorists to change their conceptualizations of IR theory by “adding” a critical conception of culture to their work. Scholars working in a postcolonial tradition have challenged a culture of IR that treats race, racism, and coloniality as a (regrettable) byproduct of both scholarship and statecraft, with especially Robert Vitalis’s excavation of IR’s disciplinary origins in analyses of so-called “race relations” and colonial administration being groundbreaking in this regard (2015). Meera Sabaratnam (2011) has formulated specific methodological tools for crafting alternative—decolonized—cultures of IR.

Another position, expressed by Roland Bleiker, is less concerned with revis-ing the content of IR theory through the inclusion of critical considerations of cul-ture than it is with thinking about how different cultural forms, like poetry, offer us ways not to “add” culture or cultural forms to IR theory but to move beyond the tired debates that traditional expressions of IR theory require. Following the lead of Michael Shapiro’s work that takes IR debates about culture beyond the nation-state and into cinematic states, Francois Debrix and Cynthia Weber (2003) carry the discussion of culture to transnational spaces while Jutta Weldes takes it out of this world altogether. For a general review of the turn to Pop IR, see Grayson et al. (2009), and for more methodological resources “after the aesthetic turn,” see Shapiro (2012).

Suggested reading

Bleiker, Roland (1997) “Forget IR Theory,” Alternatives 22(1): 57–85.

Debrix, Francois and Cynthia Weber (eds) (2003) Rituals of Mediation: International Politics and Social Meanings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Grayson, Kyle, Matt Davies, and Simon Philpott (2009) “Pop Goes IR? Researching the Popular Culture—World Politics Continuum,” Politics 29(3): 155–163.

1 2


Lapid, Yosef and Friedrich Kratochwil (eds) (1996) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Sabaratnam, Meera (2011) “IR in Dialogue… But Can We Change the Subjects? A Typology of Decolonising Strategies for the Study of World Politics,” Millennium 39(3): 781–803.

Shapiro, Michael (1997) Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Shapiro, Michael (1999) Cinematic Political Thought: Narrating Race, Nation and Gender. New York: New York University Press.

Shapiro, Michael (2012) Studies in TransDisciplinary Methods: After the Aesthetic Turn. London: Routledge.

Shapiro, Michael (2019) The Cinematic Political: Film Composition as Political Theory. London: Routledge.

Vitalis, Robert (1996) “White World Order,” in Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Weldes, Jutta (ed.) (2003) To Seek Out New Worlds: Exploring Links between Science Fiction and World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Topic 3: Thinking beyond film to other “other worlds”

IR literatures on popular films have proliferated since Shapiro’s groundbreaking work (see, e.g., Grayson, 2013; Harmon, 2019; Weber, 2006). But popular films are not the only “other worlds” that can be used to interrogate IR mythmaking. Indeed, popular culture offers a wide range of additional “other worlds”—from video games to television shows to architecture and design to art exhibitions to sporting events to photographs, poems, novels, and even travel writing. Like films, these works can offer us unique worlds that are close enough to our own to make sense to us, while different enough from our own to allow us to think criti-cally about how the myths they produce and circulate make their worlds and our worlds function.

Debbie Lisle’s work on contemporary travel writing in Lonely Planet guide-books that construct myths about the colonial “other” (2006) and her work on war and tourism (2016) are cases in point. Mark Salter’s investigation of “the geo-political imagination of video games” is another illustration. Salter thinks about how video games can be useful as we grapple with how contemporary geopolitics functions in relation to diplomacy. Kyle Grayson’s reading of the television show Breaking Bad, LHM Ling’s work on fairy tales, Mark Lacy’s examination of the security politics in design, and Tim Luke’s (2002) and Christine Sylvester’s (2009) numerous works on the international politics of the “world” of museums and art offer additional examples. For an excellent example of how visual politics more generally is taken up by IR scholars, see Roland Bleiker’s (2018) Visual Global Politics.

Suggested reading

Bleiker, Roland (ed.) (2018) Visual Global Politics. London: Routledge.

1 3


Grayson, Kyle (2013) “How to Read Paddington Bear: Liberalism and the Foreign Subject in A Bear Called Paddington,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 15(3): 78–393.

Grayson, Kyle (2017) “Capturing the Multiplicities of Resilience Through Popular Geopolitics: Aesthetics and Homo Resilio in Breaking Bad,” Political Geography 57: 24–33.

Harman, Sophie (2019) Seeing Politics: Film, Visual Method, and International Relations. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

Lacy, Mark (2008) “Designer Security: Control Society and MoMA’s SAFE: Design Takes on Risk,” Security Dialogue 39(2–3): 333–357.

Ling, Lily H.M. (2014) Imagining World Politics: Sihar & Shenya, a Fable for Our Times. London: Routledge.

Lisle, Debbie (2006) The Global Politics of Contemporary Travel Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lisle, Debbie (2016) Holidays in the Danger Zone: Entanglements of War and Tourism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Luke, Timothy W. (2002) Museum Politics: Power Plays at the Exhibition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Salter, Mark B. (2011) “The Geographical Imaginations of Video Games: Diplomacy, Civilization, America’s Army and Grand Theft Auto IV,” Geopolitics 16(2): 359–388.

Sylvester, Christine (2009) Art/Museums: International Relations Where We Least Expect It. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Pub.

Weber, Cynthia (2006) Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics and Film. London: Routledge.

BibliographyAbdelhamid, Amira, Wesam Atta, and Mohamed Nagy (2017) “Besieged Universities:

A Report on the Rights and Freedoms of Students in Egyptian Universities from the Academic Years 2013–2014 to 2015–2016.” [online] Oslo: Norwegian Students’ and Academics’ International Assistance Fund (SAIH). Available at: https://saih.no/assets/docs/Besieged-Universities-SAIH-report-2017.pdf [Accessed 28 June 2019].

Adler, Emanuel (1997) “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations 3(3): 319–363.

Adler, Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot (eds) (2011) International Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Adler-Nissen, Rebecca (2012) Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR. London: Routledge.

Agamben, Giorgio (1998) Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Agamben, Giorgio (2005) State of Exception. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Agathangelou, Anna M. (2004) The Global Political Economy of Sex: Desire, Violence, and

Insecurity in Mediterranean Nation States. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Agathangelou, Anna M. (2013) “Neoliberal Geopolitical Order and Value: Queerness as a

Speculative Economy and Anti-blackness as Terror,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 15(4): 453–476.

Agathangelou, Anna M. and Lily H. M. Ling (2004) “The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism.” International Studies Review 6(4): 21–49.

Agathangelou, Anna M. and Lily H. M. Ling (2009) Transforming World Politics: From Empire to Multiple Worlds. London: Routledge.

Agathangelou, Anna M. and Nevzat Soguk (eds) (2013) Arab Revolutions and World Transformations. London: Routledge.

Albert, Mathias, Oliver Kessler, and Stephan Stetter (2008) “On Order and Conflict: International Relations and the ‘Communicative Turn’,” Review of International Studies 34(S1): 43–67.

Allouche, Sabiha (2019) “Queering Heterosexual (Intersectarian) Love in Lebanon,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 51(4): 547–565.

Almond, Gabriel A. and G. Bingham Powell, Jr. (1978) Comparative Politics: Systems, Processes, and Policy, 2nd edition. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.

