DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038
تاريخ النشر: 2024-03-14
بيانات الوضعية كوظيفة للاستعمارية: استجواب المنهجيات الانعكاسية
الملخص
أصبحت إعلان الوضعية والاعتراف بالامتياز كوسيلة لكشف الديناميات غير المتكافئة للسلطة في إنتاج المعرفة ممارسة تأملية مشجعة بشكل متزايد في العلاقات الدولية وغيرها من التخصصات. ومع ذلك، نستجوب الآثار السلبية المحتملة لهذه المنهجية، التي تحدث من خلال إعادة تجسيد الهيراركية المادية والمفترضة والمتخيلة بين الناس، والتي يتم الإعلان عنها ومن ثم (إعادة) إنتاجها من خلال التعبير عنها. كما نستفسر عن الأصول الحداثية للمنهجية التأملية، التي ألهمت ممارسة إعلان الوضعية، ون argue أن الاستعمارية الكامنة وراءها لها تأثيرات على استخدامها اليوم. ثم نستكشف كيف تتجلى هذه الاستعمارية: أولاً، نعتبر إلى أي مدى يعمل الاعتراف العلني بالامتياز بشكل متناقض كوسيلة لتركيز البياض من خلال النظرة النرجسية وتأكيد الشرعية. ثانياً، ن argue أن بيانات الوضعية تقدم فداءً للذنب للباحث الهيمني. وأخيراً، بدلاً من تحسين الديناميات غير المتكافئة للسلطة في إنتاج المعرفة، ن contend أن بيانات الوضعية قد تشكل حركات سلطة خفية حيث يمكن للمرء الإشارة إلى واستعادة سلطته بالنسبة للناس، ولكن بشكل خاص النساء من ذوي البشرة الملونة. ننهي بدعوة إلى منحة إصلاحية تعترف بهذه القيود في بيانات الوضعية.
في جامعة سانت أندروز. تركز أبحاثها على النظريات والتاريخ
عن (ما بعد) الاستعمار، العرق، إنتاج المعرفة، الإيديولوجيات، والحركات الاجتماعية-
التعليقات.
ربيعة م. خان محاضرة في العلاقات الدولية في جامعة ليفربول جون مورس. تشمل اهتماماتها البحثية دراسات الإرهاب النقدية، النقد-
مقدمة
الدين الإكلينيكي، نظرية ما بعد الاستعمار وما بعد الاستعمار بالإضافة إلى الجنس والعرق. هي منسقة مشتركة لمجموعة العمل لدراسات الإرهاب النقدية في BISA.
الممارسة، خاصة ضمن الدوائر النقدية والنسوية وما بعد الاستعمار. غالبًا ما تُعتبر حجر الزاوية في المنهجية الانعكاسية، حيث ظهرت مفهوم الوضعية لأول مرة في تخصصات العلوم الإنسانية (وكانت الأنثروبولوجيا من بين الأوائل) قبل أن تكتسب أرضية في العلاقات الدولية خلال وبعد ما يُسمى بـ “التحول الانعكاسي” (حماتي عطايا 2013؛ أمو ريو و ستيل 2016؛ أليخاندرو 2021؛ كريستالي وآخرون 2021).
استطلاع الأدبيات: الانعكاسية كممارسة مُشادة بها
[b]إن كوننا انعكاسيين يجعلنا أكثر مسؤولية، ويجعلنا منخرطين، ويجعل عملنا أكثر موثوقية. إن كوننا انعكاسيين يقلل من فرصة أن نترك ضررًا في أعقابنا. ومع ذلك، يجب أن تكون ممارسة الانعكاسية الحقيقية ليست سهلة. يجب ألا تكون مريحة. (259)
الانتقادات الحالية للوضعية الانعكاسية
إلى الباحث. كما تشير بايلو، نتيجة لمثل هذه الانعكاسية، لم يعد من الواضح من هو “هم” بعد الآن.
بينما نأمل أن نكون قد كنا عادلين مع مستجيبينا، لا يمكننا أن ندعي أننا تمكنا من تأصيل البحث بالكامل في مخاوفهم. في الواقع، لا يمكننا حتى أن نكون متأكدين من أننا قد مثلنا مخاوفهم بشكل أصيل. في النهاية، لا يزال علينا أن نحرر ونصمت ونقيم ونصنف. مثل هذه الممارسات لا مفر منها في صياغة التحليلات الاجتماعية.
تعزيز وتثبيت تلك الهياكل الهيمنية بشكل غير مباشر. وبالتالي، يجب على الباحثين النقديين الذين يدعون إلى سياسات تحررية أن يأخذوا التصريحات حول الأضرار المحتملة للموضعية الانعكاسية على محمل الجد وأن يسألوا لماذا وكيف توجد وتظهر. للإجابة على هذه الاستفسارات، سنستكشف الآن الأسس الاستعمارية وراء الموضعية الانعكاسية، أولاً من خلال تأريخ المنهجية ضمن جذور الاستعمار في الأكاديميا الغربية، ثم من خلال تحليل كيف، إذا تم النظر إليها من خلال عدسة العرق، تصبح وظائفها الاستعمارية النرجسية أكثر وضوحًا.
استعمارية الانعكاسية: التصور مقابل المفهوم
تجادل أن الشخص غير الأبيض وغير الغربي أصبح ‘الآخر الإثنوغرافي الخالد’، ونستنتج أنه مرآة وبالتالي جزء من ‘البيان الوصفي’ للإنسان الأبيض الأوروبي المثالي. وبالتالي، يستدعي البيان الوصفي الذي تتحدث عنه وينتر هذا الآخر كضمان لما ليس عليه الذات العقلانية. هذا يلخص توسيع وينتر وتنقيبها حول كيفية ظهور مفهوم كويخانو (2000) المؤسس لـ ‘استعمارية السلطة’ (أي، التسلسلات الهرمية للوجود والمعرفة والنظام). بشكل حاسم، تشير وينتر إلى أنه مع كل هذا، يجب أن يكون هناك ‘استنتاج منطقي بأنه لا يمكن للمرء أن يزعزع ‘استعمارية السلطة’ دون إعادة وصف الإنسان خارج شروط بياننا الوصفي الحالي للإنسان، الرجل، وتمثيله المفرط…’ (2003، 268). بالإضافة إلى ذلك، تجادل أن هذا البيان الوصفي ‘البيوكينتري’ يثبت حاضرنا (2003، 269).
النرجسية والأداء في الوضعية: تركيز البياض من خلال الشرعية
كما أنه استغلالي لأنه يجعل موضوع البحث أداة في عملية المعرفة الذاتية وفي الواقع التأكيد الذاتي. إن تركيز الباحث على الذات من خلال الوضعية كعملية للوعي الذاتي يغطي في الوقت نفسه على ‘الآخر’ الذي يبدو أقل امتيازًا، والذي يكون مع ذلك حاضرًا دائمًا في الانعكاسية – إن محو الآخر، فضلاً عن الوضعية الجدلية المفروضة عليهم، دون طلب، من خلال إعلان الباحث عن وضعه، لا يؤخذ في الاعتبار في هذه العملية. أضف العرق إلى هذا المزيج، ويصبح أكثر وضوحًا كيف يمكن أن تعيد الوضعية تجسيد أو حتى إنتاج ديناميات عرقية غير متساوية.
