The International in Security, Security in the International

Abstract

International Relations continues to come under fire for its relative absence of international perspectives. In this exciting new volume, Pinar Bilgin encourages readers to consider both why and how ʼnon-core’ geocultural sites allow us to think differently about key aspects of global politics. Seeking to further debates surrounding thinking beyond the ‘West/non-West’ divide, this book analyzes how scholarship on, and conceptions of, the international outside core contexts are tied up with peripheral actors’ search for security. Accordingly, Bilgin looks at core/periphery dynamics not only in terms of the production of knowledge in the production of IR scholarship, or material threats, but also peripheral actors’ conceptions of the international in terms of ‘standard of civilization’ and their more contemporary guises, which she terms as ‘hierarchy in anarchical society’. The first three chapters provide a critical overview of the limits of ‘our’ theorizing about IR and security, as well as a discussion on the track record of critical approaches to IR and security in addressing those limits. The following three chapters offer one way of addressing the limits of ‘our’ theorizing about IR and security: by inquiring into the international in security, security in the international. Each of these chapters makes a theoretical point and illustrates this further in a spotlight section that further illustrates the point to aid student learning. A genuinely innovative contribution to this rapidly emerging field within IR, this book is essential reading for students and scholars of critical security, international relations theory and Global IR.

Full text

Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

The International in Security, Security
in the International
International Relations continues to come under fire for its relative absence of
international perspectives. In this exciting new volume, Pinar Bilgin encourages
readers to consider both why and how ‘non-core’geo-cultural sites allow us to
think differently about key aspects of global politics.
Seeking to further debates surrounding thinking beyond the ‘West’/‘non-
West’divide, this book analyses how scholarship on, and conceptions of, the
international outside core contexts are tied up with peripheral actors’search for
security. Accordingly, Bilgin looks at core/periphery dynamics not only in
terms of the production of knowledge in the production of IR scholarship, or
material threats, but also peripheral actors’conceptions of the international in
terms of ‘standard of civilisation’and their more contemporary guises, which
she terms as ‘hierarchy in anarchical society’. The first three chapters provide a
critical overview of the limits of ‘our’theorising about IR and security, as well as
a discussion on the track record of critical approaches to IR and security in
addressing those limits. The following three chapters offer one way of addressing
the limits of ‘our’theorising about IR and security: by inquiring into the
international in security, security in the international. Each of these chapters
makes a theoretical point and explores this in a spotlight section that further
illustrates the point to aid student learning.
A genuinely innovative contribution to this rapidly emerging field within
IR, this book is essential reading for students and scholars of Critical Security,
International Relations Theory and Global IR.
Pinar Bilgin is Professor of International Relations at Bilkent University,
Turkey. She is the author of Regional Security in the Middle East: A Critical Per-
spective (Routledge, 2005) and co-editor of the Routledge Handbook of International
Political Sociology (2017).
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Worlding Beyond the West
Series Editors:
Arlene B. Tickner, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Ole Wæver,
University of Copenhagen, Denmark, David Blaney,Macalester College,
USA and Inanna Hamati-Ataya, Aberystwyth University, UK
Historically, the International Relations (IR) discipline has established its
boundaries, issues, and theories based upon Western experience and traditions
of thought. This series explores the role of geocultural factors, institutions, and
academic practices in creating the concepts, epistemologies, and methodologies
through which IR knowledge is produced. This entails identifying alternatives
for thinking about the “international”that are more in tune with local con-
cerns and traditions outside the West. But it also implies provincializing
Western IR and empirically studying the practice of producing IR knowledge
at multiple sites within the so-called ‘West’.
1. International Relations
Scholarship Around the World
Edited by Arlene B. Tickner and
Ole Wæver
2. Thinking the International
Differently
Edited by Arlene B. Tickner and
David L. Blaney
3. International Relations
in France
Writing between Discipline
and State
Henrik Breitenbauch
4. Claiming the International
Edited by Arlene B. Tickner and
David L. Blaney
5. Border Thinking on the edges
of the West
Crossing Over the Hellespont
Andrew Davison
6. Worlding Brazil
Intellectuals, Identity and Security
Laura Lima
7. International Relations and
American Dominance
A Diverse Discipline
Helen Turton
8. Global Indigenous Politics
A Subtle Revolution
Sheryl Lightfoot
9. Constructing a Chinese School
of International Relations
Ongoing Debates and Sociological
Realities
Edited by Yongjin Zhang and
Teng-Chi Chang
10. The International in
Security, Security in the
International
Pinar Bilgin
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

The International in
Security, Security in the
International
Pinar Bilgin
Add Add
AddAdd
Add
AddAdd Add
Add
Add
Add
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

