Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159695
Rebecca Turkington
Of the thousands of references to historical figures across sixty disciplinary and intellectual histories of International Relations (IR) published since 1929, Patricia Owens (2018) found only 2.94 percent referred to women—79 individuals across the entire trajectory of international thought. Women’s International Thought: A New History, edited by Owens and Katharina Rietzler, is a first corrective to this disciplinary exclusion, pulling back a strip of lacklustre wallpaper to reveal a far more interesting pattern beneath. The book’s promise is two-fold: to begin to remedy the erasure of women from the disciplinary history of IR, and to expand the scope of what constitutes international thinking. Its contributions reveal a diverse array of thinkers, whose restitution enriches the discipline, and could have ripple effects in the world of contemporary IR practice. The volume’s fifteen chapters profile women from academia, policy, advocacy, and journalism, but point beyond these individual thinkers to new themes and paths other researchers will inevitably take up. As an inter-disciplinary project, the book has much to offer to a wide range of scholars. Beyond its obvious contributions to history and IR, the thinkers profiled bring lost perspectives to international law, security studies, political science, economics, and gender and race studies. Importantly, this volume and its broader project of rewriting women into the IR canon has implications for IR practitioners at a time when the field is grappling with urgent questions of diversity and relevance. The exclusion of women—especially women of colour—from IR theory and history is mirrored in IR practice. Recently, renewed efforts to address these disparities have called attention to the risks of homogenous groupthink. In the United States, the context with which I am most familiar, the latest National Security Strategy even recognises a diverse security workforce as a strategic asset. Calls for change have manifested in related demands to diversify representation in traditional IR spaces—especially leading think tanks and formal government institutions—and to build a more expansive pipeline through updated curricula and foreign affairs education. Women’s International Thought speaks directly to these challenges, offering a new array of diverse role models, an expanded vision of what kind of work can be considered international thinking, and a strong case for the centrality of gender and race analysis to a comprehensive understanding of international affairs.
{"title":"Diversity in foreign policy requires new histories of international thought","authors":"Rebecca Turkington","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159695","url":null,"abstract":"Of the thousands of references to historical figures across sixty disciplinary and intellectual histories of International Relations (IR) published since 1929, Patricia Owens (2018) found only 2.94 percent referred to women—79 individuals across the entire trajectory of international thought. Women’s International Thought: A New History, edited by Owens and Katharina Rietzler, is a first corrective to this disciplinary exclusion, pulling back a strip of lacklustre wallpaper to reveal a far more interesting pattern beneath. The book’s promise is two-fold: to begin to remedy the erasure of women from the disciplinary history of IR, and to expand the scope of what constitutes international thinking. Its contributions reveal a diverse array of thinkers, whose restitution enriches the discipline, and could have ripple effects in the world of contemporary IR practice. The volume’s fifteen chapters profile women from academia, policy, advocacy, and journalism, but point beyond these individual thinkers to new themes and paths other researchers will inevitably take up. As an inter-disciplinary project, the book has much to offer to a wide range of scholars. Beyond its obvious contributions to history and IR, the thinkers profiled bring lost perspectives to international law, security studies, political science, economics, and gender and race studies. Importantly, this volume and its broader project of rewriting women into the IR canon has implications for IR practitioners at a time when the field is grappling with urgent questions of diversity and relevance. The exclusion of women—especially women of colour—from IR theory and history is mirrored in IR practice. Recently, renewed efforts to address these disparities have called attention to the risks of homogenous groupthink. In the United States, the context with which I am most familiar, the latest National Security Strategy even recognises a diverse security workforce as a strategic asset. Calls for change have manifested in related demands to diversify representation in traditional IR spaces—especially leading think tanks and formal government institutions—and to build a more expansive pipeline through updated curricula and foreign affairs education. Women’s International Thought speaks directly to these challenges, offering a new array of diverse role models, an expanded vision of what kind of work can be considered international thinking, and a strong case for the centrality of gender and race analysis to a comprehensive understanding of international affairs.","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"96 - 100"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43505936","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159701