Althusser, Louis (1969) For Marx. London: Allen Lane.Amer, Sahar (2012) “Naming to Empower: Lesbianism in the Arab Islamicate World

Today,” Journal of Lesbian Studies 16(4): 381–397.Anievas, Alexander, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam (eds) (2014) Race and Racism

in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line. London: Routledge.Anievas, Alexander and Kerem Nisancioglu (2015) How the West Came to Rule. London:

Pluto Press.Antze, Paul and Michael Lambek (eds) (1996) Tense Past: Cultural Essays in Trauma and

Memory. New York, NY: Routledge.Ashley, Richard K. (1984) “The Poverty of Neorealism,” International Organization 38(2):

225–286.Ashley, Richard K. (1989) “Living on Borderlines: Man, Poststructuralism and War,” in

James Der Derian and Michael Shapiro (eds) International/Intertextual Politics: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 259–322.

Bajo-Rubio, Oscar and Ho-Don Yan (2019) “Globalization and Populism,” in Fu-Lai Toni Yu and Diana S. Kwan (eds) Contemporary Issues in International Political Economy. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 229–252.

https://saih.no

https://saih.no

Ball, Terrance and Richard Dagger (1995) Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal, 2nd edition. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Band Aid (1984) “Do They Know It’s Christmas,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjQz-JAKxTrE and the follow-up, Band-Aid20 (2004), http://www.live8live.com/bat/.

Barder, Alexander D. and François Debrix (2012) Beyond Biopolitics: Theory, Violence, and Horror in World Politics. London: Routledge.

Barkawi, Tarak and Mark Laffey (2002) “Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations,” Millennium 31(1): 109–127.

Barkin, Samuel (2009) “Realism, Prediction and Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Analysis 5(3): 233–246.

Barry, Norman (2000) An Introduction to Modern Political Theory. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Barthes, Roland (1972) Mythologies, trans. Annette Lavers. New York, NY: Noonday Press.Barthes, Roland (1974) S/Z: An Essay, trans. Richard Miller. New York, NY: Hill and

Wang.Baudrillard, Jean (1987) Seduction, trans. Brian Singer. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Bauman, Zygmunt (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bauman, Zygmunt (2005) Liquid Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bauman, Zygmunt (2006) Liquid Fear. Cambridge: Polity Press.Bauman, Zygmunt (2007) Liquid Times: Living in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity

Press.Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens (eds) (2010) The Globalization of World

Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Beam, Myrl (2018) “What’s Love Got to Do With It?: Queer Politics and the ‘Love Pivot,’”

in Joseph Nicholas DeFilippis, Michael W. Yarbrough, and Angela Jones (eds) Queer Activism After Marriage Equality. London: Routledge, pp. 53–60.

Bedford, Kate (2005) “Loving to Straighten Out Development: Sexuality and Ethnodevelopment in the World Bank’s Ecuadorian Lending,” Feminist Legal Studies 13(3): 295–322.

Bedford, Kate (2009) Developing Partnerships: Gender, Sexuality, and the Reformed World Bank. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Beitz, Charles (1999) Political Theory and International Relations, revised edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bell, Duncan (ed.) (2006) Memory, Trauma and World Politics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bell, Duncan (2013) “Race and International Relations: Introduction,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26(1): 1–4.

Bell, Duncan (2016) Reordering the World: Essays on Liberalism and Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bennett, Jane and William Chaloupka (1993) In the Nature of Things: Language, Politics, and the Environment. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.

Bennett, Jane and Michael J. Shapiro (2002) The Politics of Moralizing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Berlant, Lauren (2007) “Slow Death (Sovereignty, Obesity, Lateral Agency),” Critical Inquiry 33(4): 754–780.

Berlant, Lauren and Michael Warner (1998) “Sex in Public,” Critical Inquiry 24(2): 547–566.Bhabha, Homi K. (1990) “Interrogating Identity: The Post Colonial Prerogative,” in D.

T. Goldberg (ed.) Anatomy of Racism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 118–209.

Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2007) Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bhambra, Gurminder K. (2015) “Citizens and Others: The Constitution of Citizenship Through Exclusion,” Alternatives 40(2): 102–114.

http://www.youtube.com


http://www.live8live.com

Bhambra, Gurminder K., Nisancioglu, Kerem, and Gebrial, Dalia (eds.) (2018) Decolonizing the University. London: Pluto Press.

Biersteker, Thomas and Cynthia Weber (eds) (1996) State Sovereignty as Social Construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blackwell, Maylei, Laura Briggs, and Mignonette Chiu (2015). “Transnational Feminisms Roundtable,” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 36(3): 1–24.

Blaney, David L. and Naeem Inayatullah (2002) “Neo-Modernizations? IR and the Inner Life of Modernizations Theory,” European Journal of International Relations 8(4): 103–137.

Bleiker, Roland (1997) “Forget IR Theory,” Alternatives 22(1): 57–85.Bleiker, Roland (ed.) (2018) Visual Global Politics. London: Routledge.Bleiker, Roland and Emma Hutchison (2008) “Fear No More: Emotions and World

Politics,” Review of International Studies 34(S1): 115–135.Bull, Hedley (1987) The Anarchical Society. London: Macmillan.Bull, Terence and Richard Dagger (1999) Political Ideologies and the Democratic Ideal,

3rd edition. New York, NY: Longman.Bush, George W. (2001a) “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,”

United States Capitol, Washington, DC, September 20, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920–a.html.

Bush, George W. (2001b) “‘Islam is Peace’ Says President,” Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, DC, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917–11.html.

Butler, Judith (1999) Gender Trouble. New York: Routledge.Buzan, Barry, Charles Jones, and Richard Little (1993) The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism

to Structural Realism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Cadwalladr, Carole and Emma Graham-Harrison (2018) “Revealed: 50 Million Facebook

Profiles Harvested for Cambridge Analytica in Major Data Breach,” The Guardian, 17: 22.

Califia, Patrick (1997) “Manliness,” in Susan Stryker and Stephen Whittle (eds) The Transgender Studies Reader. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 434–438.

Callinicos, Alex (2002) “The Actuality of Imperialism,” Millennium 31(2): 319–326.Camminga, B (2018) “‘The Stigma of Western Words’: Asylum Law, Transgender Identity

and Sexual Orientation in South Africa,” Global Discourse 8: 452–469.Campbell, David (1999) Writing Security, revised edition. Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota Press.Campbell, David (2005) “The Biopolitics of Security: Oil, Empire, and the Sports Utility

Vehicle,” American Quarterly 57(3): 943–972.Capan, Zeynep Gulsah (2017) “Decolonising International Relations?,” Third World

Quarterly 38(1): 1–15.Cardoso, F. and E. Faletto (1979) Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.Carroll, Berenice (1972) “Peace Research: The Cult of Power,” Journal of Conflict Resolution

16(4): 585–616.Carver, Terrell (1996) Gender is Not a Synonym for Women. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Carver, Terrell (2008) “Men in the Feminist Gaze: What Does This Mean in IR?,”

Millennium-Journal of International Studies 37(1): 107–122.Carver, Terrell, Molly Cochran, and Judith Squires (1998) “Gendering Jones: Feminisms,

IRs, Masculinities,” Review of International Studies 24(2): 283–297.Castells, Manuel (1999) “Flows, Networks, and Identities: A Critical Theory of the

Informational Society,” in Manuel Castells, Ramon Flecha, Paulo Freire, Henry A. Giroux, Donaldo Macedo, and Paul Willis (eds) Critical Education in the New Information Age. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 37–64.

http://www.whitehouse.gov




Castells, Manuel (2010) The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.