First published 2017
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2017 Pinar Bilgin
The right of Pinar Bilgin to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him/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.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Names: Bilgin, Pinar, 1971- author.
Title: The international in security, security in the international /
Pinar Bilgin.
Description: New York, NY : Routledge, 2016. | Series: Worlding beyond
the west | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016003348| ISBN 9781138925311 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781315683812 (ebook) | ISBN 9781138925328 (pbk.)
Subjects: LCSH: International relations--Philosophy. | Security,
International--Philosophy. | East and West--Philosophy.
Classification: LCC JZ1305 .B55 2016 | DDC 355/.0330001--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016003348
ISBN: 978-1-138-92531-1 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-92532-8 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-31568-381-2 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Taylor & Francis Books
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Contents
Acknowledgement vi
Introduction 1
1 Limits of theorising about IR and security 16
2 Critical theorising about IR and security 41
3 How to access others’conceptions of the international 84
4 Inquiring into security in the international 106
5 Inquiring into the international in security 128
6 Civilisation, dialogue, in/security 159
Conclusion 176
Index 185
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the following people and institutions: Ole Wæver, Arlene
Tickner and David Blaney for nurturing this book from the very beginning;
Bilkent University for granting a much needed study leave; Department of War
Studies at King’s College London for providing me an institutional home;
Vivienne Jabri for her generous mentorship; Claudia Aradau, Didier Bigo and
Peter Busch for their gracious welcome and support during my study leave in
London where most of this book was written; Anna Agathangelou, I
.lker
Aytürk, Tarak Barkawi, Zeynep Güls¸ah Çapan, Siba Grovogui, Monica Herz,
L.H.M. Ling, Mustapha Kamal Pasha and Karen Smith for reading and com-
menting on all or parts of the manuscript; Thomas Diez, Karin Fierke and
Gunther Hellman for inviting me to present my research and receive valuable
feedback; Centre for the Resolution of International Conflict (CRIC) at the
University of Copenhagen, and Centre for Contemporary Middle East Studies
at the University of Southern Denmark for providing intellectual sanctuary
during the critical writing-up period; Turkish Academy of Sciences for a
GEBI
.P fellowship, Metin Heper and I
.lhan Tekeli for mentorship; Ken Booth
for introducing me to critical security studies and teaching me how to remain a
student even after I had students of my own; and my family for their constant
support.
If I remain sceptical about the ‘Western’/‘non-Western’binary in organising
our thinking about the international, blame it on my formation: As a student of
IR from Ankara, it took my Ph.D. training in Aberystwyth and encounters
with inspiring IR scholars from all around the world at annual meetings of the
International Studies Association at various North American locales, to begin to
question my ‘standard’training in IR, and learn to be curious about ‘different’
ways of thinking about the international and security.
27 December 2015, Ankara
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Introduction
This book seeks to respond to two questions that are interlinked. The first
question has kept students of International Relations (IR) busy for a long time:
1
How to think about security in a world characterised by a multiplicity of inequalities and
differences. Those who sought to reach beyond the limits of our existing theo-
rising about IR and security in responding to this question turned to study IR
scholarship in other parts of the world to see what alternatives were on offer.
Their findings gave rise to another question: How is it that IR scholarship in other
parts of the world does not reflect the kind of ‘difference’found in texts and contexts
outside IR and/or North America and Western Europe, but adopts the ‘standard’concepts
and theories of the field, notwithstanding their well-known limits?
In the attempt to respond to these questions, I build on the contributions of
critical security studies (defined broadly)
2
and draw upon the insights of post-
colonial studies
3
to suggest that we inquire into the international in security, and
security in the international. By inquiring into ‘the international in security’, I mean
reflecting on others’conceptions of the international as we study security.
Inquiring into ‘security in the international’entails worlding IR to recognise
how others’insecurities, which are experienced in a world that is already
worlded, have shaped (and have been shaped by) their approaches to the
international. By ‘others’, I mean those who are ‘perched on the bottom rung’
of world politics (Enloe, 1997) –i.e. those who happen not to be located on or
near the top of hierarchies in world politics, enjoying unequal power and
influence in shaping various dynamics, including their own portrayal in world
politics.
The international, as ‘a distinct location of politics’(Jabri, 2013: 2) is the
subject matter of IR. Yet, some of its critics consider the academic field of IR
as ‘an obstacle to a recognition and exploration of [the international], rather
than a guide to it’(Seth, 2013: 29, also see Paolini, 1999, Grovogui, 2006).
This is mainly because mainstream approaches to IR and security have
remained oblivious to the particularity of IR’s conception of the international
as ‘anarchy’, and overlooked others’experiences with ‘hierarchy’(but see
Donnelly, 2006, Wendt and Friedheim, 2009). While inequalities tied up with
differences are constitutive of the international, this is not always spelled out in
our theorising on IR and security (but see Pasha and Murphy, 2002). IR rests
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

on a particular conception of the international as a realm of sovereign states
enjoying some forms of equality, with little reflection on underlying inequalities,
forms of inclusion and exclusion (Walker, 2002).
In those instances when mainstream approaches engage with hierarchy,
observed Robert Vitalis (2005: 164), they explain it as a ‘natural order among
states, where “the strong do what they will, the weak do what they must”’.
John Hobson (2014: 559) concurred, noting that mainstream approaches rest
upon unacknowledged and under-analysed inequalities between states that are
‘derived from various a priori Eurocentric-hierarchic conceptions of the “standard
of civilisation”’. Relegating one’s contemporaries to the past by temporalising
difference and spatialising time as such (Fabian, 1983, Paolini, 1999, Hindess,
2007), has had significant implications for shaping the way ‘we’understand world
politics, ‘ourselves’and ‘others’, with asymmetrical implications for those who
happen to be located near the ‘bottom rung’(Enloe, 1997) of world hierarchies.
Thinking about security in a world characterised by a multiplicity of inequalities
and differences entails some way of accessing others’conceptions of the international
as shaped by their experiences with hierarchies of world politics.
Accessing others’conceptions of the international has turned out to be a
challenging task for students of world politics. Those who looked at IR studies
in other parts of the world were thwarted in their efforts as they found that IR
scholarship outside North America and Western Europe seems to be shaped by
‘similar’concepts and categories as mainstream approaches to IR. As docu-
mented in the first volume of the ‘Worlding Beyond the West’series (of which
this book is a part) (Tickner and Wæver, 2009a), surveys of IR studies in other
parts of the world have shown that IR scholarship outside North America and
Western Europe is structured around the so-called ‘standard’concepts and
categories of IR. For instance, a particularly statist and military-focused conception
of ‘security’prevails in IR scholarship in various parts of the world (Bilgin,
2012, Tickner and Herz, 2012, Zhang, 2007). Such findings are unanticipated
given the well-known limits of the concept of ‘security’, as discussed by students
of critical security studies and the global South.
4
These findings are also disheart-
ening to those who seek to incorporate others’conceptions of the international
into the study of security in a world characterised by a multiplicity of inequalities
and differences.
What I suggest here is that, rather than explaining away such apparent
‘similarity’as a confirmation of mainstream IR’s claim to universality, or merely
a consequence of the formative effect of the ‘Western’education received by
many scholars from the global South, we could begin our inquiries by reading
IR scholarship originating from outside North America and Western Europe as
responding to a world that is already worlded by IR.
5
In making this point, I
follow Edward Said (2000: 205) who wrote that it is ‘perfectly possible to judge
misreadings (as they occur) as part of a historical transfer of ideas and theories
from one setting to another’.
Yet, in doing so, I also differ from some of Said’s interlocutors who warrant
their call for national schools of IR by citing his essay on ‘traveling theory’
2Introduction
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