T. Christov
For most of our shared history, humans have lived in empires. From ancient Rome through the great colonial powers of early modern Europe to imperial resurrections in our present day, ideologies of empire firmly laid claim to some kind of universal superiority—whether moral, political, or legal—as one among many modes of justification. Understood loosely to embody a universal set of beliefs about the legitimacy of certain ways of life and political formations, however, empires have always been subject to historical contingency. The only certainty that followed their rise was their decline and eventual fall. The decline of empires generally came as a result of immoderate greatness and untampered violent conquest, and, contrary to common belief, many of them tended to rest on rather fragile structures. The only surprising fact about their inevitable fall, as Edward Gibbon observed in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is not how they came to ruin but why they lasted for as long as they did. However, the question of what kind of political organisation followed after the disintegration of empires remains murky, and the rise of the nation-state came out of deeply contested post-imperial spaces. Mira Siegelberg’s book is a much-needed reminder that the dominance of the nation-state, which has become so ubiquitous in our political experience today, did not really emerge until only after World War II—and that, in its early history, it sought to define itself in the shadow of empire. Concomitant with the rise of the state was the formalisation of citizenship, which secured a set of rights in a world of states. This story is as much about inclusion and belonging as it is about exclusion and neglect. Siegelberg chooses to interpret a wide-ranging story of large historical significance through a seemingly small, if not, for some, inconsequential category of the stateless. In weaving the multifaceted story of the transition from empires to states, she anchors legality as the core tool through which to examine the making of the post-imperial international order. The modern history of statelessness is then explored exclusively through the perspective of legal history. Such a choice is less arbitrary when one considers the fact that statelessness attained legal recognition during the interwar period: even though it evolved as a contested legal category, statelessness remained a key player in the larger dynamics of rights, sovereignty, international law and order. But the book’s other virtue in telling the story of statelessness lies in pondering the possible alternatives to the state as the basic political unit. Since the early seventeenth century, generally speaking, when the language of rights
在人类共同历史的大部分时间里，人类都生活在帝国之中。从古罗马到近代欧洲早期的殖民大国，再到我们今天的帝国复兴，帝国的意识形态都坚定地主张某种普遍的优越性——无论是道德上的，政治上的还是法律上的——作为众多正当性模式中的一种。宽泛地理解为，帝国体现了一套关于某些生活方式和政治形式合法性的普遍信念，然而，帝国总是受制于历史的偶然性。它们崛起之后唯一确定的就是衰落和最终的衰落。帝国的衰落通常是由于过度的强大和未经篡改的暴力征服，而且，与普遍看法相反，它们中的许多往往建立在相当脆弱的结构上。正如爱德华·吉本(Edward Gibbon)在《罗马帝国衰亡史》(History of The Decline and衰亡)中所指出的那样，关于罗马帝国不可避免的衰落，唯一令人惊讶的事实不是它们是如何走向毁灭的，而是为什么它们能持续这么久。然而，帝国解体后会出现什么样的政治组织，这个问题仍然很模糊，民族国家的兴起源于深具争议的后帝国空间。米拉·西格尔伯格的书是一个急需的提醒，即民族国家的主导地位，在我们今天的政治经验中如此普遍，直到第二次世界大战后才真正出现，而且，在其早期历史中，它试图在帝国的阴影下定义自己。与国家的兴起相伴而生的是公民权的正规化，它在一个由国家组成的世界中确保了一系列权利。这个故事既是关于包容和归属，也是关于排斥和忽视。西格尔伯格选择通过一个看似微不足道的、对某些人来说无足轻重的无国籍群体，来诠释一个具有重大历史意义的广泛故事。在编织从帝国向国家过渡的多面故事时，她将合法性作为考察后帝国国际秩序形成的核心工具。无国籍的现代历史，然后通过法律史的角度专门探讨。如果考虑到无国籍状态在两次世界大战期间获得法律承认这一事实，这种选择就不那么武断了:尽管无国籍状态演变为一个有争议的法律类别，但在权利、主权、国际法和秩序的更大动态中，无国籍状态仍然是一个关键角色。但这本书讲述无国籍故事的另一个优点在于，它思考了作为基本政治单位的国家的可能替代方案。自17世纪初，一般来说，当语言权利
{"title":"Who belongs? Stateless in the shadow of empires","authors":"T. Christov","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159701","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159701","url":null,"abstract":"For most of our shared history, humans have lived in empires. From ancient Rome through the great colonial powers of early modern Europe to imperial resurrections in our present day, ideologies of empire firmly laid claim to some kind of universal superiority—whether moral, political, or legal—as one among many modes of justification. Understood loosely to embody a universal set of beliefs about the legitimacy of certain ways of life and political formations, however, empires have always been subject to historical contingency. The only certainty that followed their rise was their decline and eventual fall. The decline of empires generally came as a result of immoderate greatness and untampered violent conquest, and, contrary to common belief, many of them tended to rest on rather fragile structures. The only surprising fact about their inevitable fall, as Edward Gibbon observed in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is not how they came to ruin but why they lasted for as long as they did. However, the question of what kind of political organisation followed after