Content uploaded by Sm Rai
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sm Rai on Aug 26, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Geographies of Exclusion and the
Politics of Inclusion: Race-based Exclusions
in the Teaching of International Relations
Geeta Chowdhry
Northern Arizona University
Shirin M. Rai
University of Warwick
In this essay, we argue that race has yet to be integrated as an analytical
category shaping the study and teaching of international relations. We
suggest that although the issues of race and gender are systematically
coded into central concepts in the discipline, they are made invisible
through a ‘‘series of ontological and epistemological maneuvers.’’ Focus-
ing on two concepts central to the discipline—sovereignty and the nation-
state—we suggest that race can be better integrated into the teaching of
international relations by focusing on the ways in which these maneuvers
structure the geographies and politics of exclusion and inclusion in inter-
national relations. We conclude that raising questions about the ways in
which race is taught in the academy is in itself critical—what we teach,
how we teach, and who teaches are all questions that need repeated airing
for achieving interpretative autonomy as well as a transformative politics.
Keywords: race, teaching, sovereignty, nation-state, exclusion,
inclusion
While there now exists a growing, albeit sparse, literature on ‘‘race’’
1
in interna-
tional relations (see, e.g., Grovogui 1996; Persaud 1997, 2002; Krishna 2001;
Persaud and Walker 2001; Ling 2002; Doty 2003; Inayatullah and Blaney 2003;
Chowdhry and Nair 2002; Agathangelou 2006), race has yet to be included as an
analytical category shaping the study of International Relations (IR)
2
in a system-
atic way. From being an addendum, we now do have postcolonial voices repre-
sented on IR panels in conferences and as chapters in books. However, these
voices often echo in isolation, speaking to none and not being spoken
with—providing legitimacy without occupying a ‘‘legitimate’’ place within these
discursive spaces. Further, the ‘‘hearing’’ of postcolonial voices that focus on
race often takes the form of illustrative engagements leading to museum-like
displays of the exoticized other—teaching us about civilizations declined, periph-
eral but colorful examples of weakness in one or other form. This illustrative
1
The term ‘‘race’’ is put in quotation marks for at least three reasons. First, we use quotation marks to acknowl-
edge the fact that it remains a contested category; second, to emphasize the fact that we believe it does not exist
as a biological category even though its effects are real; and third to suggest that its meanings are historically and
spatially located. While we only use quotes in the first instance of usage, our qualifications remain the same every
time we use the term.
2
Capital letters here denote the dominant discursive modes that shape the analytics of international relations.
2009 International Studies Association
International Studies Perspectives (2009) 10, 84–91.
power holds sway in curricula through which metropolitan powers teach their
own as well as the elites of emerging economies—both servicing the needs of
the metropolis. When the day is done, the glass cabinets with their displays of
decline of civilizational pasts can be locked away in darkened rooms, having cre-
ated value in instruction without engaging the stories told by the displays or
incorporating them into the stories of IR.
These erasures of race in the stories of IR are made possible through a series
of ontological and epistemological maneuvers (Shaw 2002:62). These maneuvers
structure the emergence of a ‘‘common sense’’ regarding the boundaries of IR.
Race, together with gender, is generally not included within these boundaries
nor is there much curiosity about the racialized foundations of IR. In this essay,
we suggest that race can be integrated into the teaching of IR by focusing on
the ways in which these ontological and epistemological maneuvers structure the
geographies and politics of exclusion and inclusion in IR regarding questions of
sovereignty and identity, nation and nationalism. Focusing on ‘‘this doubly con-
stituted inclusion ⁄exclusion’’ allows us to not only explore the ways in which
race can be foregrounded in discussions about sovereignty and identity, nation
and nationalism, but it also enables an exploration of how the silences around
race have ‘‘allowed the discipline to reproduce itself in the image of western
man and the Great Powers’’ (Persaud 2002:58).
The questions of sovereignty and identity, nation and nationalism, have
recently gained a renewed currency in both the writing and practice of IR, as
the mappings of old and new forms of exclusions and inclusions are legitimized
through the production of a somewhat new global security imaginary.