(Said, 2000), presuming that ‘theory does not travel well’(Salter, 2010: 134). In
contrast, I read Said as distinguishing between two different processes: that
theories respond to a particular time and place, and that they assume new
meanings and roles when they travel to other settings and are translated to fit the
requirements of their new setting. I support my reading of Said by making
two points. First, Said’s essay entitled ‘Travelling Theory’does not only point
to trials and travails of theories as they move from one socio-political setting to
another (‘such movement into a new environment is never unimpeded’, he
wrote) but also underscores the need for ‘borrowed, or traveling theory’:‘For
borrow we certainly must if we are to elude the constraints of our immediate
intellectual environment’(Said, 1983: 226, 41). Second, given that Said himself
borrowed liberally from other fields, approaches, geographies and cultures, and
praised those few remaining ‘genuine polymaths’(see Said’s foreword in Schwab,
1950 [1984]), it would be difficult to reduce his discussion on ‘travelling theory’
to a question of geo-cultural origins. We would also not be doing justice to
Said if we conflate his analysis of the worldliness of theories with assumptions
of autonomous development of ‘difference’(for a critique of the latter, see
Narayan, 2000).
In present-day IR, ‘worlding’is typically understood as reflecting on the
situatedness of knowing (what John Agnew [2007] has called ‘know-where’).
However, there is another, equally important, dimension to ‘worlding’, which is
about reflecting on the constitutive effects of knowing. This second understanding
of ‘worlding’(developed mostly in postcolonial studies) has been hardly visible
in recent discussions.
6
In this book, I call for worlding IR in both senses of the term,
which I characterise as ‘worlding-as-situatedness’and ‘worlding-as-constitutive’.I
suggest that worlding IR in its twofold meaning would allow us to understand
how others’insecurities, experienced in a world that is already worlded, have
shaped (and have been shaped by) their conceptions of the international.
In calling for worlding IR in its twofold meaning, I follow R.B.J. Walker
(1993: 6) who argued that ‘theories of international relations are more inter-
esting as aspects of world politics that need to be explained than as explanations
of contemporary world politics’. This is not to downplay the significance of
Ole Wæver’s (1998b) call for inquiring into the sociology of knowledge in
making sense of IR scholarship around the world. Rather I seek to underscore
the politics of knowledge insofar as ‘every study is positioned socially, which
means that every study is political, whether the politics are admitted, or not’
(Sylvester, 2012: 314). This is what I have previously referred to as the ‘inter-
national political “sociology of IR”’, invoking the title of Wæver’s 1998 study
which called for sociology of knowledge informed inquiries into IR (Bilgin,
2009). In the said piece, Wæver criticised prevalent accounts on the develop-
ment of the field for focusing on ‘the impact of developments in real-world
international relations on developments within the discipline of IR’. Yet he
also noted how this is done in a paradoxical manner insofar as those dynamics
are not ‘external’to the field, but are part of its ‘quasi-positivist, progressivist
self-understanding’(Wæver, 1998b: 691). Since then, inquiries utilising
Introduction 3
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

sociology of science explanations have increased in number. However, the
paradox that Wæver pointed to remains unaddressed. For, while we now have
better insight into the ‘internal’dynamics of IR in various settings, relatively
few studies inquire into the internal/external dynamics, that is, how IR outside
North America and Western Europe has developed in a world that is already
worlded by IR.
The building blocks of the answer I offer in this book are available to us in
the scholarship on critical security studies and postcolonial studies. The former
has focused on the constructedness of insecurities, and pointed to the ways in
which one’s‘basic ideas –political theories and philosophy –about what makes
the world go round’shape his/her conceptions of security (Booth, 2007: 154).
The latter has shown that thinking about international relations in a world
characterised by a multiplicity of inequalities and differences entails becoming
curious about others’conceptions of the international as shaped by those basic
ideas (Inayatullah and Blaney, 2004, Seth, 2013).
Indeed, students of critical security studies thus far have not paid sustained
attention to the relationship between our ‘multiple complex inequalities’
(Walby, 2009) and others’conceptions of the international. While important
beginnings have been made in the study of ‘strategic cultures’(Booth and
Trood, 1999) or ‘cultures of insecurity’(Weldes et al., 1999), these insights
have not always been integrated into theorising about world security. This is
not to imply the ‘absence’of culture in mainstream approaches to IR and
security. Rather, following Michael Williams (1998), I underscore the difference
between approaches that engage with the dynamic relationship between culture
and in/security, and others that fail to reflect on the cultural embeddedness of
theorising about IR and security.
Students of postcolonial studies, in turn, have offered ‘contrapuntal readings’
(Said, 1993) of the coloniser and the colonised to point to re/production of
colonial differences and postcolonial insecurities (Grovogui, 1996, 2006, Ling,
2002, Krishna, 1999). While it is generally accepted that the insights of post-
colonial studies are relevant not only for the coloniser and the colonised but all
those who have been shaped by ‘the continuity and persistence of colonising
practices’(Chowdhry and Nair, 2002: 11, also see Hall, 1996), students of
postcolonial studies have not paid sustained attention to broader issues regarding
world security (but see Biswas, 2001, Barkawi, 2005, Barkawi and Laffey, 2006,
Jabri, 2007, 2013).
Over the years, these two bodies of scholarship (critical security studies and
postcolonial studies) have not been in dialogue with each other.
7
Indeed, the
students of critical security studies have not always paid sustained attention to the
insights offered by the latter, while at the same time seeking to shield themselves
against the latter’s anti-Eurocentric critique (see, for example, Barkawi and
Laffey, 2006, Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010, Alker, 2005, Lee-Koo,
2007, Pettman, 2005). Students of postcolonial studies, in turn, have not been
able to penetrate the consciousness of students of IR as regards the relevance of
the insight they offer by giving voice to IR’s‘constitutive outside’.
4Introduction
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