Certo, Mia, Joseph Leigh, and Adrian Rogstad (2019) “Revolution and Resistance in World Politics,” Special Issue of Millennium 47(3): 323–512.

Chowdhry, Geeta and Sheila Nair (2002) Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class. London: Routledge.

Clinton, Hillary (2011) ‘On Gay Rights Abroad: Secretary of State Delivers Historic LGBT Speech in Geneva’. Huffington Post, June 12. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/06/hillary-clinton-gay-rights-speech-geneva_n_1132392.html, down-loaded August 29, 2014.

Cohen, Cathy J. and Sarah J. Jackson (2016) “Ask a Feminist: A Conversation with Cathy J. Cohen on Black Lives Matter, Feminism, and Contemporary Activism,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 41(4): 775–792.

Collins, Suzanne (2008a) The Hunger Games. New York, NY: Scholastic.Collins, Suzanne (2008b) Catching Fire. New York, NY: Scholastic.Collins, Suzanne (2008c) Mockingjay. New York, NY: Scholastic.Combahee River Collective (1983) “The Combahee River Collective Statement,” in Barbara

Smith (ed.) Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology. New York, NY: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press, pp. 272–282.

Conlon, James (1996) “The Place of Passion: Reflections on Fatal Attraction,” in Barry Keith Grant (ed.) The Dread of Difference: Gender and the Horror Film. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, pp. 401–411.

Connell, Raewyn (1995) Masculinities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Cox, Michael (2017) “The Rise of Populism and the Crisis of Globalisation: Brexit, Trump

and Beyond,” Irish Studies in International Affairs 28: 9–17.Dalby, Simon (2007) “Ecology, Security, and Change in the Anthropocene,” Brown Journal

of World Affairs 8(2): 155–164.Dalby, Simon and Matthew Paterson (2009) “Over a Barrell: Cultural Political Economy

and Oil Imperialism,” in François Debrix and Mark Lacy (eds) The Geopolitics of American Insecurity: Terror, Power, and Foreign Policy. London: Routledge, pp. 181–196.

Davis, Angela (1981) Women, Race and Class. New York, NY: Random House.Dean, Jodi (2012) The Communist Horizon. London: Verso.Debrix, François (1999) Reinvisioning Peacekeeping: The United Nations and the

Mobilization of Ideology. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Debrix, François (2003) “Tabloid Realism and the Space of American Security Culture,”

Geopolitics 8(3): 151–190.Debrix, François (2007) Tabloid Terror: War, Culture, and Geopolitics. London: Routledge.Debrix, François and Cynthia Weber (eds) (2003) Rituals of Mediation: International

Politics and Social Meanings. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.De Certeau, Michel (1988) The Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven F. Rendall. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia,

trans. B. Massumi. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Der Derian, James and Ron Deibert (2010) “Wikileaks: The Erasure of the Nation

State, Asymmetrical Cyber-warfare, and the Shape of Revolutions to Come,” a podcast interview conducted by Chris Lydon, Brown University, December 18, https://radioopensource.org/wikileaks-a-simulation-of-net-wars-to-come/, downloaded January 2013.

Derrida, Jacques (1991) “Différance,” in P. Kampuf (ed.) A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds. Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp. 60–67.

Deudney, Daniel (1990) “The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security,” Millennium 19(3): 461–467.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com

https://radioopensource.org

Dhawan, Nikita, Antke Engel, Christoph F.E. Holzhey, and Volker Woltersdorff (eds) (2015) Global Justice and Desire: Queering Economy. London and New York: Routledge.

Dickson, Nathaniel and Jules Joanne Gleeson (2019) “The Future of Trans Politics,” Verso Books Blog, https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/4269-the-future-of-trans-politics, downloaded October 16, 2019.

Dillon, Michael and Julian Reid (2000) “Global Governance, Liberal Peace and Complex Emergency,” Alternatives 25(1): 115–143.

Dillon, Michael and Julian Reid (2001) “Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War,” Millennium-Journal of International Studies 30(1): 41–66.

Dillon, Michael and Julian Reid (2009) The Liberal Way of War: Killing to Make Life Live. London: Routledge.

Dobson, Andrew and Derek Bell (2006) Environmental Citizenship. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Doty, Roxanne (1996) Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Douzinas, Costas and Slavoj Zizek (eds) (2010) The Idea of Communism. London: Verso.Driskill, Qwo-Li (2010) “Doubleweaving Two-Spirit Critiques: Building Alliances between

Native and Queer Studies,” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16(1–2): 69–92.

Drucker, Peter (2015) Warped: Gay Normality and Queer Anti-Capitalism. London: Historical Materialism.

Dufifield, Mark (2001) Global Governance and the New Wars: The Merging of Development and Security. London: Zed Books.

Duffield, Mark (2010) “The Liberal Way of Development and the Development-Security Impasse: Exploring the Global Life-Chance Divide,” Security Dialogue 41(1): 53–76.

Duggan, Lisa (2003) The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Dyer, Richard (1985) “Taking Popular Television Seriously,” in David Lusted and Phillip Drummond (eds) TV and Schooling. London: British Film Institute, pp. 41–46.

Dyer, Richard (1997) White. London: Routledge.Dyvik, Synne (2017) Gendering Counterinsurgency: Performativity, Experience and

Embodiment in the Afghan ‘Theatre of War’. London: Routledge.Eckersley, Robyn (1995) Markets, the State and the Environment: Towards Integration.

Sidney: Macmillan.Eckersley, Robyn (2004) The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Edkins, Jenny (1999) Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political

Back In. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Edkins, Jenny (2003) Trauma and the Memory of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Edkins, Jenny (2016) “Loss of a Loss: Ground Zero, Spring 2014,” in Naeem Inayatullah

and Elizabeth Dauphinee (eds) Narrative Global Politics. Abingdon: Routledge: 97–103.

Edkins, Jenny (2018) “Trauma and Memory,” in David M. Dean (ed.) A Companion to Public History. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 431–440.

Edkins, Jenny, and Véronique Pin-Fat (2005) “Through the Wire: Relations of Power and Relations of Violence,” Millennium 34(1): 1–24.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke (1987) Women and War. New York, NY: Basic Books.El-Tayeb, Fatima (2012) “‘Gays who Cannot Properly be Gay’: Queer Muslims in the

Neoliberal European City,” European Journal of Women’s Studies 19: 79–95.Eng, David L., Judith Halberstam, and José Esteban Muñoz (2005) “What’s Queer About

Queer Studies Now?,” Special Issue of Social Text 23(3–4): 84–85.

https://www.versobooks.com

Enloe, Cynthia (1989) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Enloe, Cynthia (1996) “Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski (eds) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–202.

Ermarth, Elizabeth Deeds (1992) Sequel to History: Postmodernism and the Crisis of Representational Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Evans, Brad (2013) Liberal Terror. London: Routledge.Evans, Ellen and Jon Moses (2011) “Interview with David Graeber,” The White Review,

http://www.thewhitereview.org/interviews/interview-with-david-graeber/, downloaded August 30, 2012.