الفداء العرقي كوظيفة للموقعية
(إريكسون باز وستيرن 2016، 126؛ انظر أيضًا إنلوي 2016، 258). يلاحظ إريكسون باز وستيرن (2016) كيف سمحت لهم هذه المنهجية بـ”التأمل” في عدم ارتياحهم. ومع ذلك، فإن هذا التأمل في عدم ارتياحهم يركز في النهاية على الباحثين البيض على حساب موضوعات بحثهم (التي غالبًا ما تكون عرقية)، مما يصبح وسيلة لتخليص الذنب. نحن نحدد فئتين من هذا التخليص من الذنب للباحث. أولاً، يتم تحقيق التخليص من خلال إعلانات اعتراف بعدم الارتياح أو “الامتياز”، والتي في النهاية هي إعادة تركيز كاثارتية للباحث (الذي هو أبيض) وتهميش موضوع البحث. ثانيًا، يتم تحقيق التخليص من خلال فعل أدائي من الانعكاسية، الذي نحدده كآلية للدفاع عن النفس.
إسقاط عدم الارتياح (أو، كما ذُكر أعلاه، من خلال التعبير عن الضعف عبر دموع الباحث)، قد يرغب المحاور العرقي في تجنب تفاقم الذنب المعبر عنه الذي يشعر به الباحث الأبيض. بهذه الطريقة، تنتقل المناقشة بسرعة من اختلالات القوة، ولكن بعد أن أعادت تركيز البياض بطريقة قد لا تحدث إذا، بشكل ساخر، لم يتم إجراء أي إعلان عن الوضعية على الإطلاق.
استغلال الوضعية: حركة قوة خفية
بوضوح الوضعية والاعتراف بالآخر كطرق لـ “معرفة الذات”، إلا أن هذا يتماشى مع الفكرة المقلقة بأن معرفة الآخر تتعلق بالضبط بـ (معرفة الذات) التهاني وصنع الهوية الأوروبية (سعيد، 1979)، أو الفكرة القائلة بأن القرب من الآخر المستعمر ضروري لتزويد عقدة تفوق البيض (فانون، 2008) [1952] ضمن “علاقة استعمارية” (غاني 2021، 555). وبالتالي، يمكن أن يكون لوضعية التصريح وظيفة إبلاغ الناس، حتى طمأنتهم، بأن الهياكل العرقية (وموقع المرء في قمة تلك الهيكلية) آمنة. إن الدعوة إلى الوضعية كوسيلة لـ “التعرف على الآخر” ليست تحررية عندما يحدث هذا الاعتراف ضمن، ولا يفعل شيئًا لتفكيك، سياق استعماري هرمي وموروث. هذا هو السياق الهرمي الذي يعيد فيه بيان الوضعية تأكيد “السلطة الإثنوغرافية”؛ علاوة على ذلك، فإن إعلان الوضعية ليس مجرد كشف، أو حتى كشف أساسي، عن قيود المرء، بل في الواقع يعمل كإيجابية ذاتية.
علاوة على ذلك، عندما يكون الباحثون منفتحين بشأن تجاربهم الخاصة، قد يخلقون انفتاحًا متساويًا من جانب الآخرين وبالتالي يحصلون على وصول إلى “بيانات شخصية حميمة” أكثر (2010، 52). إن الضعف من كلا الطرفين، الباحث والموضوع، ينتج كتابة مجهزة لإلهام تعاطف القراء.(2022، 380)
على سبيل المثال، تلاحظ بعض النساء غير الأفريقيات أن وضعهن كـ”باحثات إناث بيض” أو “مغتربات إناث” قد أثر بشكل إيجابي على قرارات محاورهن للتفاعل معهن.
قد تبدو ببساطة كإعلانات فخر وتحديات. في مثل هذه الحالات، من المرجح أن يتم نقل التواضع الحقيقي والانعكاسية من خلال النية introspective والعمل أكثر من خلال الإعلانات المصاحبة لقليل من العمل.
الخاتمة
شكر وتقدير
إدارة وحكمة، أو وثقوا بنا بتجاربهم. شكر خاص للأشخاص التاليين على رؤاهم ودعمهم في مراحل مختلفة من المشروع: فولوكي أديبيسي، بينار بيلجين، ألتيا-ماريا ريفاس، جينا مارشال، توني هاستروب، روزالبا إيكازا، شهلا خان، أكانكشا ميهتا، شاري بلونسكي، منيرة رازاك، راهول راو، أوليفيا روتازيبوا، مالبو سيفودي، فاتو سامبي، لايقة عثمان، وهبة يوسف.
References
Abdulrahman, Hadiza Kere, Foluke Adebisi, Zibah Nwako, and Elizabeth Walton. 2021. “Revisiting (Inclusive) Education in the Postcolony.” Journal of the British Academy 9 (1): 47-75.
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1991. “Writing against Culture.” In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, edited by R.G. Fox. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Ackerly, Brooke, and Jacqui True. 2006. “Studying the Struggles and Wishes of the Age: Feminist Theoretical Methodology and Feminist Theoretical Methods.” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, edited by B. Ackerly, M. Stern and J. True, 241-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Agathangelou Anna, M. 2017. “From the Colonial to Feminist IR: Feminist IR Studies, the Wider FSS/GPE Research Agenda, and the Questions of Value, Valuation, Security, and Violence.” Politics EF Gender 13 (4): 739-46.
Ahmed, Sara. 2004. Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Alejandro, Audrey. 2021. “Reflexive Discourse Analysis: A Methodology for the Practice of Reflexivity.” European Journal of International Relations 27 (1): 150-74.
Amoureux, Jack L., and Brent Steele, eds. 2016. Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice. London: Routledge.
Anievas, Alexander, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam. 2014. Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line. Oxon: Routledge.
Anzaldúa, G.E. (1999) Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, San Francisco : Aunt Lute Books
Asad, Talal. 2015. “Reflections on Violence, Law, and Humanitarianism.” Critical Inquiry 41 (2): 390-427.
Austin, John Langshaw. 1975 [1962]. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ackerly, Brooke, and True Jacqui. 2008. “Reflexivity in Practice: Power and Ethics in Feminist Research on International Relations.” International Studies Review 10 (4): 693-707.
Barbara, Applebaum. 2010. Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, White Moral Responsibility, and Social Justice Pedagogy. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Barthwal-Datta, Monika. 2023. “On in/Visibility.” Journal of Critical Southern Studies 4 (3): 1-14.
Beattie, Amanda R., Clara. Eroukhmanoff, and Naomi Head. 2019. “Introduction: Interrogating the ‘Everyday’ politics of Emotions in International Relations.” Journal of International Political Theory 15 (2): 136-47.