If students of critical IR and security on the one hand and postcolonial studies
on the other have had limited dialogue, this is partly because the former
understand postcolonial studies as relevant only for the colonised and/or the
colonial era. Even then, its relevance is considered as suspect for students of IR
and security, given the ‘cultural’focus of postcolonial studies (see below).
Contra such narrow understandings of postcolonialism, I adopt Stuart Hall’s
(1996) understanding of postcolonialism as a ‘re-staged narrative’on world
history. Following Hall, colonialism ‘references something more than direct rule
over certain areas of the world by the imperial powers’. Rather, it ‘[signifies] the
whole process of expansion, exploration, conquest, colonisation and imperial
hegemonisation which constituted the “outer face”, the constitutive outside, of
European and then Western capitalist modernity after 1492’(Hall, 1996: 249,
cf. Shohat, 1992, McClintock, 1992). Insofar as colonialism ‘refers to a specific
historical moment’as well as ‘a way of staging or narrating history’, postcolonial
studies re-stage this narrative by de-centring the coloniser and looking at the
experiences and perspectives of the colonised as the ‘constitutive outside’of
modernity. Understood as such, postcolonial studies is already about the inter-
national, although the account it offers does not take forms that are instantly
recognisable to students of IR and security. Indeed, one of the contradictions
highlighted by the postcolonial critics is that students of IR do not recognise
others’theoretical explorations of world politics as ‘IR’even as they lament
the ‘absence’or ‘invisibility’of contributions by scholars from the global South
(see Chapter 3).
In what follows, I suggest that the task of addressing the question of thinking
about security in a world characterised by a multiplicity of inequalities and
differences calls on us to give heed to Hayward Alker’s (2005: 190) advice and
inquire into ‘epistemologically and ontologically sensitive ways in which the
reshapings of collective memories and imagined futures can be emancipatory’
without ‘neglecting to consider experiences of colonisation and imperialism’as
underlined by Jan Jindy Pettman (2005: 159). More specifically, I suggest, students
of critical security studies could turn to postcolonial studies to learn from and
draw upon ‘contrapuntal readings’of world history and politics offered by the
latter.
Edward Said developed his method of ‘contrapuntal reading’to be able to do
research as if viewed through the eyes of ‘the exile’(Said, 1984, 1994). Most
people ‘are principally aware of one culture, one setting, one home’, Said
observed in his 1984 essay ‘Reflections on Exile’.‘The exile’, however, is
aware of at least two if not more. It is this plurality of vision, highlighted Said,
that ‘gives rise to an awareness of simultaneous dimensions, an awareness that –to
borrow a phrase from music –is contrapuntal’(Said, 1984: 172).
Said defined ‘contrapuntal awareness’as belonging to multiple worlds not
only in terms of ‘cultural’identity but also academic field, thereby defying
disciplinary belonging and restraints. Such ‘eccentricity’allows the exile not
only ‘the negative advantage of refuge’, wrote Said, but also ‘the positive benefit
of challenging the system, describing it in language unavailable to those it has
Introduction 5
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

already subdued’(Said, 1993: 334). In his writings, Said drew upon various
fields including but not limited to the humanities and social sciences. ‘By
looking at the different experiences contrapuntally, as making up a set of what I
call intertwined and overlapping histories’, wrote Said,
a more interesting type of secular interpretation can emerge, altogether
more rewarding than the denunciations of the past, the expressions of
regret for its having ended, or –even more wasteful because violent and
far too easy and attractive –the hostility between Western and non-Western
cultures that leads to crises. The world is too small and interdependent to
let these passively happen.
(Said, 1993: 18–19)
Lamenting the passing of an era where intellectuals were expected to be fluent
in several subject areas and languages, he maintained that ‘[t]he fantastic
explosion of specialised and separatist knowledge is partly to blame’(Said,
1993: 320) for the present-day limits of our insight into ‘intertwined and
overlapping histories’of humankind.
8
That said, my aim is not to seek a meta-theoretical warrant for answering our
questions.
9
Nor do I wish to plea for ‘bridging’postcolonial studies and IR
(Darby and Paolini, 1994). Somewhat differently, I call for students of critical
security studies to raise their ‘contrapuntal awareness’and seek to learn from
and draw on postcolonial studies, and, as they do so, to remain mindful of the
latter’s criticisms. Here, I take heed of Kimberly Hutchings’s warning about ‘[t]he
tendency of critical IR theory to remain trapped within unsolvable theoretical
debates rather than turning attention toward redirecting empirical research and
specific explanations’(Hutchings, 2001: 79).
10
My task in this study is to take
stock of the literature on critical theorising about IR and security with a view
to its limits and possibilities, re-think where we are in terms of responding to
our questions, and pull together the building blocks of the answer I offer.
The plan
Chapter 1 considers the limits of theorising about IR and security in inquiring
into others’conceptions of the international. This may come across as somewhat
counter-intuitive in that mainstream approaches to security are often criticised
for their external focus. However, focusing on external actors (be it state or
non-state) is not the same as being curious about how ‘they’approach the
international, and/or be mindful of the limits of ‘our’ways of accessing their
conceptions of the international. More often than not, students of mainstream
approaches to IR and security studies have studied others’material capacities
based on ‘our’assumptions regarding ‘their’intentions. What these limits
amount to is that mainstream approaches to IR and security have not been
equipped to respond to the question of thinking about security in a world
characterised by a multiplicity of inequalities and differences.
6Introduction
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Students of critical theorising about International Relations and security have
sought to address these (and other) limits of mainstream approaches. Chapter 2
looks at the important strides made by critical theorising about IR and security
and those issues that remain. Postcolonial studies scholars, among others, have
highlighted those limits that have persisted (as with Eurocentrism). Yet, the
insights of postcolonial studies have not always been appreciated and/or integrated
into critical theorising about IR and security. In particular, reflections on others’
conceptions of the international have been missing from IR and security studies
scholarship. Indeed, the need for inquiring into ‘others’as IR’s‘constitutive
outside’has barely registered in Critical IR debates on the limits of the field.
Chapter 3 turns to the difficulties involved in accessing others’conceptions
of the international. In the attempt to find out about how ‘others’approach the
international, some IR scholars have looked at IR scholarship in other parts of
the world to see how they do things differently. However, they were thwarted
in their efforts in finding that IR scholarship in other parts of the world was not
as ‘different’as they expected. Another group of authors focused on the so-called
‘non-Western’texts and contexts to see whether and/or how ‘different’con-
ceptions of the international were offered in texts from outside IR and/or the
‘West’, practices of ‘everyday life’and ‘non-Western thought’. Notwithstanding
important insights provided by these two bodies of literature, we were left with
the question: How is it that IR scholarship in other parts of the world does not
reflect the kind of ‘difference’found in texts and contexts outside IR and/or
North America and Western Europe, but adopts the ‘standard’concepts and
theories of the field, notwithstanding their well-known limits?
I suggest that, rather than explaining away such apparent ‘similarity’as con-
firmation of mainstream IR’s assumptions of universality, or misplaced expec-
tations of ‘difference’, we could begin our inquiries into others’conceptions of
the international by reading their IR scholarship as an aspect of world politics,
or, more specifically, as a response to their insecurities experienced in a world
that is already worlded. Towards this end, I propose that we engage in
‘worlding IR’in its twofold meaning, reflecting on the situatedness of IR
scholarship and its constitutive effects. This is what I term as inquiring into
‘security in the international, the international in security’. Chapters 4 and 5
flesh out the answer I offer.
Chapter 4 inquires into security in the international by worlding IR
scholarship in China and security scholarship in Turkey. I suggest that if IR
scholarship in these two contexts does not come across as ‘different’as expected,
this could be because they are responding to a world that is already worlded by
IR. The example of China is noteworthy because of the relatively high volume
of reflective studies (available in English) on the state of IR in China and on
‘IR theory with Chinese characteristics’. The example of Turkey is chosen
partly because of my ability to access primary resources in Turkish. That said,
the case of Turkey is also noteworthy because it helps to highlight the insights
that postcolonial studies has to offer in the study of a part of the world that
was not formally colonised but was nevertheless caught up in hierarchies that
Introduction 7
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