Evans, Kate (2006) Funny Weather. Brighton: Myriad Editions.Extinction Rebellion (2019) This Is Not a Drill. An Extinction Rebellion Handbook. London:

Penguin Random House.Fanon, Frantz (1991) “The Negro and Psychopathology,” in Black Skins, White Masks.

London: Pluto, pp. 141–209.Farrell, Nathan (2012) “Celebrity Politics: Bono, Product (RED) and the Legitimising of

Philanthrocapitalism,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 14(3): 392–406.

Ferguson, Roderick (2004) Aberrations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Fierke, Karen (2004) “Trauma, Political Solipsism and War,” Review of International Studies 30(4): 471–491.

Finley, Chris (2011) “Decolonizing the Queer Native Body (and Recovering the Native Bull-Dyke): Bringing ‘Sexy Back’ and Out of Native Studies’ Closet,” in Qwo-Li Driskill, Chris Finley, Brian Joseph Gilley and Scott Lauria Morgensen (eds.) Queer Indigenous Studies: Critical Interventions in Theory, Politics, and Literature. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, pp. 31–42.

Fortier, Anne-Marie (2008) Multicultural Horizons: Diversity and the Limits of the Civil Nation. London: Routledge.

Fortier, Anne-Marie (2010) “‘Proximity by Design?’: Affective Citizenship and the Management of Unease,” Citizenship Studies 14(1): 17–30.

Foucault, Michel (1979/1986) “Governmentality,” Ideology and Consciousness 6: 5–21.Foucault, Michel (1980) The History of Sexuality, the Will to Knowledge, trans. Robert

Hurley. New York, NY: Random House.Foucault, Michel (1980) Power/Knowledge, trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, and

K. Soper. Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Foucault, Michel (1984) “What Is an Author?,” in Paul Rabinow (ed.) The Foucault Reader.

New York, NY: Pantheon, pp. 101–120.Foucault, Michel (1990) The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, trans. Robert

Hurley. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Foucault, Michel (2003) “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the College de France,

1975–76, trans. D. Macey. New York, NY: Picador.Fukuyama, Francis (1989) “The End of History?,” The National Interest 16(Summer): 2–18.Fukuyama, Francis (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. London: Hamish

Hamilton.Geertz, Clifford (1975) The Interpretation of Cultures. London: Hutchinson.George, Jim (1994) Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International

Relations. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Ghazzawi, Razan (2017) “Decolonizing Syria’s So-called ‘Queer Liberation.’” [online] Al

Jazeera. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/08/decolonis-ing-syria-called-queer-liberation-170803110403979.html [Accessed 6 February 2019].

http://www.thewhitereview.org

https://www.aljazeera.com

https://www.aljazeera.com

Gibbs, Walter and S. Sarah Lyall (2007) “Gore Shares Peace Prize for Climate Change Work,” New York Times, October 13, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html.

Gibson, Margaret (1997) “Clitoral Corruption: Body Metaphors and American Doctors’ Constructions of Female Homosexuality, 1870-1900,” in Vernon A. Rosario (ed.) Science and Homosexualities. New York: Routledge, pp. 108–132.

Gilpin, Robert (1983) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ging, Debbie (2017) “Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere,” Men and Masculinities 22(7): 638–657.

Glaister, Dan (2004) “On the Border of Disaster?,” March 15, http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2004/mar/15/highereducation.usa.

Goodman, Amy (2012) “Bradley Manning’s Long Quest for Justice,” The Guardian, December 13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/13/bradley- manning-wikileaks-whistleblower, downloaded January 2013.

Gopinath, Gayatri (2005) Impossible Desires: Queer Diasporas and South Asian Public Cultures. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Gore, Albert, Jr. (1989) “Earth’s Fate is the Number One National Issue,” The Washington Post, May 14, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101200827.html.

Gore, Albert, Jr. (1992) Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose. London: Earthscan.

Gore, Albert, Jr. (2006) An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. New York, NY: Rodale Books.

Graeber, David (2002) “The New Anarchists,” New Left Review 13 (January/February): 61–73.

Graeber, David (2004) Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. Chicago, IL: Prickly Paradigm Press.

Graeber, David (2006) “A Conversation with Anarchist David Graeber about Anthropology,” Charlie Rose, PSB, April 4, http://www.charlierose.com/view/inter-view/473, downloaded September 2, 2012.

Graeber, David (2010) “We are Already Communists,” YouTube talk by David Graeber, Part I at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcK7rkajHKE; Part 2 at http://www.you-tube.com/watch?v=zvhiCEEcLy4, downloaded January 2013.

Graeber, David (2011a) Debt: The First 5000 Years. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House.Graeber, David (2011b) “On Playing by the Rules: The Strange Success of #Occupy Wall

Street,” Naked Capitalism, October 19, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html, downloaded August 31, 2012.

Graeber, David (2011c) “Occupy Wall Street’s Anarchist Roots,” Al Jazeera Opinion page, November 30, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/ 2011112872835904508.html, downloaded September 2, 2012.

Graeber, David (2011d) “‘Occupy Wall Street’: Thousands March in NYC Financial District, Set Up Protest Encampment,” Democracy Now!, September 17, http://www. democracynow.org/2011/9/19/occupy_wall_street_thousands_march_in, downloaded September 2, 2012.

Graeber, David (2012) “Are You an Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You!,” The Anarchist Library, May 21, http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-are-you-an-anarchist-the-answer-may-surprise-you, downloaded August 30, 2012.

Grant, David (2012) “The Hunger Games: Should Ron Paul be a Hunger Games Super Fan?,” The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2012/0403/The-Hunger-Games-Should-Ron-Paul-be-a-Hunger-Games-super-fan, downloaded August 28, 2012.

http://www.nytimes.com


http://www.guardian.co.uk




http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com

http://www.charlierose.com

http://www.charlierose.com




http://www.nakedcapitalism.com



http://www.aljazeera.com

http://www.aljazeera.com

http://www.democracynow.org

http://www.democracynow.org

http://theanarchistlibrary.org

http://theanarchistlibrary.org

http://www.csmonitor.com



Grant, Rebecca and Kathleen Newland (eds) (1991) Gender and International Relations. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Grayson, K., M. Davies, and S. Philpott (2009) “Pop Goes IR? Researching the Popular Culture—World Politics Continuum,” Politics 29(3): 155–163.

Grayson, Kyle (2013) “How to Read Paddington Bear: Liberalism and the Foreign Subject in a Bear Called Paddington,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 15(3): 78–393.

Grayson, Kyle (2017) “Capturing the Multiplicities of Resilience Through Popular Geopolitics: Aesthetics and Homo Resilio in Breaking Bad,” Political Geography, 57: 24–33.

Griffiths, Kate Doyle (2018) “Interview: Normie Socialism or Communist Transgression?” Red Wedge website, www.redwedgemagazine.com/online-issue/normie-socialism- or-communist-transgression-red-wedge-interviews-kate-doyle-griffiths, downloaded October 19, 2019.

Grovogui, Siba N. (2002) “Regimes of Sovereignty: International Morality and the African Condition.” European Journal of International Relations 8(3): 315–338.