Behar, Ruth, and Deborah Gordon. 1995. Women Writing Culture. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
Bell, Duncan 2013. “Race and International Relations: Introduction.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26 (1): 1-4.
-
- Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of AngloAmerica. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bhambra, Gurminder K., Dalia Gebrial, and Kerem Nişancioğlu. 2018. Decolonizing the University. London: Pluto Press.
Bhambra, Gurminder K., Kathryn Medien, and Lisa Tilley. 2020. “Theory for a Global Age: From Nativism to Neoliberalism and Beyond.” Current Sociology 68 (2): 137-48.
Bhambra, Gurminder. 2011. “Historical Sociology, Modernity, and Postcolonial Critique.” The American Historical Review 116 (3): 653-62.
- Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of AngloAmerica. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brigg, Morgan, and Roland Bleiker. 2010. “Autoethnographic International Relations: Exploring the Self as a Source of Knowledge.” Review of International Studies 36 (3): 779-98.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.
Callaway, Helen. 1992. “Ethnography and Experience: Gender Implications in Fieldwork and Texts.” In Anthropology and Autobiography, edited by J. Okely and H. Callaway, 29-49. New York, NY: Routledge.
Clifford, James. 1986. “Partial Truths.” In Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by J. Clifford and G.E. Marcus. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
Cohn, Carol. 1987. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (4): 687-718.
Crawford Neta, C. 2014. “Institutionalizing Emotions in World Politics: Fear and Empathy.” International Theory 6 (4): 535-57.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and Violence against Women.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241-99.
Çubukçu, Ayça. 2017. “Thinking against Humanity” London Review of International Law 5 (2): 251-67.
Dauphinee, Elizabeth. 2015. “Narrative Engagement and the Creative Practices of International Relations.” In Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice, edited by Brent Steele and Jack Amoureux, 44-60. London: Routledge.
Doharty, Nadena. 2019. “Year after Year, White Teachers’ Guilt Stifles the Fullness of Black History in Our Schools.” The Independent, September 29. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/black-history-month-racism-white-privilege-guilt-walter-tull-a9125046.html.
2020. “The ‘Angry Black Woman’ as Intellectual Bondage: Being Strategically Emotional on the Academic Plantation.” Race Ethnicity and Education 23 (4): 548-62.
Donnelly, Faye. 2013. Securitization and the Iraq War: The Rules of Engagement in World Politics. London: Routledge.
Eagleton-Pierce, Matthew. 2011. “Advancing a Reflexive International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 805-23.
El-Haj, Nadia Abu. 2005. “Edward Said and the Political Present.” American Ethnologist 32 (4): 538-55.
El-Malik Shiera, S. 2023. “A Letter to Baba.” Review of International Studies 49 (4): 539-46.
Enloe, Cnnthia. 2016. “Being Reflexively Feminist Shouldn’t Be Easy.” In Researching War. Feminist Methods, Ethics and Politics, edited by A. Wibben, 258-59. London: Routledge.
Eriksson Baaz, Maria, and Stern Maria. 2016. “Researching Wartime Rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): A Methodology of Unease.” In Researching War. Feminist Methods, Ethics and Politics, edited by A. Wibben, 117-40. London: Routledge.
Fierke Karin, M. 2013. Political Self-Sacrifice: Agency, Body, and Emotion in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finlay, Linda. 2002. “Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity.” Qualitative health research 12 (4): 531-45.
Gani, Jasmine K. 2017. “The Erasure of Race: Cosmopolitanism and the Illusion of Kantian Hospitality.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45 (3): 425-46.
2021. “Racial Militarism and Civilizational Anxiety at the Imperial Encounter: From Metropole to the Postcolonial state.” Security Dialogue 52 (6): 546-66.
Gani, Jasmine K., and Jenna Marshall. 2022. “The Impact of Colonialism on Policy and Knowledge Production in International Relations.” International Affairs 98 (1): 5-22.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gentry, Caron. 2020. Disordered Violence: How Gender, Race and Heteronormativity Structure Terrorism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Grovogui, Siba N. 2001. “Come to Africa: A Hermeneutics of Race in International Theory.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 26 (4): 425-48.
Hall Todd, H. 2015. Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the World Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hamati-Ataya, Inanna. 2013. “Reflectivity, Reflexivity, Reflexivism: IR’s ‘Reflexive Turn’-and Beyond.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (4): 669-94.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575-99.
Head, Naomi. 2012. “The Contribution of Trust, Empathy, and Dialogue: Talking to Iran.” International Studies Today 2 (1): 9.
Henderson, Errol. 2014. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism in International Relations Theory.” In Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line, edited by A. Anievas, N. Manchanda and R. Shilliam, 19-43. Oxon: Routledge.
-. 2020. Reflexivity and International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hooks, Bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hutchison, Emma, and Roland Bleiker. 2014. “Theorizing Emotions in World Politics.” International Theory 6 (4): 491-514.
Hutchison, Emma. 2016. Affective Communities in World Politics: Collective Emotions after Trauma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Icaza, Rosalba. 2021. “Decolonial Feminism and Global Politics: Border Thinking and Vulnerability as a Knowing Otherwise.” Proceedings of the British Academy 235: 43-59.
Inayatullah, Naeem, ed. 2010. Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR. London: Routledge.
Jacobs-Huey, Lanita. 2002. “The Natives Are Gazing and Talking Back: Reviewing the Problematics of Positionality, Voice, and Accountability among ‘Native’ Anthropologists.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 791804.
Khan, Rabea M. 2022. “Speaking ‘Religion’ through a Gender Code: The Discursive Power and Gendered-Racial Implications of the Religious Label.” Critical Research on Religion 10 (2): 153-69.
-
- “The Coloniality of the Religious Terrorism Thesis.” Review of International Studies. doi: 10.1017/S0260210523000517.
Krishna, Sankaran. 2001. “Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 26 (4): 401-24.
Krystalli, Roxani, Hoffecker Elizabeth, Leith Kendra, and Wilson Kim. 2021. “Taking the Research Experience Seriously: A Framework for Reflexive Applied Research in Development.” Global Studies Quarterly 1 (3): ksab022.
Krystalli, Roxani. 2023. “Teaching and Learning Reflexivity in the World Politics Classroom.” International Political Sociology 17 (4): olad018.
Lentin, Alana. 2008. “Europe and the Silence about Race.” European Journal of Social Theory 11 (4): 487-503. . 2020. Why Race Still Matters. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Liu, Fengyuan, Talal Rahwan, and Bedoor AlShebli. 2023. “Non-White Scientists Appear on Fewer Editorial Boards, Spend More Time under Review, and Receive Fewer Citations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (13): 1-10.
Maczynska, Ewa. 2020. “Reproducing the European Gaze through Reflexivity: The Limits of Calling Out Failures.” E-International Rela-tionshttps://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/19/reproducing-the-european-gaze-through-reflexivity-the-limits-of-calling-out-failures/.