were built and sustained during the age of colonialism and beyond. Taken
together, these two cases are offered not as representative of IR scholarship in
the global South, but to illustrate the broader point about reading others’IR
scholarship as an aspect of world politics, as responding to a world that is
already worlded.
Chapter 5 inquires into the international in security by studying others’
‘discourses of danger’(Campbell, 1992). Drawing on the postcolonial studies
literature on the origins and development of India’s‘atomic weapon’(Abraham,
1998, 2009), I seek to tease out others’conceptions of the international from the
‘discourses of danger’employed by the leadership, suggesting that India’s
nuclear (weapons) programme could be considered as responding to non-military
and non-specific insecurities experienced by the new entrants to the international
society. Doing so, I suggest, allows one to go beyond surface understandings of
the postcolonial becoming ‘almost the same but not quite’as mere imitation.
Accordingly, I suggest that we understand ‘emulation’as a security response by
new entrants to the international society to remove the grounds for their less-
than-equal treatment. Here, I contrast the English School’s understanding of
the international society as ‘benevolent’vis-à-vis the ‘others’, with the latter’s
experiences of the former as ‘Janus-faced’(Suzuki, 2005). I suggest ‘hierarchy in
anarchical society’as a concept that captures the hierarchical, anarchical and
societal aspects of others’conception of the international. The chapter illustrates
this argument by offering a reading of Turkey’s secularisation as part of an
attempt to address non-military and non-specific insecurities that the country’s
early twentieth-century leadership experienced in their encounters with the
international society.
Chapter 6 seeks to illustrate how the book’s answer to our questions works
when considering contemporary insecurities. The example I chose is a project
of world security, the Dialogue of Civilisations (DoC) initiative, offered as a way
of averting a future shaped by a Huntingtonian ‘clash of civilisations’scenario.
Here, I present a critical security studies critique that draws on the insights of
postcolonial studies. While the proponents of civilisational dialogue strive to
replace clash with dialogue, I argue, they do not always reflect on how myriad
insecurities are (re)produced through attempts at civilisational dialogue that are
shaped by particular notions of dialogue (that is not always dialogical in ethics and/
or epistemology), civilisation (which is not conceptualised dialogically or studied
contrapuntally) and security (undeniably statist and military-focused, devoid of
reflections on others’conceptions of the international).
One final note before moving to Chapter 1. Calls for inquiring into
inequalities and difference/s in the study of world politics are often rebuffed by
the critics who state that these are ‘no more than political moves by the relatively
weak’. In contrast, they argue, the ‘strong’
employ reason, righteousness, interest and, when all else fails, necessity and
power. It is the weaker party that argues that they do what they do because
they are who they are, and claim that cultural arguments are trumps,
8Introduction
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

because they have nothing else, not power, reason nor, perhaps, even
justice on their side.
(Sharp, 2004: 362)
As highlighted by Paul Sharp, whose words I quoted above, such responses to
‘cultural’arguments overlook the way in which the very notions of ‘reason’,
‘righteousness’,‘interest’,‘necessity’and ‘power’are defined by someone and
for some purpose (to invoke Robert W. Cox (1981)). Students of postcolonial
studies and feminist IR have invariably pointed to how prevalent understandings
of ‘reason’tend to be white and male (Haraway, 1988, Smith, 1999). Key
notions such as those mentioned above, which are utilised by the ‘strong’are
embedded in the very cultures where they are produced; yet they deny their
cultural embeddedness, portraying themselves as ‘free’of culture, i.e. objective.
That some are able to offer their culturally embedded concepts as ‘objective’,
thereby rendering others’as ‘subjective’or ‘cultural’is an instance of the limits
of our theorising about IR and security. This is where the book begins.
Notes
1Throughout the text, ‘International Relations’refers to the discipline of IR and
‘international relations’to world politics (except in quotations, which were left
untouched).
2Critical security studies can be defined in one of two ways. Narrowly defined, it
refers to the Aberystwyth School, whose students draw upon Frankfurt School
Critical Theory in the study of security (Booth, 1991, 1995, 1997, 2005, 2007,
Booth and Vale, 1997, Stamnes and Wyn Jones, 2000, Wyn Jones, 1999, 2005,
Bilgin, 2000, 2004, 2008a, 2011, Williams, 2001). Broadly defined, it refers to all
critical approaches to security, i.e. scholarship that builds upon critical thinking
about IR in the study of security. See, for example, Aradau et al. (2006), Burke
(2001, 2007), Burke and McDonald (2007), Weldes et al. (1999), Fierke (1998,
2007), Huysmans (1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2006), Buzan (1991), Guzzini and Jung
(2004), Wæver and Buzan (2003), Wæver et al. (1993), Wæver (1989, 1995, 1998a,
2004, 2011), Krause and Williams (1996, 1997), Peoples and Vaughan-Williams
(2010), Walker (1990, 1997), Jabri (2007, 2013), Sylvester (2010), Buzan and
Hansen (2009), Hansen (2000, 2006), Bigo (2000, 2001), Burgess (2010, 2011),
Aradau (2004).
3Postcolonial studies originated in the humanities. Its insights were integrated into
the social sciences, with some disciplines proving more open to reflecting on their
limits than some others. Postcolonial studies is not a unified body of thought. Differ-
ences among postcolonial studies scholars encompass the definition of ‘postcolonial’,
meanings of ‘modernity’and the limits of postcolonial agency. In what follows, I will
clarify my position vis-à-vis postcolonial studies by identifying differences within
the literature as appropriate. Finally, there is also the question of differences between
postcolonial and decolonial studies. Following Bhambra (2014), who emphasises the
potential for dialogue between the two literatures, and in keeping with the dialo-
gical spirit of the project, I will highlight points of convergence where possible.
However, as will become clear, I draw mostly on Edward Said, and less on Spivak
and Bhabha –all key authors of postcolonial studies.
4Throughout the study, I use the terms ‘Third World’and ‘global South’inter-
changeably, remaining true to the choices made by scholars where possible. While
Introduction 9
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