3
The glo-
bal security imaginary situates ‘‘danger’’ globally; danger ‘‘is no longer capable
of being written as just ‘out there.’ Security is not to be found ‘within’’’ (Camp-
bell 1990:175). In addition to the erasure of the inside–outside distinction so
fundamental to the conventional field of IR, the global security imaginary is no
longer only contained within military security discourses or the discourses associ-
ated with political economy. The securitization of identity, culture and religion,
nation and nationalism have all become the bases of this new global security
imaginary. While there is recent scholarship in IR that addresses several aspects
of the new global security imaginary, the racialized and gendered foundations of
this new imaginary have yet to be fully explored. In this essay, we suggest that
the global security imaginary functions on the exploitation of difference and the
geographies of exclusions and inclusions that we discuss. In addition, we explore
the ways in which the racialized foundations of this imaginary intersect with
identity, nation, and security to service the needs of metropolitan centers.
Race, Racial Realism ⁄Colorblindness, and Sovereignty in IR
Highlighting race in IR may imply that race is a real biological category; thus,
we must state at the outset that we believe race, like gender, to be a socially
constructed category that has no biological or cultural fixity to it.
4
However, we
3
While the ‘‘new’’ global security imaginary has emerged in response to the economic and military ‘‘threats’’ faced
by the United States and the United Kingdom in a globalized, post-9 ⁄11 world, it retains many features of the ‘‘old’’
security imaginary. For example, this global security imaginary, while claiming to be global, organizes mainly around
the perceived security interests of powerful nation–states. The newness of this imaginary is thus not entirely new.
4
The debates over race as a biological category or socially constructed concept are still ongoing. The publica-
tion of Hernstein and Murray’s The Bell Curve (1994) and the human genome project seem to imply once again
that race is genetically coded and determines our physical markers as well as our behavior. In addition, even some
of the scholars who agree that race is a socially constructed category go so far as to suggest that the use of race as
an analytical category reproduces the commonsense notion of race as a natural category (Miles and Torres
1999:26). Hence some of these scholars prefer to use the ‘‘racialization problematic’’ instead of race referring to
the process of racialization that produces ‘‘racialized groups’’ (Small 1999:47–49).
85Geeta Chowdhry and Shirin M. Rai
also believe that racial formations and racialized groups are ‘‘real,’’ acquiring
social meaning through a variety of social, legal, political and economic forces,
and institutions; through ‘‘performative acts’’; and through their intersections
with gender, class, sexuality, nation, religion, and so on (Chowdhry 2008).
While the discipline of IR has flirted with the analysis of race mainly through
postcolonial writing, the relationship of conventional IR to race resonates well
with the claims of racial realism, also referred to as the colorblind position pop-
ular in discussions of ‘‘race relations’’ today.
5
Although racial realists come in
many hues, they agree on some assumptions about race and racism (D’Souza
1995; Sleeper 1997; Thernstrom and Thernstrom 1997; Jacoby 1998; Steele
1999). First, they believe that the civil rights revolution in the United States
replaced the prejudices and cruel discrimination of an earlier era by a color-
blind ethic in which race does not matter. Second, they suggest that it is the
cultural shortcomings of communities of color that account for their failures.
Third, they believe that race-conscious policies promoted by political opportu-
nists who are trying to benefit from ‘‘identity politics’’ exacerbate racial divi-
sions. Based on the above reasoning, racial realists suggest that as race is not a
natural or biological category, we should ignore race as an analytical category
altogether. ‘‘For them color-blindness is not simply a legal standard; it is a par-
ticular kind of social order, one where racial identity is irrelevant’’ (Brown et al.
2005:7). By focusing on the alleged decline of individual racism, they choose to
ignore the systemic coding of race in the framework of social, political, legal,
and economic institutions and in ‘‘the habits of mind and received truths’’ of
Americans (Brown et al. 2005:4; see also Bonilla-Silva 2006).