Madhok, Sumi. 2021. Vernacular Rights Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mara, Kathryn, and Katrina. Thompson 2022. “African Studies Keyword: Autoethnography.” African Studies Review 65 (2): 372-98.
McCorkel Jill, A., and Kristen Myers. 2003. “What Difference Does Difference Make? Position and Privilege in the Field.” Qualitative Sociology 26 (2): 199-231.
- “The Coloniality of the Religious Terrorism Thesis.” Review of International Studies. doi: 10.1017/S0260210523000517.
Mignolo Walter, D. 2007. “Introduction: Coloniality of Power and DeColonial Thinking.” Cultural Studies 21 (2-3): 155-67.
Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. 2015. The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. Minneapoli, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Narayan, Kirin. 1993. “How Native Is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?” American Anthropologist 95 (3): 671-86.
Nassar, Aya. 2018. “Where the Dust Settles: Fieldwork, Subjectivity and Materiality in Cairo.” Contemporary Social Science 13 (3-4): 412-28.
Ngunjiri, Faith, Kathy-Ann.C. Hernandez, and Heewon Chang. 2010. “Living Autoethnography: Connecting Life and Research” Journal of Research Practice 6 (1): E1.
Okely, Judith. 1992. “Anthropology and Autobiography: Participatory Experience and Embodied Knowledge.” In Anthropology and Autobiography, edited by J. Okely and H. Callaway, 1-28. London: Routledge.
Pasha, Mustapha K. 2017. “Religion and the Fabrication of Race.” Millennium, 45 (3): 312-334.
Patai, Daphne. 1994. “When Method Becomes Power (response).” In Power and Method, edited by A. Gitlin, 61-73. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pateman, Carole. 1989. The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Persaud, Randolph B., and Alina Sajed. eds. 2018. Race, Gender, and Culture in International Relations: Postcolonial Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Pillow Wanda, S. 2003. “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16 (2): 175-96.
-
- “Dangerous Reflexivity: Rigour, Responsibility and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” In The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion, edited by P. Thomson and M. Walker, 270-82. London: Routledge.
Quijano, Anibal. 2000. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Nepantla: Views from South 1 (3): 533-80.
Rao, R. 2020. Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Reissman Catherine, K. 2000. “Stigma and Everyday Resistance Practices.” GenderSociety 14: 111-35.
Riach, K. 2009. “Exploring Participant-centred Reflexivity in the Research Interview.” Sociology. 43 (2): 356-70.
Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ross, Andrew A.G. 2010. “Why They Don’t Hate Us: Emotion, Agency and the Politics of ‘Anti-Americanism’.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (1): 109-25.
Russel y Rodríguez, Mónica. 1998. “Confronting Anthropology’s Silencing Praxis: Speaking of/from a Chicana Consciousness.” Qualitative Inquiry 4 (1): 15-40.
Rutazibwa Olivia, U. 2018. “On Babies and Bathwater: Decolonizing International Development Studies.” In Decolonization and Feminisms in Global Teaching and Learning, edited by S. De Jong, R. Icaza and O.U. Rutazibwa, 158-80. London: Routledge.
- “Dangerous Reflexivity: Rigour, Responsibility and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” In The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion, edited by P. Thomson and M. Walker, 270-82. London: Routledge.
- “Hidden in Plain Sight. Race/Ism and Coloniality as Far as the Eye Can See.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 48 (2): 221-41
Sabaratnam, Meera. 2020. “Is IR Theory White? Racialised SubjectPositioning in Three Canonical Texts.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49 (1): 3-31.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. London: Penguin.
–. 2014 [1982].”Traveling Theory (1982).” In World Literature in Theory, edited by David Damrosch, 114-33. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
Shepherd, Laura J. 2022. “White Feminism and the Governance of Violent Extremism.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 15 (3): 727-749.
Shilliam, Robbie. 2021. Decolonizing Politics: An Introduction. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Simpson, Audra. 2007. “Ethnographic Refusal: Indigeneity, ‘Voice’ and Colonial Citizenship.” Junctures: The Journal for Thematic Dialogue 9: 67-80.
-_. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life across the Borders of Settler States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Spivak, Gayatri C. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Steele, Brent J. 2015. “Whistle Disruption: Reflexivity and Documentary Provocation.” Reflexivity and International Relations, edited by Jack L. Amoureux and Brent J. Steele, 61-79. London: Routledge.
Thompson Katrina, D. 2019. “When I Was a Swahili Woman: The Possibilities and Perils of ‘Going Native’ in a Culture of Secrecy.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 48 (5): 674-99.
Tickner Arlene, B. 2013. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 62746.
Tuhiwai Smith, Linda. 2013. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Van Maanen, John. 1989. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Van Wingerden, Enrike. 2022. “Unmastering Research: Positionality and Intercorporeal Vulnerability in International Studies.” International Political Sociology 16 (2): 1-17.
Wasserfall, Rahel Regina. 1993. “Reflexivity, Feminism and Difference.” Qualitative Sociology 16 (1): 23-41.
Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, after Man, Its Overrepresentation-An Argument.” CR: The New Centennial Review 3 (3): 257-337.
Zvobgo, Kelezogbile, Arturo C. Sotomayor, Maria R. Rublee, Meredith Loken, George Karavas, and Constance Duncombe. 2023. “Race and Racial Exclusion in Security Studies: A Survey of Scholars.” Security Studies 32 (4-5): 593-621.
One of the best-known accounts of feminist reflexive research practice in IR is Carol Cohn’s account of US “defense intellectuals” discussing nuclear weapons, strategy, and war (Cohn 1987).
Since positionality statements are intended to signal one’s subjectivities and are an acknowledgement that any research might be affected by one’s standpoint and emotions.
From here onwards, we will refer to these two categories as “white” and “PoC” (or “WoC” when specifically referring to women of color), though we recognize all such categories are constructed in geographical and political contexts. Our thanks to the reviewers for inviting us to expand on these distinctions.
This article was first presented on October 20, 2019 at the Millennium Conference at LSE in a panel titled “On Knowledge Production, Extraction, and Cooptation of Women of Color in the Academy” organized by Jasmine Gani. The visible and vocal validation received from the mostly WoC audience, who attested to the power of the paper in making explicit what they had felt intuitively but struggled to acknowledge openly given the critical and reflexive origins of positionality, was an important milestone in the development of this article. Many colleagues shared their own stories with us immediately after the panel. We also received emails from non-PoC colleagues and PhD students, who acknowledged this was the first time they had been asked to consider the harmful effects of positionality and that it made them view it in a new light. The stark contrast between those from marginalized backgrounds who were instantly able to recognize their experiences in our arguments, and those from hegemonic backgrounds for whom our arguments were entirely revelatory, was notable. IR scholarship on reflexivity has primarily focused on reflexivity in relation to practice and critique (e.g., see Amoureux 2015; Dauphinee 2015; Steele 2015). In contrast, the scholarship on reflexivity in anthropology, sociology, and feminist IR, has provided greater insight on reflexivity through the method of positionality, and often coupled the two together. Hence in this section our discussion focuses more on the latter given our scrutiny of positionality. On the entanglement of race and colonialism within knowledge production in the west, and especially within the discipline of IR, see, among others, the work of Grovogui (2001), Bhambra (2011), Anievas, Manchanda, and Shilliam (2014), Bhambra, Medien, and Tilley (2020), Lentin (2020), Shilliam (2021), Henderson (2014), Sajed and Persaud (2018), Bell (2013, 2022), Quijano (2000), Mignolo (2007), Sabaratnam (2020), Madhok (2021), Pasha (2017), Rao (2020) and Gani and Marshall (2022).