remaining mindful of the declining utility of these concepts, I follow Albert Paolini
(1999: 4) who noted that ‘no matter how amorphous’, such concepts are never-
theless useful insofar as they ‘[redirect] our attention to the edges of the Western
gaze’. Indeed, as Matthew Sparke (2007: 117) noted, ‘The Global South is every-
where, but it is also always somewhere, and that somewhere, located at the inter-
section of entangled political geographies of dispossession and repossession, has to be
mapped with persistent geographical responsibility’. For example, the global South is
where students in Southern Africa who are frustrated with the persistence of the
legacy of apartheid would locate themselves (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
africa-34636419).
5For an early formulation of this argument, see Bilgin (2008b).
6As editors, Tickner and Wæver (2009b) introduced both understandings in setting
up their framework. However, the second understanding is not integral to the
analyses offered by the contributors to the 2009 volume.
7Some have even cast doubt upon the potential for a ‘postcolonial IR’(Krishna,
2001, cf. Darby and Paolini, 1994, Obendorf, 2015).
8See, for example, Said’s foreword to Raymond Schwab’sThe Oriental Renaissance
(Schwab, 1950 [1984]).
9On in/commensurability, see Campbell (1996), Wæver (1996), Guzzini (1998),
Lukes (2000), Agnew (2007), Lichbach (2007), Kornprobst (2009), Burgess (2014).
For a reading of Edward Said’s‘contrapuntal reading’as ‘a method, an ethos and a
metaphor for IR’, see Bilgin (2016).
10 Hutchings (2001) defines critical IR broadly.
Bibliography
Abraham, I. 1998. The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Postcolonial
State, New York, Zed Books.
Abraham, I. (ed.). 2009. South Asian Cultures of the Bomb: Atomic Publics and the State in
India and Pakistan, Bloomington, Indianapolis, Indiana University Press.
Agnew, J. 2007. Know-where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics. International
Political Sociology, 1, 138–148.
Alker, H. 2005. Emancipation in the Critical Security Studies Project. In: Booth, K.
(ed.) Critical Security Studies and World Politics, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner.
Aradau, C. 2004. Security and the Democratic Scene: Desecuritization and Emancipation.
Journal of International Relations & Development, 7, 388–413.
Aradau, C., Balzacq, T., Basaran, T., Bigo, D., Bonditti, P., Buger, C., Davidshofer, S.,
Guillaume, X., Guittet, E. P., Huysmans, J., Jeandesboz, J., Jutila, M., Lobo-
Guerrero, L., Mccormack, T., Malksoo, M., Neal, A., Olsson, C., Petersen, K. L.,
Ragazzi, F., Akilli, Y. S., Stritzel, H., Van Munster, R., Villumsen, T., Wæver, O.
and Williams, M. C. 2006. Critical Approaches to Security in Europe: A Networked
Manifesto. Security Dialogue, 37, 443–487.
Barkawi, T. 2005. Globalization and War, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers.
Barkawi, T. & Laffey, M. 2006. The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies. Review of
International Studies, 32, 329–352.
Bhambra, G. K. 2014. Postcolonial and Decolonial Dialogues. Postcolonial Studies, 17,
115–121.
Bigo, D. 2000. When Two Become One: Internal and External Securitisations in
Europe. In: Keltsrup, M. & Williams, M. C. (eds.) International Relations Theory and
10 Introduction
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security, and Community, London, New York,
Routledge.
Bigo, D. 2001. The Möbius Ribbon of Internal and External Securit(ies). In: Albert,
M. E. A. (ed.) Identities Borders Orders: Rethinking International Relations Theory,
Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press.
Bilgin, P. 2000. Regional Security in the Middle East: A Critical Security Studies
Perspective. Ph.D., University of Wales, Aberystwyth.
Bilgin, P. 2004. Regional Security in the Middle East: A Critical Perspective, London,
Routledge.
Bilgin, P. 2008a. Critical Theory. In: Williams, P. D. (ed.) Security Studies: An Introduction,
London, Routledge.
Bilgin, P. 2008b. Thinking Past ‘Western’IR? Third World Quarterly, 29, 5–23.
Bilgin, P. 2009. The International Political Sociology of a Not So International Discipline,
International Political Sociology, 3, 338–342.
Bilgin, P. 2011. Continuing Appeal of Critical Security Studies. In: Brincat, S., Lima, L. and
Nunes, J. (eds.) Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies: Interviews and
Reflections, London, Routledge.
Bilgin, P. 2012. Security in the Arab World and Turkey, Differently Different. In:
Tickner, A. and Blaney, D. (eds.) Thinking International Relations Differently, London,
Routledge.
Bilgin, P. 2016. Edward Said’s‘Contrapuntal Reading’as a Method, an Ethos and a
Metaphor for Global IR. International Studies Review, 18, 1, 134–46.
Biswas, S. 2001. ‘Nuclear Apartheid’as Political Position: Race as a Postcolonial
Resource? Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 26, 485–522.
Booth, K. 1991. Security and Emancipation. Review of International Studies, 17, 313–326.
Booth, K. 1997. Security and Self, Reflections of a Fallen Realist. In: Krause, K. and
Williams, M. C. (eds.) Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, Minneapolis, University
of Minnesota Press.
Booth, K. (ed.) 2005. Critical Security Studies and World Politics, Boulder, CO, Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Booth, K. 2007. Theory of World Security, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Booth, K. and Trood, R. B. (eds.) 1999. Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific Region, New
York, St. Martin’s Press.
Booth, K. and Vale, P. 1997. Critical Security Studies and Regional Insecurity: The
Case of Southern Africa. In: Krause, K. and Williams, M. (eds.) Critical Security Studies:
Concepts and Cases, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Burgess, J. P. (ed.) 2010. The Routledge Handbook of New Security Studies, London, New
York, Routledge.
Burgess, J. P. 2011. The Ethical Subject of Security: Geopolitical Reason and the Threat against
Europe, New York, Routledge.
Burgess, J. P. 2014. Commensurability and Methods in Critical Security Studies. Critical
Studies on Security, 2, 356–358.
Burke, A. 2001. Fear of Security: Australia’s Invasion Anxiety, Annandale, Pluto Press.
Burke, A. 2007. Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence: War against the Other, New York,
Routledge.
Burke, A. & McDonald, M. (eds.) 2007. Critical Security in the Asia-Pacific, Manchester,
Manchester University Press.
Buzan, B. 1991. People, States, and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the
Post-Cold War Era, New York, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Introduction 11
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Buzan, B. and Hansen, L. 2009. The Evolution of International Security Studies, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, D. 1992. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity,
Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Campbell, D. T. 1996. Can We Overcome Worldview Incommensurability/Relativity
in Trying to Understand the Other? In: Jessor, R., Colby, A. and Shweder, R. (eds.)
Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry, Chicago,
The University of Chicago Press.
Chowdhry, G. and Nair, S. 2002. Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World: Race,
Gender, and Class in International Relations. In: Chowdhry, G. and Nair, S. (eds.)
Power, Postcolonialism, and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class,
London, Routledge.
Cox, R. W. 1981. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International
Relations Theory. Millennium –Journal of International Studies, 10, 126–155.
Darby, P. & Paolini, A. J. 1994. Bridging International Relations and Postcolonialism.
Alternatives, 19, 371–397.
Donnelly, J. 2006. Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power
and International Society. European Journal of International Relations, 12, 139–170.
Enloe, C. 1997. Margins, Silences and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the Under-
estimation of Power in the Study of International Relations. In: Booth, K., Smith, S. and
Zalewski, M. (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Fabian, J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, New York,
Columbia University Press.
Fierke, K. M. 1998. Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security,