Gruffydd Jones, Branwen (ed.) (2006) Decolonizing International Relations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Gunder Frank, André (1969) Capitalism and Underdevelopment in Latin America. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

Haastrup, Toni (2019) “Women, Peace and Security—the African Experience,” Political Insight, 10 (1): 9–11.

Howell, Alison (2018) “Forget ‘Militarization’: Race, Disability and the ‘Martial Politics’ of the Police and of the University,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 20(2): 1–20.

Jack, Halberstam (1998) Female Masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Hall, Stuart (1996) “Introduction: Who Needs ‘Identity’?,” in Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay

(eds) Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage, pp. 1–17.Hall, Stuart (ed.) (1997) Representations: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices.

Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2000) Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.Harman, Sophie (2019) Seeing Politics: Film, Visual Method, and International Relations.

Montreal: McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.Hartz, Louis (1955) The Liberal Tradition in America. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich.Harvey, David (2005) The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hay, Colin and David Marsh (eds) (2000) Demystifying Globalization. Boulder, CO:

St. Martin’s Press.Hemmings, Clare (2002) Bisexual Spaces: A Geography of Sexuality and Gender. London:

Routledge.Henderson, Errol A. (2013) “Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism in International Relations

Theory.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26(1): 71–92.Henry, Marsha (2007) “Gender, Security and Development,” Conflict, Security and

Development, 7(1): 61–84.Herod, Andrew, Gearoid Ó Tuathail, and Susan M. Roberts (eds) (1998) An Unruly World?:

Globalization, Governance, and Geography. London: Routledge.Hirst, Paul and Grahame Thompson (1996) Globalization in Question. Cambridge: Polity

Press.Hoad, Neville (2000) “Arrested Development or the Queerness of Savages,” Postcolonial

Studies 3(2): 133–158.Hobbes, Thomas (1651/2008) Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.

http://www.redwedgemagazine.com

http://www.redwedgemagazine.com

Hoberman, J. (2001) “Persistence of Memory,” March 12, http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0111/hoberman.php.

Hopf, Ted (2018) “Change in International Practices,” European Journal of International Relations, 24(3): 687–711.

Horner, Christopher C. (2007) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). Washington, DC: Regnery.

Howard, Philip N. and Muzammil M. Hussain (2013) Democracy’s Fourth Wave? Digital Media and the Arab Spring. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1993) “The Clash of Civilizations?,” Foreign Affairs 72(Summer): 22–49.

Huntington, Samuel P. (2004) “The Hispanic Challenge,” Foreign Policy(March/April): 30–45.

Hutchison, Emma (2016) Affective Communities in World Politics: Collective Emotions after Trauma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Inayatullah, Naeem (2011) (ed.) Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR. London: Routledge.

Inayatullah, Naeem and Elizabeth Dauphinee (2016) Narrative Global Politics: Theory, History and the Personal in International Relations. London: Routledge.

Independent Focus (2000) Interview of Director Christopher Nolan by Elvis Mitchell. Special Feature of Memento DVD, Remember Productions.

Jackson, Robert (1990) Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jameson, Fredric and Masao Miyoshi (eds) (1998) The Cultures of Globalization. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.

Jamieson, Dale (2008) Ethics and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnson, David V. (2012) “What We Owe Each Other: An Interview with David Graeber,” Boston Review, February 15, 2012, http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/david_graeber_ debt_economics_occupy_wall_street.php, downloaded April 12, 2012.

Jones, Adam (1996) “Does ‘Gender’ Make the World Go Round?: Feminist Critiques of International Relations,” Review of International Studies 22(4): 405–429.

Jones, Adam (1998) “Engendering Debate,” Review of International Studies 24(2): 299–303.Joseph, Miranda (2002) Against the Romance of Community. Minneapolis, MN: University

of Minnesota Press.Kegley, Charles W., Jr. (1993) “The Neoidealist Moment in International Studies?: Realist

Myths and the New International Realities,” International Studies Quarterly 37(June): 131–146.

Kegley, Charles W., Jr. (ed.) (1995) “The Neoliberal Challenge to Realist Theories of World Politics: An Introduction,” Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 1–24.

Keohane, Robert O. (1984) After Hegemony. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Keohane, Robert O. (ed.) (1986) Neorealism and its Critics. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.Keohane, Robert O. (1988) “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International

Studies Quarterly 32: 379–396.Keohane, Robert O. (1989) “International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist

Standpoint,” Millennium 18(2): 245–253.Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. (2001) Power and Interdependence, 3rd edition.

New York, NY: Longman.Khanna, Akshay (2016) Sexualness. New Delhi: New Text.

http://www.villagevoice.com

http://www.villagevoice.com

http://www.bostonreview.net

http://www.bostonreview.net

Klein, Naomi (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books.

Kofman, Eleonore and Gillian Youngs (eds) (2003) Globalization: Theory and Practice, 2nd edition. London: Continuum.

Krahmann, Elke (ed.) (2005) New Threats and New Actors in International Security. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krasner, Stephen D. (ed.) (1983) International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kublakova, V., Nichaolas Greenwood Onuf, and Paul Kowert (eds) (1998) International Relations in a Constructed World. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Kunkel, Benjamin (2012) “Forgive Us Our Debts,” London Review of Books 34(9): 23–29, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n09/benjamin-kunkel/forgive-us-our-debts, downloaded January 2013.

Kühne, Rainer W. (2019) “Climate Change: The Science Behind Greta Thunberg and Fridays for Future.” [online] OSF Reprints. Available at: https://osf.io/2n6kj [Accessed 16 December 2019].

Lacy, Mark (2005) Security and Climate Change: International Relations and the Limits of Realism. London: Routledge.

Lacy, Mark (2008) “Designer Security: Control Society and MoMA’s SAFE: Design Takes on Risk,” Security Dialogue 39(2–3): 333–357.

Lapid, Yosef and Freidrich Kratochwil (eds) (1996) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Leigh, Darcy (2009) “Colonialism, Gender and the Family in North America: For Gendered Analysis of Indigenous Struggles,” Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism 9(1): 70–88.

Leigh, Darcy (2017) “Queer Feminist International Relations: Uneasy Alliances, Productive Tensions,” Alternatif Politika, 9 (3): 343–360.

Leigh, David and Luke Harding (2011) WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. London: Guardian Books. Also see a video interview with one of the authors at http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN= 9780852652398, downloaded January 2013.

Levy, David L. and Peter Newell (eds.) (2005) The Business of Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lewis, Holly (2016) The Politics of Everybody: Feminism, Queer Theory and Marxism at the Intersection. London: Zed Books.

Leyshon, Andrew (1997) “True Stories?: Global Dreams, Global Nightmares, and Writing Globalization,” in Rodger Lee and Jane Wills (eds) Geographies of Economies. London: Arnold Press, pp. 133–146.

Lind, Amy (ed.) (2010) Development, Sexual Rights and Global Governance. London: Routledge.

Lind, Amy (2014) “The Economic Costs of Homophobia: How LGBT Exclusion Impacts Development,” World Bank, Washington, DC, March 12. https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SAR/economic-costs-homophobia-lgbt- exlusion-india.pdf

Ling, Lily H. M. (2000) “Hypermasculinity on the Rise, Again: A Response to Fukuyama on Women and World Politics,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 2(2): 277–286.