Gentry notes the idea of rationality is a “deeply loaded concept tied to gendered and racialized structure stemming from the Western Enlightenment.” For more on religion as a signifier for racial difference in colonial-modernity, see Rabea Khan . White feminists do not exclusively represent white women. In fact, white feminist ideas, attitudes, and behavior can be displayed and embodied by actors from diverse backgrounds. As Zakaria points out, “[t]he term describes a set of assumptions and behaviors which have been baked into mainstream Western feminism, rather than describing the racial identity of its subjects. At the same time, it is true that most white feminists are indeed white, and that whiteness itself is at the core of white feminism.” As she further explains, “[m]ore broadly, to be a white feminist you simply have to be a person who accepts the benefits conferred by white supremacy at the expense of PoC, while claiming to support gender equality and solidarity with “all” women.” While white feminism is not limited to those racialized as white, it is not possible to separate the racial foundations and signifiers (i.e the whiteness) from this feminism, especially given the way it is deployed through positionality. To give an example, during Israel’s military assault on civilians in Gaza in 2023-24, normally vocal, critical academics – feminists, philosophers of forced displacement, and experts of empire among them – were criticised by fellow academics for their conspicuous silence on the issue of Gaza. For further examples of decolonial, feminist scholarship that seeks to recenter WoC and challenges the whiteness inherent to mainstream white feminism, see Rosalba Icaza (2021), Akanksha Mehta (2019), Anna Agathangelou (2017), and Olivia Rutazibwa (2018), among others. For a good application of speech act theory in IR, see Faye Donnelly’s (2013) exploration of securitizing speech acts by the Bush administration during the 2003 Iraq War. Authors cite Ngunjiri, Hernandez, and Chang (2010).
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038
Publication Date: 2024-03-14
Positionality Statements as a Function of Coloniality: Interrogating Reflexive Methodologies
Abstract
Declaration of positionality and the confession of privilege as a way of revealing unequal power dynamics in knowledge production has become an increasingly encouraged reflexive practice in international relations and other disciplines. However, we interrogate the potentially negative implications of this methodology, occurring through a reification of material, assumed, and imagined hierarchies between people, which then is advertised and (re) produced by its utterance. We further query the modernist origins of reflexive methodology, which has inspired the practice of declaring positionality, and argue that its underpinning coloniality has bearings for its use today. We then explore how this coloniality manifests: Thus, first, we consider the extent to which publicly acknowledging privilege paradoxically acts as a means of centering whiteness through the narcissistic gaze and an assertion of legitimacy. Second, we argue positionality statements offer a redemption of guilt for the hegemonic researcher. And lastly, rather than ameliorating unequal power dynamics in the production of knowledge, we contend positionality statements may constitute hidden power moves in which one is able to signal and reinstate one’s authority vis-à-vis people, but especially women, of color. We end with a call for a reparative scholarship that acknowledges these limitations in positionality statements. La declaración de posicionalidad y la confesión de privilegio, usadas como una forma de revelar dinámicas de poder desiguales en la producción de conocimiento, se han convertido en una práctica reflexiva cuyo uso está cada vez más alentado en el campo las Relaciones Internacionales (RRII). Sin embargo, cuestionamos las implicaciones potencialmente negativas que tiene esta metodología, las cuales se producen a través de una reificación de las jerarquías materiales, asumidas e imaginarias entre las personas, que posteriormente se anuncian y se (re) producen mediante su elocución. Además, cuestionamos los orígenes ilustrados de la metodología reflexiva que ha inspirado la práctica de declarar la posicionalidad, y argumentamos que su colonialidad subyacente tiene implicaciones para su uso actual. A continuación, estudiamos cómo se manifiesta esta colonialidad. Por ello, en primer lugar, consideramos hasta qué punto el reconocimiento público del privilegio actúa, paradójicamente, como un medio para centrar el hecho de ser blanco a través de la mirada narcisista y como una afirmación de la legitimidad. En segundo lugar, argumentamos que las declaraciones de posicionalidad ofrecen una redención de la culpa para el investigador hegemónico. Y, por último, argumentamos que, en lugar de mejorar las dinámicas de poder desiguales en la producción de conocimiento, las declaraciones de posicionalidad pueden constituir movimientos de poder ocultos en los que uno es capaz de señalar y restablecer su autoridad frente a las personas, pero especialmente frente a las mujeres, de color. Terminamos con un llamamiento a que el mundo académico cumpla una función reparadora, que reconozca estas limitaciones de las declaraciones de posicionalidad. En relations internationales (RI), les déclarations de positionnalité et les confessions de privilèges visant à révéler un équilibre des pouvoirs inégal dans la production des connaissances est une pratique réflexive que l’on encourage de plus en plus. Cependant, nous nous enquérons des potentielles implications négatives de cette méthodologie, intervenant par le biais d’une réification des hiérarchies réelles, présumées et imaginées entre les personnes, dont la récurrence la fait connaître et la (re) produit. Nous nous interrogeons par ailleurs sur les origines clarificatrices de la méthodologie réflexive, qui a inspiré la pratique de déclaration de sa positionnalité, et affirmons que sa colonialité sous-jacente explique en partie son utilisation actuelle. Ensuite, nous nous intéressons aux manifestations de cette colonialité. Nous envisageons donc en premier le paradoxe suivant : reconnaître publiquement un privilège constitue un moyen de recentrer la blancheur par un penchant narcissiste et une affirmation de légitimité. Ensuite, nous affirmons que les déclarations de positionnalité font office de rédemption pour le chercheur hégémonique qui ressent de la culpabilité. Et enfin, plutôt que d’améliorer l’équilibre inégal des pouvoirs dans la production des connaissances, nous postulons que les déclarations de positionnalité peuvent relever d’une stratégie cachée qui permettrait de signaler et de réinstaurer son autorité vis-à-vis des personnes, mais surtout des femmes, de couleur. Nous concluons notre propos sur un appel en faveur d’une recherche réparatrice qui reconnait ces limites des déclarations de positionnalité.
at the University of St Andrews. Her research focuses on theories and histories
of (post) colonialism, race, knowledge production, ideologies, and social move-
ments.