Manchester, New York, Manchester University Press.
Fierke, K. M. 2007. Critical Approaches to International Security, Oxford, Polity.
Grovogui, S. N. 1996. Sovereigns, Quasi-sovereigns and Africans: Race and Self-determination
in International Law, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Grovogui, S. N. 2006. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order
and Institutions, New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Guzzini, S. 1998. Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The
Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London, Routledge.
Guzzini, S. & Jung, D. (eds.) 2004. Contemporary Security Analysis and Copenhagen Peace
Research, London, New York, Routledge.
Hall, S. 1996. When Was ‘the Post-colonial’? Thinking at the Limit. In: Chambers, I.
and Curti, L. (eds.) The Post-colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons,
London, Routledge.
Hansen, L. 2000. The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of
Gender in the Copenhagen School. Millennium –Journal of International Studies, 29,
285–306.
Hansen, L. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, New York,
Routledge.
Haraway, D. 1988. Situated Knowledges, the Science Question in Feminism and the
Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14, 3, 575–599.
Hindess, B. 2007. The Past is Another Culture. International Political Sociology, 1, 325–338.
Hobson, J. M. 2014. The Twin Self-Delusions of IR: Why ‘Hierarchy’and Not
‘Anarchy’Is the Core Concept of IR. Millennium –Journal of International Studies, 42,
3, 557–575.
12 Introduction
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Hutchings, K. 2001. The Nature of Critique in Critical International Relations Theory.
In: Jones, R. W. (ed.) Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner.
Huysmans, J. 1995. Migrants as a Security Problem: Dangers of ‘Securitizing’Societal
Issues. In: Thränhardt, D. & Miles, R. (eds.) Migration and European Integration: The
Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion, London, Pinter.
Huysmans, J. 1998a. Revisiting Copenhagen: Or, On the Creative Development of a
Security Studies Agenda in Europe. European Journal of International Relations, 4, 479–505.
Huysmans, J. 1998b. Security! What Do You Mean? From Concept to Thick Signifier.
European Journal of International Relations, 4, 226–255.
Huysmans, J. 2006. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration, and Asylum in the EU,
Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, New York, Routledge.
Inayatullah, N. & Blaney, D. L. 2004. International Relations and the Problem of Difference,
London, Routledge.
Jabri, V. 2007. War and the Transformation of Global Politics, Basingstoke, England, New
York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Jabri, V. 2013. The Postcolonial Subject: Claiming Politics/Governing Others in Late Modernity,
London, Routledge.
Kornprobst, M. 2009. International Relations as Rhetorical Discipline: Toward (Re‐)
Newing Horizons. International Studies Review, 11, 87–108.
Krause, K. & Williams, M. C. 1996. Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics
and Methods. International Studies Quarterly, 40, 229–254.
Krause, K. & Williams, M. C. (eds.) 1997. Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases,
Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press.
Krishna, S. 1999. Postcolonial Insecurities: India, Sri Lanka, and the Question of Nationhood,
Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press.
Krishna, S. 2001. Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations. Alternatives:
Global, Local, Political, 26, 401–424.
Lee-Koo, K. 2007. Security as Enslavement, Security as Emancipation: Gendered
Legacies and Feminist Futures in the Asia-Pacific. In: Burke, A. & McDonald, M.
(eds.) Critical Security in the Asia-Pacific, Manchester, Manchester University Press.
Lichbach, M. I. 2007. Theory and Evidence. In: Lebow, R. N. & Lichbach, M. I. (eds.)
Theory and Evidence in Comparative Politics and International Relations, New York, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ling, L. H. M. 2002. Postcolonial International Relations: Conquest and Desire between Asia
and the West, New York, Palgrave.
Lukes, S. 2000. Different Cultures, Different Rationalities? History of the Human Sciences,
13, 3–18.
McClintock, A. 1992. The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term ‘Post-Colonialism’.
Social Text, 31/32, 84–98.
Narayan, U. 2000. Essence of Culture and a Sense of History: A Feminist Critique of
Cultural Essentialism. In: Narayan, U. & Harding, S. (eds.) Decentering the Center:
Philosophy for a Multicultural, Postcolonial, and Feminist World, Bloomington, Indiana
University Press.
Obendorf, S. 2015. Dangerous Relations? In: Bernard, A., Elmarsafy, Z. & Murray, S.
(eds.) What Postcolonial Theory Doesn’t Say, London, Routledge.
Paolini, A. J. 1999. Navigating Modernity: Postcolonialism, Identity, and International Relations,
London, Lynne Rienner.
Pasha, M. K. & Murphy, C. N. 2002. Knowledge/Power/Inequality. International Studies
Review, 4, 1–6.
Introduction 13
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Peoples, C. & Vaughan-Williams, N. 2010. Critical Security Studies: An Introduction, New
York, Routledge.
Pettman, J. J. 2005. Questions of Identity: Australia and Asia. In: Booth, K. (ed.) Critical
Security Studies and World Politics, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner.
Said, E. W. 1983. The World, the Text, and the Critic, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University
Press.
Said, E. W. 1984. Reflections on Exile. Granta, 13, 157–172.
Said, E. W. 1993. Culture and Imperialism, New York, Knopf.
Said, E. W. 1994. Representations of the Intellectual: The 1993 Reith Lectures, New York,
Pantheon Books.
Said, E. W. 2000. Traveling Theory. In: Bayoumi, M. & Rubin, A. (eds.) The Edward
Said Reader, New York, Vintage Books.
Salter, M. B. 2010. Edward Said and Post-colonial International Relations. In: Moore, C.
& Farrands, C. (eds.) International Relations Theory and Philosophy: Interpretive Dialogues,
London, Routledge.
Schwab, R. 1950 [1984]. The Oriental Renaissance: Europe’s Rediscovery of India and the
East, 1680–1880, New York, Columbia University Press.
Seth, S. (ed.) 2013. Postcolonial Theory and International Relations: A Critical Introduction,
London, Routledge.
Sharp, P. 2004. The Idea of Diplomatic Culture and its Sources. In: Slavik, H. (ed.)
Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, Malta, DiploFoundation.
Shohat, E. 1992. Notes on the ‘Post-Colonial’.Social Text, 31/32, 99–113.
Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, London,
Zed Books.
Sparke, M. 2007. Everywhere but Always Somewhere: Critical Geographies of the
Global South. The Global South, 1, 117–126.
Stamnes, E. & Wyn Jones, R. 2000. Burundi: A Critical Security Perspective. Peace and
Conflict Studies, 7, 37–55.
Suzuki, S. 2005. Japan’s Socialization into Janus-Faced European International Society.
European Journal of International Relations, 11, 137–164.
Sylvester, C. 2010. Tensions in Feminist Security Studies. Security Dialogue, 41,
607–614.
Sylvester, C. 2012. The Elusive Arts of Reflexivity in the ‘Sciences’of International
Relations. Millennium –Journal of International Studies, 41, 309–325.
Tickner, A. & Herz, M. 2012. No Place for Theory? Security Studies in Latin America.
In: Tickner, A. & Blaney, D. (eds.) Thinking International Relations Differently, London,
Routledge.
Tickner, A. B. & Wæver, O. (eds.) 2009a. International Relations Scholarship Around the
World, London, Routledge.
Tickner, A. B. & Wæver, O. 2009b. Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies. In:
Tickner, A. B. & Wæver, O. (eds.) International Relations Scholarship Around the World,
London, Routledge.
Vitalis, R. 2005. Birth of a Discipline. In: Long, D. & Schmidt, B. C. (eds.) Imperialism
and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, Albany, State University of
New York Press.
Wæver , O. 1989. Security, the Speech Act: Analysing the Politics of a Word. COPRI
Working Paper. Copenhagen, Copenhagen Peace Research Institute.
Wæver, O. 1995. Securitization and Desecuritization. In: Lipschutz, R. D. (ed.) On
Security, New York, Columbia University Press.
14 Introduction
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017

