The authors discuss ways of problematizing the global without falling back into nativism or nationalism.
Authors
Antonia Witt, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt, Germany.
Felix Anderl, Philipps-University Marburg, Germany.
Amitav Acharya, American University, USA.
Deepshikha Shahi, Associate Professor, Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana, India.
Isaac Kamola, Trinity College, USA.
Scarlett Cornelissen, Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
Summary
International Relations (IR) has long been criticized for taking a particular (Western) experience as basis for formulating theories with claim to universal validity. In response, recent discussions have therefore centered on making IR ‘truly global’, that is, more inclusive and less parochial in its language and substance. But the concept of the global underpinning this discussion is both illusive and strongly contested. It requires problematization.
But how? In this Forum, scholars discuss this question with a forward-looking agenda. Building on recent critical engagements with the question of the global as a concept in general and Global IR specifically, the authors ask how the global should be problematized in order to achieve a (more) progressive agenda for IR.
They draw on different regional and disciplinary perspectives to both further the agenda of a less exclusive and racist discipline without falling into the trap of shallow inclusivity, and to discuss ways of problematizing the global without falling back into nativism or nationalism.
Published in: Millennium: Journal of International Studies
To read the full article, please click here.