the disintegration of empires remains murky, and the rise of the nation-state came out of deeply contested post-imperial spaces. Mira Siegelberg’s book is a much-needed reminder that the dominance of the nation-state, which has become so ubiquitous in our political experience today, did not really emerge until only after World War II—and that, in its early history, it sought to define itself in the shadow of empire. Concomitant with the rise of the state was the formalisation of citizenship, which secured a set of rights in a world of states. This story is as much about inclusion and belonging as it is about exclusion and neglect. Siegelberg chooses to interpret a wide-ranging story of large historical significance through a seemingly small, if not, for some, inconsequential category of the stateless. In weaving the multifaceted story of the transition from empires to states, she anchors legality as the core tool through which to examine the making of the post-imperial international order. The modern history of statelessness is then explored exclusively through the perspective of legal history. Such a choice is less arbitrary when one considers the fact that statelessness attained legal recognition during the interwar period: even though it evolved as a contested legal category, statelessness remained a key player in the larger dynamics of rights, sovereignty, international law and order. But the book’s other virtue in telling the story of statelessness lies in pondering the possible alternatives to the state as the basic political unit. Since the early seventeenth century, generally speaking, when the language of rights","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"119 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48233769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.4
Jakub Stepaniuk
{"title":"Efficiency of the Identity-Sensitive EU Conditionality: A Case of Serbia and the Sanctions Pressuring","authors":"Jakub Stepaniuk","doi":"10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135448048","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.2
Aleksandar Mitić
{"title":"From Globalisation “Friend” to Global “Foe”: The Evolution of the US Strategic Narrative on China’s Rise","authors":"Aleksandar Mitić","doi":"10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"149 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135448052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.3
Dušan Proroković
{"title":"Constitutional Reforms in Kazakhstan: The Transformation of the Political System Under the Leadership of Kassym-Jomart Tokayev","authors":"Dušan Proroković","doi":"10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"367 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135448062","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.1
Mehmet Recai Uygur, Fatma Sever
{"title":"Macro-Level Securitization of Micro-Integrated Threat Perceptions in Europe: A Case Study of Refugees in Turkey, Greece, and Germany","authors":"Mehmet Recai Uygur, Fatma Sever","doi":"10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18485/iipe_ria.2023.74.1189.1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135448065","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159704
Mira L. Siegelberg
I’m grateful to Eduard Murumbwa and Caio Simoneti for organising this roundtable, and for inviting David Baluarte, Theodor Christov, Benjamin Mueser, and Zainab Olaitan to respond to Statelessness: A Modern History. The reviewers in this symposium represent the audiences that I hoped would engage with the book, and I owe my thanks to them for the richness of their reflections, as well as to the 2022 Francesco Guicciardini Prize committee. It is a particular privilege that Charles Maier agreed to write an introduction for the roundtable since I have learned so much from him and his work on the history of modern statehood. In his 1927 work The Public and Its Problems, the American political theorist John Dewey wrote:
{"title":"The Francesco Guicciardini prize forum: response to reviewers","authors":"Mira L. Siegelberg","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159704","url":null,"abstract":"I’m grateful to Eduard Murumbwa and Caio Simoneti for organising this roundtable, and for inviting David Baluarte, Theodor Christov, Benjamin Mueser, and Zainab Olaitan to respond to Statelessness: A Modern History. The reviewers in this symposium represent the audiences that I hoped would engage with the book, and I owe my thanks to them for the richness of their reflections, as well as to the 2022 Francesco Guicciardini Prize committee. It is a particular privilege that Charles Maier agreed to write an introduction for the roundtable since I have learned so much from him and his work on the history of modern statehood. In his 1927 work The Public and Its Problems, the American political theorist John Dewey wrote:","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"99 8","pages":"136 - 141"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41273072","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-30DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159700
David C. Baluarte