At first glance, the field of IR has hardly any parallels to the racial realism ⁄
colorblindness discussed above. Conventional IR do not claim any position on
race, much less a colorblind position; indeed there is a ‘‘well-trained silence’’
around issues of race (Persaud 2002:58). However, much like the ontological
maneuvers of racial realists that lead them to their objectivity claims, the well-
trained silence of IR emerges from epistemological and ontological maneuvers in
the discipline that replicate the colorblind position that we refer to. We suggest
that while there is an alleged colorblindness to the discipline, issues of race and
gender are systemically coded into some of the concepts such as the nation-state
and sovereignty that are central to the discipline. Arguably, the focus of conven-
tional IR on nation-states depends upon neither the inclusion nor the exclusion
of race or racialized subjects. However, the centrality of the Westphalian state
and the principle of sovereignty as the constitutive pillars of disciplinary authority
and legitimacy in IR lead to several racialized inclusions and exclusions.
Karena Shaw (2002) and Sankaran Krishna (2001), amongst others, discuss
the ways in which the nation-state and sovereignty determine these inclusions
and exclusions. Shaw examines the constitution and legitimation of disciplinary
authority in IR by focusing on the exclusion of indigenous peoples from IR. For
Shaw, the ‘‘preconditions established by the assumption of sovereignty as the
grounds of analyses’’ in IR ‘‘provides the basic tension that any attempt to
include indigenous peoples in disciplinary conversations must negotiate’’ (Shaw
2002:64). Acknowledging that the focus on sovereignty excludes yet to be decol-
onized indigenous peoples from the disciplinary boundaries, she also suggests
that the efforts of scholars such as Franke Wilmer (1993) and Neta Crawford
(1994) to seek inclusion of native voices in IR based on the terms of sovereignty
limit their analysis. According to Shaw, Wilmer’s analysis on how indigenous
voices are moving towards inclusion in IR does not take into account the fact
that indigenous peoples ‘‘have not been incidental frills at the edges of but have
5
For a discussion of racial realism see Brown, Carnoy, Currie, Duster, Oppenheimer, Schultz, and Wellman
(2005).
86 Geographies of Exclusion and the Politics of Inclusion
always been central to IR—both as a discipline and as practices of politics among
nations’’ (Shaw 2002:68). For example, Shaw suggests that the role of interna-
tional law, primarily through the doctrine of terra nullius, in the violence and
dispossessions enacted upon indigenous peoples remind us of how racialized
difference was used in the theft of land and to deny sovereignty to indigenous
nations. In addition, she reminds us that ‘‘the active marginalization of indige-
nous peoples has been necessary for IR to appear and function’’ (Shaw
2002:68).
Another example of the ways in which the sovereignty abstraction of IR erases
significant histories is provided by Krishna (2001). Remarking on the horren-
dous violence engendered by European powers during the misnamed Hundred
Years of Peace (1815–1914), Krishna suggests the claim of peace for the period
between 1815 and 1914 could only be made by relying on the abstraction of sov-
ereignty. As the colonized were not perceived as sovereign entities, the violence
against them during their occupation did not merit an accounting in the peace
narrative. In addition to these claims of Krishna, it is important to note that the
racialized and gendered construction of Africa, Asia, and the Americas as bar-
baric and uncivilized played an equally important role in the ontological maneu-
vers of the sovereignty narrative. Colonization became mission civilisatrice and
references to the white man’s burden exorcised any repugnance for the inhu-
mane practices associated with it.
The history of the sovereign modern state in Europe is thus deeply embedded
in the history of the imperial project of Europe. While most accounts of the
history of modernity including the modern state claim a linear chronology,
beginning with its origins in Europe and then its dissemination to the rest of
the world, postcolonial scholars suggest the mutual constitution of the ‘‘West
and the rest’’ in which the nation state and its identity emerge in the context of
the ‘‘imperial social formation.’’