Ling, Lily H. M. (2002) Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the West. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ling, Lily H. M. (2014) Imagining World Politics: Sihar & Shenya, a Fable for our Times. London: Routledge.

Lisle, Debbie (2006) The Global Politics of Contemporary Travel Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://www.lrb.co.uk

https://osf.io

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk

http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk

https://www.worldbank.org



Lisle, Debbie (2016) Holidays in the Danger Zone: Entanglements of War and Tourism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Luke, Timothy W. (1997) Ecocritique: Contesting the Politics of Nature, Economy, and Culture. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press.

Luke, Timothy W. (1998) “The (Un)Wise (Ab)Use of Nature: Environmentalism as Globalized Consumerism?,” Alternatives 23: 175–212.

Luke, Timothy W. (2002) Museum Politics: Power Plays at the Exhibition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Luke, Timothy W. (2008) “The Politics of True Convenience or Inconvenient Truth: Struggles Over How to Sustain Capitalism, Democracy, and Ecology in the 21st Century,” Environment and Planning A 40: 1811–1824.

Lynch, Marc (2011), “After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State,” Reflections 9(2): 301–310.

Lyon, David (2007) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. London: Polity Press.MacKinnon, Catherine (1989) Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.Mahmood, Saba (2009) “Feminism, Democracy, and Empire: Islam and the War on Terror.”

in H. Herzog and A. Braude (eds) Gendering Religion and Politics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 193–215.

Malthus, Thomas (1798/2004) An Essay on the Principle of Population. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.

Manchanda, Nivi (2015) “Queering the Pashtun: Afghan Sexuality in the Homonationalist Imaginary,” Third World Quarterly 36(1):130–146.

Marchand, Marianne (2000) “Gendered Representations of the ‘Global’: Reading/Writing Globalization,” in Richard Stubbs and Geoffrey R. D. Underhill (eds) Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 218–228.

Marco, Cesa (2009) “Realist Visions of the End of the Cold War: Morgenthua, Aron and Waltz,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11(2): 171–191.

Massad, Joseph A. (2002) “Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World,” Public Culture 14(2): 361–385.

Massad, Joseph A. (2008) Desiring Arabs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McClintock, Anne (1995) Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial

Contest. New York: Routledge.Mbembe, Achille (2003) “Necropolitics,” Public Culture 15(1): 11–40.Meadows, Donnella H., Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William W. Behrens (1972)

Limits to Growth. New York, NY: Universal Books.Mearsheimer, John J. (1990) “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War,” Atlantic Monthly

266(2): 35–50.Mearsheimer, John J. (2005a) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Mearsheimer, John J. (2005b) “Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: Realism Versus

NeoConservatism,” OpenDemocracy, May 19, http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp, downloaded April 15, 2013.

Micklethwait, John and Adrian Wooldridge (2000) The Future Perfect: The Challenges and Hidden Promises of Globalization. New York, NY: Times Press.

Mignolo, Walter (2002) “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference,” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101(1): 57–96.

Miller, David (1994) Anarchism. London: Dent.Miller, Vincent (2011) Understanding Digital Culture. London: Sage.Mirzoeff, Nicholas (1999) Visual Culture. London: Routledge.Modelski, George (1987) Long Cycles in World Politics. Seattle, WA: University of

Washington Press.

http://www.opendemocracy.net

http://www.opendemocracy.net

Mohanty, Chandra (1988) “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,” Feminist Review 30(1): 61–88.

Monaco, James (2000) How to Read a Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Montesinos Coleman, Lara and Karen Tucker (2011) “Between Discipline and Dissent:

Situated Resistance and Global Order,” Globalizations 8(4): 397–410.Montesinos Coleman, Lara and Karen Tucker (eds) (2012) Situating Global Resistance

Between Discipline and Dissent. New York, NY: Routledge.Moore, Alan (2000) V for Vendetta, illustrated by David Lloyd. London: Titan Books.Morton, Tim (2013) Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Murphy, Craig (1996) “Seeing Women, Recognizing Gender, Recasting International

Relations,” International Organization 50(3): 513–538.Nakashima, Ellen (2016) “US Government Officially Accuses Russia of Hacking Campaign

to Interfere with Elections,” The Washington Post, 7.Nardin, Terry and David Mapel (eds) (1993) Traditions of International Ethics, Revised edition.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Newell, Peter and Matthew Paterson (2010) Climate Capitalism: Global Warming and the

Transformation of the Global Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Norton, Anne (2005) Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.Norton, Anne (2007) “Anne Norton Defines NeoCons,” http://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=6dappb82loo, downloaded April 15, 2013.Novak, Michael (1996) Unmeltable Ethnics: Politics and Culture in American Life.

New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Nye, Joseph S. (2005) The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower

Can’t Go it Alone. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Odysseos, Louiza (2011) “Governing Dissent in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve:

‘Development,’ Governmentality and Subjectification amongst Botswana’s Bushmen,” Globalizations 8(4): 439–455.

Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood (1989) World of Our Making. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood (1999) “Worlds of Our Making: The Strange Career of Constructivism in IR,” in Donald J. Puchala (ed.) Visions of IR. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Owens, Patricia (2009) “Reclaiming ‘Bare Life’?: Against Agamben on Refugees.” International Relations 23(4): 567–582.

Owens, Patricia (2016) Economy of Force: Counterinsurgency and the Historical Rise of the Social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Sullivan, Tim, John Hartley, Danny Saunders, Martin Montgomery, and John Fiske (1994) Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.

Ó Tuathail, Gearóid (1998a) “Political Geography III: Dealing with Deterritorialization?,” Progress in Human Geography 22: 81–93.

Ó Tuathail, Gearóid (1998b) “Postmodern Geopolitics?,” in Simon Dalby and Gearóid Ó. Tuathail (eds) Rethinking Geopolitics. London: Routledge, pp. 16–38.

Packenham, Robert (1973) Liberal America and the Third World: Political Development Ideas in Foreign Aid and Social Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Parekh, Bhikhu (2002) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Parpart, Jane L. and Marysia Zalewski (eds) (2008) Rethinking the Man Question. London and New York, NY: Zed Books.

Paterson, Matthew (1996) Global Warming and Global Politics. London: Routledge.



Paterson, Matthew (2005) “Green Politics,” in Scott Burchill, Andrew Linklater, Reichard Devetak, Jack Donnelly, Matthew Paterson, Christian Reus-Smit, and Jacqui True (eds) Theories of International Relations, 3rd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 260–283.

Peters, Jeremy (2014) “The Decline and Fall of the “H” Word,” New York Times, March 21. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/23/fashion/gays-lesbians-the-term-homosexual.html?_r=0, downloaded September 8, 2014.

Peterson, V. Spike (ed.) (1992) Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Peterson, V. Spike (1999) “Political Identities/Nationalism as Heterosexism,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 1(1): 34–65.

Peterson, V. Spike (2014a) “Family Matters: How Queering the Intimate Queers the International,” International Studies Review 16(4): 604–608.

Peterson, V. Spike (2014b) “Sex Matters: A Queer History of Hierarchies,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 16(3): 389–409.

Peterson, V. Spike (2017a) “Towards Queering the Globally Intimate,” Political Geography 56: 114–116.

Peterson, V. Spike (2017b) “Rethinking, Returning, Reflecting,” Alternatif Politika/The Journal of Alternative Politics 9(3): 325–342.