As we approach the eight-year mark in UNHCR’s decade-long commitment to advance the rights of stateless persons, known as the #Ibelong campaign, there is much to celebrate. Statelessness is firmly on the agenda in conversations about forced migration, national security, human development, and the fight to end systemic discrimination. Significant challenges remain, as millions of people are still forced to endure statelessness and some governments continue to persecute stateless populations while denying the fundamental human right to a nationality. But awareness of the problem of statelessness has arguably never been so widespread, while civil society organisations that directly incorporate the voices and experiences of stateless persons surge, and think tanks and academic programs flourish. High quality scholarship on statelessness has increased exponentially, and Dr. Mira Siegelberg has made a tremendously important contribution to this growing body of work with Statelessness: A Modern History. Like many scholars and advocates for the rights of stateless persons, I often tell a story of global statelessness that begins with the atrocities of World War II that triggered mass statelessness in the post-war period that culminated in the 1954 Statelessness Convention. After reading Dr. Siegelberg’s book, I will never tell the story the same way again. Statelessness: A Modern History offers a meticulous reconstruction of the varied contributions of artists, scholars, and policy makers to the understanding of statelessness in the years between the First and Second World Wars. She situates statelessness in some of the most prominent debates about international law and relations in modern history, most notably whether the individual is an appropriate subject of international law and whether a political order beyond the confines of the nation-state is desirable. Dr. Siegelberg succeeds in showing that statelessness played a significant role in the development of international legal thought throughout the interwar period. In uncovering the contributions of statelessness to legal
{"title":"A new narrative of statelessness","authors":"David C. Baluarte","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159700","url":null,"abstract":"As we approach the eight-year mark in UNHCR’s decade-long commitment to advance the rights of stateless persons, known as the #Ibelong campaign, there is much to celebrate. Statelessness is firmly on the agenda in conversations about forced migration, national security, human development, and the fight to end systemic discrimination. Significant challenges remain, as millions of people are still forced to endure statelessness and some governments continue to persecute stateless populations while denying the fundamental human right to a nationality. But awareness of the problem of statelessness has arguably never been so widespread, while civil society organisations that directly incorporate the voices and experiences of stateless persons surge, and think tanks and academic programs flourish. High quality scholarship on statelessness has increased exponentially, and Dr. Mira Siegelberg has made a tremendously important contribution to this growing body of work with Statelessness: A Modern History. Like many scholars and advocates for the rights of stateless persons, I often tell a story of global statelessness that begins with the atrocities of World War II that triggered mass statelessness in the post-war period that culminated in the 1954 Statelessness Convention. After reading Dr. Siegelberg’s book, I will never tell the story the same way again. Statelessness: A Modern History offers a meticulous reconstruction of the varied contributions of artists, scholars, and policy makers to the understanding of statelessness in the years between the First and Second World Wars. She situates statelessness in some of the most prominent debates about international law and relations in modern history, most notably whether the individual is an appropriate subject of international law and whether a political order beyond the confines of the nation-state is desirable. Dr. Siegelberg succeeds in showing that statelessness played a significant role in the development of international legal thought throughout the interwar period. In uncovering the contributions of statelessness to legal","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"113 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45733907","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-12-25DOI: 10.1080/09557571.2023.2159694
J. Gout