6
The state-centeredness of the sovereignty nar-
rative rests on the assumption of an anarchical world in which sovereign nation
states negotiate their interests, sovereignty being the alleged equalizing concept
in IR. In this narrative, the sovereign state is thus projected as the universal and
highest form of authority in the anarchical world system dissimilating its Euro-
centric, hierarchical and violent origins. ‘‘Indeed, reflection on the past 300 or
so years—since Westphalia—indicates that the dominant political form has in
any case been the imperial state and empire rather than the sovereign state’’
(Laffey and Weldes 2004:125).
Race(ing) the Global Security Imaginary: Identity, Nation, and Citizenship
In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the United States of America
unleashed ‘‘a war on terror’’ strongly supported by Britain, Spain, and Australia.
While these events and what followed have been discussed by numerous schol-
ars, we discuss briefly the ‘‘new’’ global security imaginary that emerged in the
post-9 ⁄11 world. We conceptualize the global security imaginary as ‘‘a way of
naming, ordering and representing’’ international security (Ma
¨lksoo 2006). It is
this imaginary that draws boundaries, constructs identities and danger, and per-
forms security (see Muppidi 1999; Weldes 1999). We suggest that the two con-
ventional pillars of IR—the nation-state and sovereignty—remain central to the
construction of this imaginary leading to a renewed interest in issues of national
identity and citizenship in metropolitan centers. In the previous section, we have
discussed the ways in which race is foundational to the sovereignty narrative. In
6
The term ‘‘imperial social formation’’ was used by Sinha (1995:10) to discuss the ‘‘different trajectories of
metropolitan and colonial histories’’ at the same time insisting that ‘‘metropolitan and colonial histories were both
constituted by the history of imperialism.’’
87Geeta Chowdhry and Shirin M. Rai
this section we draw on Burton et al.’s engagement with the ‘‘imperial turn’’ to
discuss the ways in which a racialized global security imaginary which serves the
needs of metropolitan centers recuperates and reinscribes race into IR in signifi-
cant ways through the twin concept of the nation-state.
While the nation-state and sovereignty are constitutive of conventional IR, it
generally treats the nation-state as given and does not take seriously questions
regarding its construction, its nature, and its identity. However, critical interven-
tions into IR (based on the historical sociology and anthropology of the
state) interrogate the nation-state project and suggest that the nation is not
based on pre-existing identities; rather the state inscribes ‘‘an imagined political
community’’ to legitimize its national and sovereign status (Anderson 1983).
The importance of understanding the nation as an imagined, political, cultural,
and social project cannot be overstated for it demonstrates that the nation is not
pre-given but is constructed and needs to constantly produce and reproduce
itself (Campbell 1990). The construction of the imagined political community
relies on the construction of a noncommunity, the ‘‘other,’’ the enemy, and
maintenance of internal and external boundaries based on these constructions.
Race, ethnicity, gender, religion, caste, class, and so on are crucial elements in
the constructions of national boundaries, working particularly through the con-
cept of citizenship. The concept of citizenship defines who belongs to the nation
and who does not; those who do not belong could be both within and outside
the nation. Citizenship uses race, for instance, as an exclusionary mechanism to
maintain the territorial integrity and identity of the nation legally and metaphor-
ically defining those who really belong to the ‘‘imagined community’’ and oth-
ers who are excluded from this community.
The focus of scholarship assessing the impact of the ‘‘imperial turn’’ on
metropolitan societies, including postcolonial and cultural studies scholarship,
provides a unique vantage from which to examine the racialized politics of iden-
tity, nation, and citizenship as well as sovereignty in metropolitan societies under
the new global security imaginary (see, e.g., Burton 2003). According to Burton
(2003), the ‘‘imperial turn’’ means focusing on the postcolonial fate of metro-
politan societies. Burton, following scholars like Said (1978, 1993), Hall (1997),
Gilroy (1987, 1993), and Spivak (1993), is referring both to the ontological and
physical presence of empire in Britain (and by extension in the United States)
demonstrating the contrapuntal engagement of empire with nation, both in the
context of metropolitan centers and postcolonial societies.