Rabea M. Khan is a Lecturer in International Relations at Liverpool John Moores University. Her research interests include critical terrorism studies, crit-
Introduction
ical religion, post- and decolonial theory as well as gender and race. She is coconvenor of the BISA Critical Studies on Terrorism working group.
practice, especially within critical, feminist, and postcolonial circles. Often seen as a cornerstone of reflexive methodology, positionality first made its debut in humanities disciplines (anthropology being one of the earliest) before gaining ground in IR during and after its so-called “reflexive turn” (Hamati Ataya 2013; Amoureux and Steele 2016; Alejandro 2021; Krystalli et al. 2021).
Surveying the Literature: Reflexivity as a Lauded Practice
[b]eing reflexive makes us more accountable, keeps us engaged and makes our work more reliable. Being reflexive reduces the chance that we will leave damage in our wake. Exercising genuine reflexivity, nevertheless, should not be easy. It should not be comfortable. (259)
Existing Criticisms of Reflexive Positionality
to the researcher. As Pillow notes, as a result of such reflexivity, it is no longer clear who the “they” is anymore.
While we hope we have been fair to our respondents, we cannot claim to have been able to fully ground the research in their concerns. Indeed, we cannot even be sure that we have represented their concerns authentically. In the end, we still edited, silenced, evaluated, and categorized. Such practices are unavoidable in crafting sociological analyses.
subtly reinforce and cement those hegemonic structures. As such, critical researchers with claims to emancipatory politics must take the statements on the potential harms of reflexive positionality more seriously and ask why and how they exist and manifest. To answer those queries, we will now explore the underpinning coloniality behind reflexive positionality, first by historicizing the methodology within western academia’s colonial roots, and then by analyzing how, if viewed through the prism of race, its narcissistic colonial functions become more apparent.
Coloniality of Reflexivity: Conception versus Concept
The non-white, non-Western person, she argues, became the “timeless ethnographic Other,” and, we infer, a mirror to and therefore as much a part of the “descriptive statement” of the ideal white European. The descriptive statement Wynter speaks of thus necessarily evokes this Other as an assurance of what the rational self is not. This sums up Wynter’s expansion and excavation of how Quijano’s (2000) founding concept of “coloniality of power” (that is, hierarchies of being, knowledge, and order) came to be. Crucially, Wynter states, with all this, there must be a “logical inference that one cannot ‘unsettle’ the ‘coloniality of power’ without a redescription of the human outside the terms of our present descriptive statement of the human, Man, and its over-representation…” (2003, 268). Additionally, she argues this “biocentric” descriptive statement institutes our present (2003, 269).
Narcissism and Performance in Positionality: Centering Whiteness through Legitimacy
is also extractive in that it makes the object of research an instrument in the process of self-knowing and indeed selfasserting. The scholar’s emphasis on self through positionality as a process of self-awareness simultaneously obscures the apparently less privileged “other,” who is nevertheless always present in reflexivity-the Other’s erasure, as well as the dialectic positioning that is imposed on them, unasked for, through the researcher’s declaration of positionality, is not accounted for in this process. Add race to this mix, and it becomes clearer how positionality can in fact reify or even newly produce unequal racial dynamics.
Racial Redemption as a Function of Positionality
(Eriksson Baaz and Stern 2016, 126; see also Enloe 2016, 258). Eriksson Baaz and Stern (2016) further note how this methodology allowed them to “linger” in their unease. However, even this lingering in their own unease ultimately centers the white researchers at the expense of their (often racialized) research subjects, which becomes a means for the redemption of guilt. We identify two categories of this redemption of guilt for the researcher. First, redemption is achieved through confessional declarations of unease or “privilege,” which ultimately is a cathartic recentering of the (white) researcher and sidelines the research subject. Second, redemption is achieved through a performative action of reflexivity, which we identify as a self-defense mechanism.
the projection of discomfort (or, as noted above, through the expression of vulnerability via the researcher’s tears), the racialized interlocutor may wish to avoid exacerbating the expressed guilt felt by the white researcher. In this way, the discussion promptly moves on from the power inequalities, but having recentered whiteness in a way that might not have occurred if, ironically, no declaration of positionality had been made at all.
Instrumentalization of Positionality: Hidden Power Move
held positionality and recognition of the Other as routes to “self-knowing,” this is nevertheless disturbingly congruent with the notion that knowledge of the Other is precisely about (congratulatory) self-knowledge and European identity-making (Said, 1979), or the notion that proximity with the colonized Other is needed to supply a white superiority complex (Fanon, 2008) [1952] within a “colonial relationality” (Gani 2021, 555). Declarative positionality can thus have the function of informing people, even reassuring people, that racial hierarchies (and one’s position at the top of that hierarchy) are safe. Advocating positionality as a way of “recognizing the other” is hardly emancipatory when this recognition occurs within, and does nothing to dismantle, a hierarchical and inherited colonial context. This is the hierarchical context in which a positionality statement reasserts “ethnographic authority”; moreover, declaring positionality is not merely exposing, or even primarily exposing, one’s own limitations, but in fact acts as self-affirmation.
Furthermore, when researchers are open about their own experiences, they may engender equal openness on the part of others and thus gain access to more “personally intimate data” (2010, 52). Vulnerability from both the researcher and researched produces writing equipped to inspire readers’ empathy.(2022, 380)
For example, some non-African women observe that their [the authors’] positionings as “white female researchers” or “female expats” may have favorably influenced their interlocutors’ decisions to interact with them..
statements may simply come across as gloats and taunts. In such instances, real humility and reflexivity are more likely to be conveyed through introspective intentionality and action than through declarations paired with little action.
Conclusion
Acknowledgments
agement and wisdom, or entrusted us with their experiences. Special thanks to the following for their insight and support at different stages of the project: Foluke Adebisi, Pinar Bilgin, Althea-Maria Rivas, Jenna Marshall, Toni Haastrup, Rosalba Icaza, Shehla Khan, Akanksha Mehta, Sharri Plonski, Muneerah Razak, Rahul Rao, Olivia Rutazibwa, Malebo Sephodi, Fatou Sambe, Laiqah Usman, and Heba Youssef.
References
Abdulrahman, Hadiza Kere, Foluke Adebisi, Zibah Nwako, and Elizabeth Walton. 2021. “Revisiting (Inclusive) Education in the Postcolony.” Journal of the British Academy 9 (1): 47-75.
Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1991. “Writing against Culture.” In Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present, edited by R.G. Fox. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Ackerly, Brooke, and Jacqui True. 2006. “Studying the Struggles and Wishes of the Age: Feminist Theoretical Methodology and Feminist Theoretical Methods.” In Feminist Methodologies for International Relations, edited by B. Ackerly, M. Stern and J. True, 241-60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Agathangelou Anna, M. 2017. “From the Colonial to Feminist IR: Feminist IR Studies, the Wider FSS/GPE Research Agenda, and the Questions of Value, Valuation, Security, and Violence.” Politics EF Gender 13 (4): 739-46.
Ahmed, Sara. 2004. Cultural Politics of Emotion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Alejandro, Audrey. 2021. “Reflexive Discourse Analysis: A Methodology for the Practice of Reflexivity.” European Journal of International Relations 27 (1): 150-74.
Amoureux, Jack L., and Brent Steele, eds. 2016. Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice. London: Routledge.