Redressing the dearth of women’s voices in the historiography of international thought is a process now well underway. This worthy recipient of the Joseph Fletcher Prize for Best Edited Book in Historical International Relations in 2021 is the most recent, and one of the most powerful contributions to this enterprise. It furnishes the discipline of International Relations (IR) with accounts of eighteen women who contributed to the history of the international. Moreover, in incorporating these voices into the history of international thought, the volume necessarily introduces contentious methodological claims about what ‘international thought’ is, and how the discipline of IR carves out its intellectual terrain. Owens’ and Rietzler’s volume then, delivers twice—not only by providing a rich historical account of women’s international thinking, but also by showcasing the wide array of practices, locations, forms and modes through which the international has been constructed and contested, thereby challenging long held disciplinary assumptions and intellectual traditions. On the first count, Owens’ and Rietzler’s volume provides a range of women’s international thought during the late nineteenth and mid twentieth century, a period that was foundational for the discipline of IR. The volume includes some familiar or ‘canonical’ names, including Simone Weil and F. Melian Stawell, as well as introducing thinkers less familiar to disciplinary accounts. These include the ‘street-scholar’ Mittie Maude Lena Gordon, journalist Elizabeth Wiskemann, and Pan-Africanist Amy Ashwood Garvey. Importantly, the volume does not cast its subjects as necessarily feminist in their ambitions where they themselves did not see their intellectual labours as such, nor does it suggest that each of these thinkers took the category of gender as essential to their conceptions of the international. Rather, it aims to take women’s contributions as they were—sometimes feminist, black Atlantic, imperialist, socialist, Pan-African or colonial—and (re)introduce them into the history of the international. Building on their own and others’ earlier contributions, Owens and Rietzler show that women have not been absent from thinking internationally throughout history, but rather systemically and historiographically excluded by practices of erasure (see Owens 2018; Hutchings and Owens 2021; Sluga 2015; Foxley 2006; Bay et al. 2015; Huber, Pietsch, and Rietzler 2021). It is here, on this second count, that the book’s ambition to investigate the history of women’s international thought necessarily acts as a challenge to disciplinary practices which have effectively excluded these thinkers. As the book
{"title":"Challenging the politics of knowledge: a new history of international thought","authors":"J. Gout","doi":"10.1080/09557571.2023.2159694","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2023.2159694","url":null,"abstract":"Redressing the dearth of women’s voices in the historiography of international thought is a process now well underway. This worthy recipient of the Joseph Fletcher Prize for Best Edited Book in Historical International Relations in 2021 is the most recent, and one of the most powerful contributions to this enterprise. It furnishes the discipline of International Relations (IR) with accounts of eighteen women who contributed to the history of the international. Moreover, in incorporating these voices into the history of international thought, the volume necessarily introduces contentious methodological claims about what ‘international thought’ is, and how the discipline of IR carves out its intellectual terrain. Owens’ and Rietzler’s volume then, delivers twice—not only by providing a rich historical account of women’s international thinking, but also by showcasing the wide array of practices, locations, forms and modes through which the international has been constructed and contested, thereby challenging long held disciplinary assumptions and intellectual traditions. On the first count, Owens’ and Rietzler’s volume provides a range of women’s international thought during the late nineteenth and mid twentieth century, a period that was foundational for the discipline of IR. The volume includes some familiar or ‘canonical’ names, including Simone Weil and F. Melian Stawell, as well as introducing thinkers less familiar to disciplinary accounts. These include the ‘street-scholar’ Mittie Maude Lena Gordon, journalist Elizabeth Wiskemann, and Pan-Africanist Amy Ashwood Garvey. Importantly, the volume does not cast its subjects as necessarily feminist in their ambitions where they themselves did not see their intellectual labours as such, nor does it suggest that each of these thinkers took the category of gender as essential to their conceptions of the international. Rather, it aims to take women’s contributions as they were—sometimes feminist, black Atlantic, imperialist, socialist, Pan-African or colonial—and (re)introduce them into the history of the international. Building on their own and others’ earlier contributions, Owens and Rietzler show that women have not been absent from thinking internationally throughout history, but rather systemically and historiographically excluded by practices of erasure (see Owens 2018; Hutchings and Owens 2021; Sluga 2015; Foxley 2006; Bay et al. 2015; Huber, Pietsch, and Rietzler 2021). It is here, on this second count, that the book’s ambition to investigate the history of women’s international thought necessarily acts as a challenge to disciplinary practices which have effectively excluded these thinkers. As the book","PeriodicalId":51580,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Review of International Affairs","volume":"36 1","pages":"90 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2022-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49297233","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：