7
We take the ‘‘the imperial turn’’ to mean the accelerated attention to the
impact of histories of imperialism on metropolitan societies in the wake of
decolonization, pre- and post-1968 racial struggle and feminism in the last quar-
ter century. The democratization of the North American academy, however
glacial and incomplete at the twentieth century’s end, is partly the result of
these social ⁄political movements. They have in turn created new constituencies
insistent on histories that explain the experiences of colonial and ex-colonial
peoples—and account for the persistently racialized ‘‘Others’’—in postcolonial
metropolitan societies. Those constituencies are the legacy of several generations
of black Europeans—and here I refer not just to the colonized in distant lands,
but also to those ‘‘at the other end of the imperial chain, inside Europe as citi-
zens, bystanders and sojourners.’’ (Burton 2003:2)
7
The concept of contrapuntality is borrowed by Edward Said from Western classical music. Said uses contrapun-
tality to show how the submerged but crucial presence of empire emerges in canonical texts. This kind of reading
contrasts with the univocal readings ‘‘of discrete and essential civilizational and national’’ categories, of discrete
and separate histories of nations states in the modern world. A contrapuntal reading, in contrast, demonstrates ‘‘a
simultaneous awareness both of metropolitan histories and of those other subjected and concealed histories against
which this dominated discourse acts’’ (Said quoted in Chowdhry 2008).
88 Geographies of Exclusion and the Politics of Inclusion
However, there has always existed a paradoxical tension in metropolitan cen-
ters between the needs of metropolitan centers serviced by racialized others and
their ‘‘problematized’’ presence. The needs of metropolitan centers attract popu-
lations to it but also contain and shape their inclusion as well as their exclusion.
The ghettos of subalterneity that emerge tell us about both, the expanded needs
of metropolitan power and its servicing by the subaltern other. Under the new
global security imaginary, debates around belonging and citizenship have
gained a heightened presence in the metropolitan centers. The rise of new
nationalisms and nativist responses against racialized citizens, bystanders, and
sojourners—marked as foreign ⁄‘‘others’’ who do not really belong in the
national landscape—are aided and abetted by nation-states and their discourses
about citizens, immigrants, and security which reinscribe whiteness into national
identity.
In the wake of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent bombings in Madrid
and London, these discourses of identity and citizenship have acquired a stri-
dent character in metropolitan centers. For example, the British state has
responded by at least partially identifying the problem and its fix in issues of
identity. In a double move, one that both seeks to include and exclude racial-
ized others, it has called for a ‘‘emphatic reassertion of Britain and British-ness’’
(Preston 2007:159). These calls can be seen as a desire for inclusion through
expanding notions of Britishness to include historically racialized others.
8
How-
ever, much of the efforts at inclusion reflect what we have called above the
museum approach of inclusion. Through this, a fixing of identities takes
shape—of display without engagement of inclusion based on exclusions. Multi-
cultural citizenship discourses are deployed at the same time to emphasize the
openness of the metropolis and to ghettoize the other as bound by traditions
incomprehensible to the tolerant modern culture within which they find place
and yet remain separate and impregnated with danger, always sitting uneasily
within the imagined community of the nation. These calls for inclusion can be
seen, thus, as a hyperracialized revival of the discourse of cultural otherness in
which ‘‘others’’ are portrayed as a civilizational and territorial security
threats. But what of the voices of the ‘‘ghettos’’? Peripheral and contained per-
haps, but also escaping and disturbing the dominant flows of communications.
Worried by all sorts of internal demons—accountability, authenticity, representa-
tion—engagement with the dominant flows of communication display postcolo-
nial anxieties that do not make for ‘‘easy listening’’ of neat composition. The
internal disturbance resonates in the fractured, sometimes tortured articulations
of anger, but also in alternative visions of changing landscapes.
Both the museum and the ghetto models of inclusion ⁄exclusion nurture the
sovereignty narrative of nation-states and national identities in which clear and
demarcated boundaries separate nations and citizens from one another. The
mutual embeddedness of nation and empire in national identity construction,
for example, which challenges the enclosures of the sovereignty narrative are
glossed over. Stuart Hall’s discussion of British identity is instructive of this
mutual embeddeness and provides an interesting alternative to sovereignty in
conceptualizing the nation and national identity.