Anievas, Alexander, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam. 2014. Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line. Oxon: Routledge.
Anzaldúa, G.E. (1999) Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, San Francisco : Aunt Lute Books
Asad, Talal. 2015. “Reflections on Violence, Law, and Humanitarianism.” Critical Inquiry 41 (2): 390-427.
Austin, John Langshaw. 1975 [1962]. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ackerly, Brooke, and True Jacqui. 2008. “Reflexivity in Practice: Power and Ethics in Feminist Research on International Relations.” International Studies Review 10 (4): 693-707.
Barbara, Applebaum. 2010. Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, White Moral Responsibility, and Social Justice Pedagogy. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Barthwal-Datta, Monika. 2023. “On in/Visibility.” Journal of Critical Southern Studies 4 (3): 1-14.
Beattie, Amanda R., Clara. Eroukhmanoff, and Naomi Head. 2019. “Introduction: Interrogating the ‘Everyday’ politics of Emotions in International Relations.” Journal of International Political Theory 15 (2): 136-47.
Behar, Ruth, and Deborah Gordon. 1995. Women Writing Culture. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
Bell, Duncan 2013. “Race and International Relations: Introduction.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26 (1): 1-4.
-
- Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of AngloAmerica. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bhambra, Gurminder K., Dalia Gebrial, and Kerem Nişancioğlu. 2018. Decolonizing the University. London: Pluto Press.
Bhambra, Gurminder K., Kathryn Medien, and Lisa Tilley. 2020. “Theory for a Global Age: From Nativism to Neoliberalism and Beyond.” Current Sociology 68 (2): 137-48.
Bhambra, Gurminder. 2011. “Historical Sociology, Modernity, and Postcolonial Critique.” The American Historical Review 116 (3): 653-62.
- Dreamworlds of Race: Empire and the Utopian Destiny of AngloAmerica. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brigg, Morgan, and Roland Bleiker. 2010. “Autoethnographic International Relations: Exploring the Self as a Source of Knowledge.” Review of International Studies 36 (3): 779-98.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. London: Routledge.
Callaway, Helen. 1992. “Ethnography and Experience: Gender Implications in Fieldwork and Texts.” In Anthropology and Autobiography, edited by J. Okely and H. Callaway, 29-49. New York, NY: Routledge.
Clifford, James. 1986. “Partial Truths.” In Writing Culture: the Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, edited by J. Clifford and G.E. Marcus. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
Cohn, Carol. 1987. “Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (4): 687-718.
Crawford Neta, C. 2014. “Institutionalizing Emotions in World Politics: Fear and Empathy.” International Theory 6 (4): 535-57.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Identity Politics, Intersectionality, and Violence against Women.” Stanford Law Review 43 (6): 1241-99.
Çubukçu, Ayça. 2017. “Thinking against Humanity” London Review of International Law 5 (2): 251-67.
Dauphinee, Elizabeth. 2015. “Narrative Engagement and the Creative Practices of International Relations.” In Reflexivity and International Relations: Positionality, Critique, and Practice, edited by Brent Steele and Jack Amoureux, 44-60. London: Routledge.
Doharty, Nadena. 2019. “Year after Year, White Teachers’ Guilt Stifles the Fullness of Black History in Our Schools.” The Independent, September 29. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/black-history-month-racism-white-privilege-guilt-walter-tull-a9125046.html.
2020. “The ‘Angry Black Woman’ as Intellectual Bondage: Being Strategically Emotional on the Academic Plantation.” Race Ethnicity and Education 23 (4): 548-62.
Donnelly, Faye. 2013. Securitization and the Iraq War: The Rules of Engagement in World Politics. London: Routledge.
Eagleton-Pierce, Matthew. 2011. “Advancing a Reflexive International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 805-23.
El-Haj, Nadia Abu. 2005. “Edward Said and the Political Present.” American Ethnologist 32 (4): 538-55.
El-Malik Shiera, S. 2023. “A Letter to Baba.” Review of International Studies 49 (4): 539-46.
Enloe, Cnnthia. 2016. “Being Reflexively Feminist Shouldn’t Be Easy.” In Researching War. Feminist Methods, Ethics and Politics, edited by A. Wibben, 258-59. London: Routledge.
Eriksson Baaz, Maria, and Stern Maria. 2016. “Researching Wartime Rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): A Methodology of Unease.” In Researching War. Feminist Methods, Ethics and Politics, edited by A. Wibben, 117-40. London: Routledge.
Fierke Karin, M. 2013. Political Self-Sacrifice: Agency, Body, and Emotion in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Finlay, Linda. 2002. “Outing” the Researcher: The Provenance, Process, and Practice of Reflexivity.” Qualitative health research 12 (4): 531-45.
Gani, Jasmine K. 2017. “The Erasure of Race: Cosmopolitanism and the Illusion of Kantian Hospitality.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45 (3): 425-46.
2021. “Racial Militarism and Civilizational Anxiety at the Imperial Encounter: From Metropole to the Postcolonial state.” Security Dialogue 52 (6): 546-66.
Gani, Jasmine K., and Jenna Marshall. 2022. “The Impact of Colonialism on Policy and Knowledge Production in International Relations.” International Affairs 98 (1): 5-22.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gentry, Caron. 2020. Disordered Violence: How Gender, Race and Heteronormativity Structure Terrorism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Grovogui, Siba N. 2001. “Come to Africa: A Hermeneutics of Race in International Theory.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 26 (4): 425-48.
Hall Todd, H. 2015. Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the World Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hamati-Ataya, Inanna. 2013. “Reflectivity, Reflexivity, Reflexivism: IR’s ‘Reflexive Turn’-and Beyond.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (4): 669-94.
Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575-99.
Head, Naomi. 2012. “The Contribution of Trust, Empathy, and Dialogue: Talking to Iran.” International Studies Today 2 (1): 9.
Henderson, Errol. 2014. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism in International Relations Theory.” In Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line, edited by A. Anievas, N. Manchanda and R. Shilliam, 19-43. Oxon: Routledge.
-. 2020. Reflexivity and International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hooks, Bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hutchison, Emma, and Roland Bleiker. 2014. “Theorizing Emotions in World Politics.” International Theory 6 (4): 491-514.
Hutchison, Emma. 2016. Affective Communities in World Politics: Collective Emotions after Trauma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Icaza, Rosalba. 2021. “Decolonial Feminism and Global Politics: Border Thinking and Vulnerability as a Knowing Otherwise.” Proceedings of the British Academy 235: 43-59.
Inayatullah, Naeem, ed. 2010. Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR. London: Routledge.
Jacobs-Huey, Lanita. 2002. “The Natives Are Gazing and Talking Back: Reviewing the Problematics of Positionality, Voice, and Accountability among ‘Native’ Anthropologists.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 791804.
Khan, Rabea M. 2022. “Speaking ‘Religion’ through a Gender Code: The Discursive Power and Gendered-Racial Implications of the Religious Label.” Critical Research on Religion 10 (2): 153-69.