Peterson, V. Spike (2018) “Intimacy, Informalization and Intersecting Inequalities: Tracing the Linkages,” Labour & Industry: A Journal of the Social and Economic Relations of Work 28(2): 130–145.

Peterson, V. Spike and Anne Sisson Runyan (2009) Global Gender Issues in the New Millennium. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Peterson, V. Spike, Elena Barabantseva, and Aoileann Ní Mhurchú (2018) “On Intimacy, Geopolitics and Discipline: Elena Barabantseva and Aoileann Ní Mhurchú in Conversation with V. Spike Peterson,” International Feminist Journal of Politics 20(2): 258–271.

Petras, James (2001) “Empire with imperialism.” [online] Rebelion.org. Available at: https://www.rebelion.org/hemeroteca/petras/english/negri010102.htm [Accessed 27 Sep. 2019].

Pettman, Ralph (1998) “Sex, Power, and the Grail of Positive Collaboration,” in Marysia Zalewski and Jane Parpart (eds) The “Man” Question in International Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 169–184.

Puar, Jasbir (2007). Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Puar, Jasbir (2017) The Right to Maim: Debility, Capacity, Disability. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Rabiger, Michael (1998) Directing the Documentary, 3rd edition. Oxford: Focal Press.Radi-Aid (2012) “Africa for Norway,” http://www.africafornorway.no/.Reid, Julian (2006) “The Biopolitics of the War on Terror: A Critique of the ‘Return of

Imperialism’ Thesis in International Relations,” Third World Quarterly 26(2): 237–252.Rahman, Momin (2010) “Queer as Intersectionality: Theorizing Gay Muslim Identities,”

Sociology 44(5): 944–961.Rao, Rahul (2012) “On ‘Gay Conditionality’, Imperial Power and Queer Liberation”

[online] Kafila. Available at: https://kafila.online/2012/01/01/on-gay-conditionality- imperial-power-and-queer-liberation-rahul-rao/ [Accessed 12 December 2019].

Rao, Rahul (2014) “The Locations of Homophobia,” London Review of International Law 2(2): 169–199.

Rao, Rahul (2020) Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Resende, Erica and Dovile Budryte (2013) (eds) Memory and Trauma in International Relations: Theories, Cases and Debates. London: Routledge.



https://www.rebelion.org

http://www.africafornorway.no

https://kafila.online

https://kafila.online

Richie, Lisa Ann and Stefano Ponte (2011) Brand Aid: Shopping Well to Save the World. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Richter-Montpetit, Melanie (2014) “Beyond the Erotics of Orientalism. Lawfare, Torture and the Racial-Sexual Grammars of Legitimate Suffering,” Security Dialogue 45(1): 43–62.

Richter-Montpetit, Melanie (2018) Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex (in IR) but Were Afraid to Ask: The ‘Queer Turn’ in International Relations,” Millennium, 46(2): 220–240.

Roy, Olivier (2012) “The Transformation of the Arab World,” Journal of Democracy 23: 5–18.Rubin, Gayle (1992) “Of Catamites and Kings: Reflections on Butch, Gender and

Boundaries,” in Joan Nestle (ed.) The Persistent Desire: A Butch-Femme Reader. Boston, MA: Alyson Publications, pp. 446–482.

Rubins, James (2001) Comments made on BBC2 Newsnight, September 11, wysiwyg://11//http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/eng/ents/newsnight/newsid_1533000/1544810.stm.

Ruggie, John G. (1998) Constructing the World Polity. London: Routledge.Rutazibwa, Olivia Umurerwa (2016) “From the Everyday to IR: In Defence of the Strategic

Use of the R-Word,” Postcolonial Studies 19(2): 191–200.Sabaratnam, Meera (2011) “IR in Dialogue… But Can We Change the Subjects? A

Typology of Decolonising Strategies for the Study of World Politics,” Millennium 39(3): 781–803.

Said, Edward (2014 [1985]) “Orientalism Reconsidered,” in Bart Moore-Gilbert, Gareth Stanton, and Willy Maley (eds) Postcolonial Criticism. London: Routledge, pp. 126–144.

Said, Edward W. (2001) “The Clash of Ignorance,” The Nation, October 22, http://www.thenation.com/docPrint.mhtml?I=20011022&s=said.

Salter, Mark B. (2011) “The Geographical Imaginations of Video Games: Diplomacy, Civilization, America’s Army and Grand Theft Auto IV,” Geopolitics 16(2): 359–388.

Saper, Craig J. (1997) Artificial Mythologies: A Guide to Cultural Intervention. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Schwägerl, Christian (2012) “Riding the Anthropocene,” short video posted on the web at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6We2J422yow&feature=player_embedded.

Seitz, Matt Zoller (2001) Memento. New York Press online, http://www.nypress.com/con-tent.cfm?content_id=3841&now=03/14/2001&content-section=4.

Selmeczi, Anna (2010) “Educating Resistance?,” Interface: A Journal for and about Social Movements 2(1): 309–314.

Shapcott, Richard (2010) International Ethics: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Shapiro, Michael J. (1997) Violent Cartographies: Mapping Cultures of War. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Shapiro, Michael J. (1999) Cinematic Political Thought: Narrating Race, Nation and Gender. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Shapiro, Michael J. (2012) Studies in Trans-Disciplinary Methods: After the Aesthetic Turn. London: Routledge.

Shapiro, Michael J. (2019) The Cinematic Political: Film Composition as Political Theory. London: Routledge.

Sharma, Sanjay and Ashwani Sharma (2003) “White Paranoia: Orientalism in the Age of Empire,” Fashion Theory 7(3–4): 301–317.

Shaw, Martin (2002) “Post-Imperial and Quasi-Imperial: State and Empire in the Global Era,” Millennium 31(2): 327–336.

Shepherd, Laura J. (ed.) (2010) Gender Matters in Global Politics: A Feminist Introduction to International Relations. London: Routledge.

Shields, Bob (ed.) (1996) Cultures of the Internet: Virtual Spaces, Real Histories, Living Bodies. London: Sage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk

http://www.thenation.com

http://www.thenation.com


http://www.nypress.com

http://www.nypress.com

Shilliam, Robbie (2011) “Decolonising the Grounds of Ethical Inquiry: A Dialogue between Kant, Foucault and Glissant,” Millennium 39(3): 649–665.

Shilliam, Robbie (2018) Race and the Undeserving Poor: From Abolition to Brexit. Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda Publishing.

Shirky, Clay (2011) “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change,” Foreign Affairs 90: 28–41.

Smith, Andrea (2010) “Queer Theory and Native Studies: The Heteronormativity of Settler Colonialism.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16(1–2): 41–68.

Sjoberg, Laura and Cynthia Weber (eds) (2014) “Forum on Queer International Relations,” International Studies Review 16(4): 596–622.

Smith, Andrea and J. Kēhaulani Kauanui (2008) “Native Feminisms Engage American Studies,” American Quarterly 60(2): 241–249.

Somerville, Siobhan B. (2000) Queering the Color Line: Race and the Invention of Homosexuality in American Culture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Spade, Dean (2004) “Fighting to Win,” in Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore (ed.) That’s Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation. Berkeley, CA: Soft Skull Press, pp. 31–38.