Wæver, O. 1996. The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate. In: Booth, K. &
Smith, S. (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, Oxford, Polity.
Wæver, O. 1998a. Insecurity, Security, and Asecurity in the West European Non-war
Community. In: Adler, E. & Barnett, M. N. (eds.) Security Communities, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Wæver, O. 1998b. The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and
European Developments in International Relations. International Organization, 52,
687–727.
Wæver, O. 2004. Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen –New ‘Schools’in Security Theory
and their Origins between Core and Periphery. International Studies Association,
Montreal, Canada.
Wæver, O. 2011. Politics, Security, Theory. Security Dialogue, 42, 465–480.
Wæver, O. & Buzan, B. 2003. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Wæver, O., Buzan, B., Kelstrup, M. & Lemaitre, P. 1993. Identity, Migration and the New
Security Agenda in Europe, London, Pinter.
Walby, S. 2009. Globalization and Inequalities: Complexities and Contested Modernities, Los
Angeles, Sage.
Walker, R. B. J. 1990. Security, Sovereignty and the Challenge of World Politics.
Alternatives, 15, 3–28.
Walker, R. B. J. 1993. Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Walker, R. B. J. 1997. The Subject of Security. In: Krause, K. & Williams, M. C. (eds.)
Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota
Press.
Walker, R. B. J. 2002. International/Inequality. International Studies Review, 4, 7–24.
Weldes, J., Laffey, M., Gusterson, H. & Duvall, R. (eds.) 1999. Cultures of Insecurity:
States, Communities and the Production of Danger, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota
Press.
Wendt, A. & Friedheim, D. 2009. Hierarchy under Anarchy: Informal Empire and the
East German State. International Organization, 49, 689–721.
Williams, M. C. 1998. Identity and the Politics of Security. European Journal of International
Relations, 4, 204–225.
Williams, P. D. 2001. Intellectuals and the End of Apartheid: Critical Security Studies and the
South African Transition, PhD. Aberystwyth, University of Wales.
Wyn Jones, R. 1999. Security, Strategy and Critical Theory, Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
Wyn Jones, R. 2005. On Emancipation: Necessity, Capacity and Concrete Utopias. In:
Booth, K. (ed.) Critical Security Studies and World Politics, Boulder, CO, Lynne
Rienner.
Zhang, Y. 2007. Discourses of Security in China: Towards a Critical Turn? In: Burke,
A. & McDonald, M. (eds.) Critical Security in the Asia-Pacific, Manchester, Manchester
University Press.
Introduction 15
Downloaded by [Bilkent University] at 03:48 07 April 2017