People like me who came to England in the 1950s have been there for centuries;
symbolically we have been there for centuries . . . I am the sugar at the bottom of
the English cup of tea. I am the sweet tooth, the sugar plantations that rotted gen-
erations of English children’s teeth. There are thousands of others beside me that
are, you know, the cup of tea itself. Because they don’t grow it in Lancashire, you
know. Not a single tea planatation exists within the United Kingdom. This is the
8
See Bhikhu Parekh’s report (2000).
89Geeta Chowdhry and Shirin M. Rai
symbolization of English identity—I mean, what does anybody know about an Eng-
lish person except that they can’t get through the day without a cup of tea?
Where does it come from? Ceylon—Sri Lanka, India. That is the outside history
that is inside the history of the English. There is no English history without that
other history. The notion that identity has to do with people that look the same,
call themselves the same is nonsense. As a process, as a narrative, as a discourse,
it is always told from the position of the other. (Hall 1997:48–49)
Conclusion
We have discussed the ways in which race-based exclusions of IR can be incorpo-
rated into our teaching. If the mappings of race-based exclusions and inclusions
discussed briefly above interrogate the colorblind objectivity of the state of IR,
then where do we go from here? Do we invoke the disciplining power of color-
blind IR to continue the invisibilization of race in what, how, and who we teach
or do we make the time for ‘‘one more apertura: namely for race to be systemat-
ically incorporated into the analysis of global politics’’ (Persaud and Walker
2001:373)? As Ashley and Walker (1990) have suggested, strategic dissidence in
the teaching of IR could emphasize ambiguity rather than certainties; spaces
where we can think ‘‘other-wise’’; proliferation of many voices and avoiding
‘‘paradigmatic conceit.’’ Raising these questions in the academy is in itself criti-
cal—what we teach, how we teach, and who teach are all questions that need
repeated airing. We need this if we crave not only interpretative autonomy but
also a transformative politics.
References
Agathangelou, A. (2006)The Global Political Economy of Sex: Desire, Violence and Insecurity in Mediterra-
nean Nation States. New York: Palgrave and Macmillan Ltd.
Anderson, B. (1983)Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. Lon-
don: Verso.
Ashley, R., and R. B. J. Walker. (1990)Reading Dissidence ⁄Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the
Question of Sovereignty in International Studies. International Studies Quarterly 34(3): 367–416.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006)Racism Without Racists. Colorblind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality
in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
Brown, M. K., M. Carnoy, E. Currie, T. Duster, D. B. Oppenheimer, M. Schultz, and D. Well-
man. (2005)White-Washing Race. The Myth of a Color-Blind Society. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA:
University of California Press.
Burton, A. (2003)Introduction: On the Inadequacy and the Indispensability of the Nation. In After
the Imperial Turn: Thinking With and Through the Nation, edited by A. Burton. Durham and Lon-
don: Duke University Press.
Campbell, D. (1990)Security, Order and Identity in Europe: A Commentary. Current Research on
Peace and Violence 13(3): 175–180.
Chowdhry, G. (2008)Edward Said and Contrapuntal Reading. Implications for Critical Interven-
tions in International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 36(1): 101–116.
Chowdhry, G., and S. Nair (Eds.) (2002)Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations. Reading
Race, Gender and Class. London and New York: Routledge.
Crawford, N. (1994)A Security Regime Among Democracies: Cooperation Among Iroquois
Nations. International Organization 48: 3.
D’Souza, D. (1995)Illiberal Education: The Politics of Sex and Race on Campus. New York: The Free
Press.
Doty, R. (2003)Anti-Immigrantism in Western Democracies: Statecraft, Desire and the Politics of Exclusion.
London and New York: Routledge.
Gilroy, P. (1987)‘‘There Ain’t No Black in the Union Jack’’: The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation. Lon-
don: Hutchinson.