Spade, Dean (2013). “Under the Cover of Gay Rights,” NYU Review of Law and Social Change 37(79):79–100.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1986) “Imperialism and Sexual Difference.” Oxford Literary Review 8(1): 225–244.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988) “Can the Subaltern Speak?,” in Cary Nelson and Larry Grossberg (eds)Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Basingstoke: Macmillan Educataion, pp. 271–313.

Squire, Vicki (ed.) (2010) The Contested Politics of Mobility: Borderzones and Irregularity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John R. McNeill Ambio (2007) “The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?,” Sciences Module 36(8): 614–621.

Steigerwald, Lucy (2012) “Is The Hunger Games Libertarian?,” Reason.com, April 3, http://reason.com/blog/2012/04/03/is-the-hunger-games-libertarian/print,downloaded August 28, 2012.

Steinmetz, Katy (2014) “The Transgender Tipping Point.” [online] TIME. Available at: https://time.com/135480/transgender-tipping-point/ [Accessed 11 December 2019].

Stoler, Ann Laura (1995) Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault’s History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Storey, John (2012) An Introduction to Cultural Theory and Popular Culture, 6th edition. Harlow: Pearson Longman.

Strange, Susan (1996) The Retreat of the State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sylvester, Christine (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern

Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Sylvester, Christine (2009) Art/Museums: International Relations Where We Least Expect

It. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Tagma, Halit. M.E. and Lenze, Paul E. (2020) Understanding and Explaining the Iranian

Nuclear ‘Crisis’: Theoretical Approaches. Lanham, MA: Lexington Press.Tickner, J. Ann (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving

Global Security. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Tickner, J. Ann (2010) “You May Never Understand: Prospects for Feminist Futures in

International Relations,” Australian Feminist Law Journal 32: 9–20.Tickner, J. Ann and Laura Sjoberg (2011) Feminism and International Relations:

Conversations about the Past, Present and Future. New York, NY: Routledge.Tramel, Salena (2018) “Convergence as Political Strategy: Social Justice Movements,

Natural Resources and Climate Change,” Third World Quarterly 39(7): 1290–1307.

http://reason.com

http://reason.com

https://time.com

Turner, Graham M. (2008) “A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with 30 Years of Reality,” Global Environmental Change. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenveha.2008.05.001.

Vitalis, Robert (2015) White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Walker, R.B.J. (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Walker, R.B.J. (2002) “On the Immanence/Imminence of Empire,” Millennium 31(2): 337–345.Wallerstein, Immanuel (1974, 1980, 1989) The Modern World-System, Vol. 3. San Diego,

CA: Academic Press.Wallerstein, Immanuel (1995) Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilisation. London:

Verso.Wallerstein, Immanuel (2002) “Revolts Against the System,” New Left Review 18: 29–39.Walt, Stephen M. (1998) “International Relations: One World, Many Theories,” Foreign

Policy. Special Edition (Spring): 29–46. http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/foreign_pol_walt.pdf

Waltz, Kenneth (1959; First published 1954) Man, the State and War. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Waltzer, Michael (2000) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical

Illustrations, 3rd edition. New York, NY: Basic Books.Watson, Adam, Barry Buzan, Andrew Hurrell, Stefano Guzzinni, Iver B. Neumann, and

Martha Finnemore (2001) “Forum on the English School,” Review of International Studies 27(3): 465–513.

Weber, Cynthia (1994a) “Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane’s Critique of Feminist International Relations,” Millennium 23(2): 337–349.

Weber, Cynthia (1994b) “Shoring Up a Sea of Signs: How the Caribbean Basin Initiative Framed the US Invasion of Grenada,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 12(5): 547–558.

Weber, Cynthia (1994c) “Something’s Missing: Male Hysteria and the US Invasion of Panama,” Genders 14(19): 171.

Weber, Cynthia (1998a) “Reading Martin Wight’s ‘Why Is There No International Theory?’ as History,” Alternatives 23: 451–469.

Weber, Cynthia (1998b) “Performative States,” Millennium 27(1): 77–95.Weber, Cynthia (1998c) “What’s so Queer about IR? Or Beware of the Sexuality Variable,”

Millennium Conference ‘Gender and International Studies: Looking Forward’, 13–14 September, LSE.

Weber, Cynthia (1999) Faking It: US Hegemony in a “Post-Phallic” Era. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Weber, Cynthia (2002) “Flying Planes Can Be Dangerous,” Millennium 31(1): 129–147.Weber, Cynthia (2006) Imagining America at War: Morality, Politics and Film. London:

Routledge.Weber, Cynthia (2009) Will Potter: “I Am an American,” four-minute film posted on the

web at http://iamanamericanproject.com/project%20page.html.Weber, Cynthia (2011) “I Am an American”: Filming the Fear of Difference. Bristol: Intellect

Books and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Weber, Cynthia (2015) “Why Is There No Queer International Theory?,” European Journal

of International Relations 21(1): 27–51.Weber, Cynthia (2016) Queer International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Weber, Cynthia (2017) “The Trump Presidency, Episode 1: Simulating Sovereignty,” Theory

& Event 20(1): 132–142.Weiner, Myron and Samuel P. Huntington (eds) (1987) Understanding Political Development.

Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.Weisman, Alan (2007) The World Without Us. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenveha.2008.05.001

http://www.columbia.edu

http://www.columbia.edu

http://iamanamericanproject.com

“Welcome to the Anthroposcene” (2012) Short video posted on the web at http://www.you-tube.com/watch?v=fvgG-pxlobk&feature=player_embedded.

Weldes, Jutta (ed.) (2003) To Seek Out New Worlds: Exploring Links between Science Fiction and World Politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wendt, Alexander (1992) “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization 46: 391–425. Reprinted in James Der Derian (ed.) (1995) International Theory: Critical Investigations. New York, NY: New York University Press, pp. 129–177.

Wendt, Alexander (1994) “Collective Identity Formation and the International State,” American Political Science Review 88(2): 384–396.

Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wendt, Alexander (2003) “Why World Government Is Inevitable,” EJIR 9(4): 491–542.Wilcox, Lauren (2015) Bodies of Violence: Theorizing Embodied Subjects in International

Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Williams, Raymond (1983) Keywords. London: Fontana.Wodak, Ruth (2015) The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean.

London: Sage.World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.Zalewski, Marysia (1993) “Feminist Standpoint Theory Meets International Relations

Theory,” Fletcher Forum 17(Summer): 13–32.Zalewski, Marysia (1995) “Well, What Is the Feminist Perspective on Bosnia?,” International

Affairs 71(2): 339–356.Zalewski, Marysia (1999) “Where Is Woman in International Relations?: ‘To Return as a

Woman and Be Heard,’” Millennium 27: 847–867.Zalewski, Marysia and Jane Parpart (eds) (1998) The “Man” Question in International

Relations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Zehfuss, Maja (2002) Constructivism in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Zehfuss, Maja (2003) “Forget September 11,” Third World Quarterly 24(3): 513–528.Žižek, Slavoj (1997) “Multiculturalism, Or, the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism,”

New Left Review 225: 28–52.Zondi, Siphamandla (2018) “Decolonising International Relations and Its Theory: A

Critical Conceptual Meditation,” Politikon 45(1): 16–31.



International Relations Theory; A Critical Introduction

Documents

Transcript of International Relations Theory; A Critical Introduction