Problematizing Global IR

Extract

[...] Witt: Problematizing the 'Global' in Global International Relations (2020) I. Summary of the article's arguments The authors Felix Anderl and Antonia Witt propose a friendly critique of the global international relations agenda as presented by Amitav Acharya. They are particularly interested in the two 'globalisms' identified as being non-problematized in the IR global proposal. Firstly, the authors point out the underlying idea of a common canon of knowledge in IR. According to them, global IR aims to enrich this existing canon by a pluralistic inclusion of non-Western perspectives, without, however, questioning the foundations and criteria that define the value of knowledge in IR. [...]

[...] This problematization of the 'global' would, according to them, allow for a genuine change in how IR studies and discusses international politics. II. Dialogue with other theories/concepts 1. Relations between global IR and postcolonial/decolonial critiques of R Global IRs maintain close ties with postcolonial and decolonial critiques of IR. By raising the question of eurocentrism and parochialism1 occidental of the discipline, authors such as Dipesh Chakrabarty2 or John Hobson3 have prepared the ground for the emergence of the global IR agenda. [...]

[...] In this regard, the lines of inquiry sketched out for an empirical problematization of the power effects of 'globalisms' seem particularly stimulating. They invite to historicize and sociologize concepts that are too often essentialized, in order to reveal their ideological dimensions. The study of the processes of monetization of 'the global', of the political authorization of IOs by the claim of 'the global', or of the hierarchies produced within these organizations would offer a rich light on these issues. The global RI have, in my opinion, a key role to play in these research perspectives. [...]

[...] Personal Reflection The call for a reflexive problematization of 'the global' seems to me to be a major contribution of this article. By questioning the conceptual frameworks on which the RI are based, including in their 'global' formulation, it allows for avoiding the risk of simply reproducing existing structures. As the authors noted, reflexivity does, however, carry the danger of remaining at the level of a disconnected analysis of empirical issues. That is why it is important, in line with what Bhambra proposes for sociology, to link this reflexive approach to a fundamental questioning of the genesis of underlying imaginaries and their concrete implications. [...]

[...] Relations between Global IR and Global Sociology The authors draw a parallel with the debate on global sociology. Just as in Global IR, some sociologists advocated for the inclusion of non-Western perspectives in the disciplinary canon, in response to globalization. However, Gurminder Bhambra6 criticized this cumulative approach, showing that the world has always been globalized. For her, sociology should be globalized not by the addition of knowledge but by a questioning of its epistemological categories, developed from a Eurocentric perspective. [...]