Gilroy, P. (1993)The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
90 Geographies of Exclusion and the Politics of Inclusion
Grovogui, S. (1996)Sovereigns, Quasi-Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in Interna-
tional Law. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hall, S. (1997)Old and New Identities, Old and New Ethnicities. In Cutlure, Globalization and the
World System. Contemporary Conditions for the Representation of Identity, edited by A. D. King. Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hernstein, R. J., and C. Murray. (1994)The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American
Life. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Inayatullah, N., and D. Blaney. (2003)International Relations and the Problem of Difference. London
and New York: Routledge.
Jacoby, T. (1998)Someone Else’s House: America’s Unfinished Struggle for Integration. New York: The Free
Press.
Krishna, S. (2001)Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations. Alternatives 26(4):
373–376.
Laffey, M., and J. Weldes. (2004)Representing the International: Sovereignty After Modernity.
In Empire’s New Clothes: Reading Hardt and Negri, edited by P. A. Passavant, and J. Dean. London
and New York: Routledge.
Ling, L. H. M. (2002)Postcolonial International Relations. Conquest and Desire Between Asia and the West.
New York: Palgrave and Macmillan.
Ma¨lksoo, M. (2006)Re-Modernizing the European Security Agenda? Poland and the Baltic States in
the Enlarged Europe. Paper presented at the 31st Annual BISA Conference. Available at
http://www.bisa.ac.uk/2006/pps/m%c3%A4lksoo.pdf. (Accessed November 4, 2007).
Miles, R., and R. D. Torres. (1999)Does ‘‘Race’’ Matter? Translantic Perspectives on Racism After
‘‘Race Relations’’. In Race, Identity and Citizenship. A Reader, edited by R. D. Torres, L. F. Miro´n,
and J. X. Inda. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Muppidi, H. (1999)Postcoloniality and the Production of International Insecurity: The Persistent
Puzzle of U.S.-Indian Relations. In Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of
Danger, edited by J. Weldes, M. Laffey, H. Gusterson, and R. Duvall. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Parekh, B. (2000)The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. London: Profile Books.
Persaud, R. B. (1997)Frantz Fanon, Race and World Order. In Innovation and Transformation in
International Studies, edited by S. R. Gill, and J. H. Mittleman. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Persaud, R. B. (2002)Situating Race in International Relations. The Dialectics of Civilizational Secu-
rity in American Immigration. In Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations. Reading Race,
Gender and Class, edited by G. Chowdhry, and S. Nair. London and New York: Routledge.
Persaud, R. B., and R. B. J. Walker. (2001)Apertura: Race in International Relations. In Special
Issue on Race and International Relations.Alternatives 26(4): 373–376.
Preston, P. (2007)Freedom From ‘Britain’: A Comment on Recent Elite–Sponsored Political Cul-
tural Identities. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9(1): 158–164.
Said, E. (1978)Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books.
Said, E. (1993)Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books.
Shaw, K. (2002)Indigeneity and the International. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31(1):
55–81.
Sinha, M. (1995)Colonial Masculinity: The ‘‘Manly Englishman’’ and the ‘‘Effeminate Bengali’’ in the Late
Nineteenth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sleeper, J. (1997)Liberal Racism. NewYork: Penguin Books.
Small, S. (1999)The Contours of Racialization: Structures, Representation and Resistance in the
United States. In Race, Identity and Citizenship. A Reader, edited by R. D. Torres, L. F. Miro´ n, and
J. X. Inda. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Spivak, G. C. (1993)Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York: Routledge.
Steele, S. (1999)The Content of Our Character: The New Vision of Race in America. New York: St. Mar-
tin’s Press.
Thernstrom, S., and A. Thernstrom. (1997)America in Black and White: One Nation Indivisible. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Weldes, J. (1999)Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneap-
olis: University of Minnesota Press.
Wilmer, F. (1993)The Indigenous Voice in World Politics. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
91Geeta Chowdhry and Shirin M. Rai