-
- “The Coloniality of the Religious Terrorism Thesis.” Review of International Studies. doi: 10.1017/S0260210523000517.
Krishna, Sankaran. 2001. “Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations.” Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 26 (4): 401-24.
Krystalli, Roxani, Hoffecker Elizabeth, Leith Kendra, and Wilson Kim. 2021. “Taking the Research Experience Seriously: A Framework for Reflexive Applied Research in Development.” Global Studies Quarterly 1 (3): ksab022.
Krystalli, Roxani. 2023. “Teaching and Learning Reflexivity in the World Politics Classroom.” International Political Sociology 17 (4): olad018.
Lentin, Alana. 2008. “Europe and the Silence about Race.” European Journal of Social Theory 11 (4): 487-503. . 2020. Why Race Still Matters. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Liu, Fengyuan, Talal Rahwan, and Bedoor AlShebli. 2023. “Non-White Scientists Appear on Fewer Editorial Boards, Spend More Time under Review, and Receive Fewer Citations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120 (13): 1-10.
Maczynska, Ewa. 2020. “Reproducing the European Gaze through Reflexivity: The Limits of Calling Out Failures.” E-International Rela-tionshttps://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/19/reproducing-the-european-gaze-through-reflexivity-the-limits-of-calling-out-failures/.
Madhok, Sumi. 2021. Vernacular Rights Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mara, Kathryn, and Katrina. Thompson 2022. “African Studies Keyword: Autoethnography.” African Studies Review 65 (2): 372-98.
McCorkel Jill, A., and Kristen Myers. 2003. “What Difference Does Difference Make? Position and Privilege in the Field.” Qualitative Sociology 26 (2): 199-231.
- “The Coloniality of the Religious Terrorism Thesis.” Review of International Studies. doi: 10.1017/S0260210523000517.
Mignolo Walter, D. 2007. “Introduction: Coloniality of Power and DeColonial Thinking.” Cultural Studies 21 (2-3): 155-67.
Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. 2015. The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. Minneapoli, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Narayan, Kirin. 1993. “How Native Is a ‘Native’ Anthropologist?” American Anthropologist 95 (3): 671-86.
Nassar, Aya. 2018. “Where the Dust Settles: Fieldwork, Subjectivity and Materiality in Cairo.” Contemporary Social Science 13 (3-4): 412-28.
Ngunjiri, Faith, Kathy-Ann.C. Hernandez, and Heewon Chang. 2010. “Living Autoethnography: Connecting Life and Research” Journal of Research Practice 6 (1): E1.
Okely, Judith. 1992. “Anthropology and Autobiography: Participatory Experience and Embodied Knowledge.” In Anthropology and Autobiography, edited by J. Okely and H. Callaway, 1-28. London: Routledge.
Pasha, Mustapha K. 2017. “Religion and the Fabrication of Race.” Millennium, 45 (3): 312-334.
Patai, Daphne. 1994. “When Method Becomes Power (response).” In Power and Method, edited by A. Gitlin, 61-73. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pateman, Carole. 1989. The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.
Persaud, Randolph B., and Alina Sajed. eds. 2018. Race, Gender, and Culture in International Relations: Postcolonial Perspectives. London: Routledge.
Pillow Wanda, S. 2003. “Confession, Catharsis, or Cure? Rethinking the Uses of Reflexivity as Methodological Power in Qualitative Research.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 16 (2): 175-96.
-
- “Dangerous Reflexivity: Rigour, Responsibility and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” In The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion, edited by P. Thomson and M. Walker, 270-82. London: Routledge.
Quijano, Anibal. 2000. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.” Nepantla: Views from South 1 (3): 533-80.
Rao, R. 2020. Out of Time: The Queer Politics of Postcoloniality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Reissman Catherine, K. 2000. “Stigma and Everyday Resistance Practices.” GenderSociety 14: 111-35.
Riach, K. 2009. “Exploring Participant-centred Reflexivity in the Research Interview.” Sociology. 43 (2): 356-70.
Rosaldo, Renato. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Ross, Andrew A.G. 2010. “Why They Don’t Hate Us: Emotion, Agency and the Politics of ‘Anti-Americanism’.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (1): 109-25.
Russel y Rodríguez, Mónica. 1998. “Confronting Anthropology’s Silencing Praxis: Speaking of/from a Chicana Consciousness.” Qualitative Inquiry 4 (1): 15-40.
Rutazibwa Olivia, U. 2018. “On Babies and Bathwater: Decolonizing International Development Studies.” In Decolonization and Feminisms in Global Teaching and Learning, edited by S. De Jong, R. Icaza and O.U. Rutazibwa, 158-80. London: Routledge.
- “Dangerous Reflexivity: Rigour, Responsibility and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research.” In The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion, edited by P. Thomson and M. Walker, 270-82. London: Routledge.
- “Hidden in Plain Sight. Race/Ism and Coloniality as Far as the Eye Can See.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 48 (2): 221-41
Sabaratnam, Meera. 2020. “Is IR Theory White? Racialised SubjectPositioning in Three Canonical Texts.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49 (1): 3-31.
Said, Edward W. 1979. Orientalism. London: Penguin.
–. 2014 [1982].”Traveling Theory (1982).” In World Literature in Theory, edited by David Damrosch, 114-33. Malden: Wiley Blackwell.
Shepherd, Laura J. 2022. “White Feminism and the Governance of Violent Extremism.” Critical Studies on Terrorism 15 (3): 727-749.
Shilliam, Robbie. 2021. Decolonizing Politics: An Introduction. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Simpson, Audra. 2007. “Ethnographic Refusal: Indigeneity, ‘Voice’ and Colonial Citizenship.” Junctures: The Journal for Thematic Dialogue 9: 67-80.
-_. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life across the Borders of Settler States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Spivak, Gayatri C. 1988. “Can the Subaltern Speak?” In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271-313. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Steele, Brent J. 2015. “Whistle Disruption: Reflexivity and Documentary Provocation.” Reflexivity and International Relations, edited by Jack L. Amoureux and Brent J. Steele, 61-79. London: Routledge.
Thompson Katrina, D. 2019. “When I Was a Swahili Woman: The Possibilities and Perils of ‘Going Native’ in a Culture of Secrecy.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 48 (5): 674-99.
Tickner Arlene, B. 2013. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 62746.
Tuhiwai Smith, Linda. 2013. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.
Van Maanen, John. 1989. Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Van Wingerden, Enrike. 2022. “Unmastering Research: Positionality and Intercorporeal Vulnerability in International Studies.” International Political Sociology 16 (2): 1-17.
Wasserfall, Rahel Regina. 1993. “Reflexivity, Feminism and Difference.” Qualitative Sociology 16 (1): 23-41.
Wynter, Sylvia. 2003. “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, after Man, Its Overrepresentation-An Argument.” CR: The New Centennial Review 3 (3): 257-337.
Zvobgo, Kelezogbile, Arturo C. Sotomayor, Maria R. Rublee, Meredith Loken, George Karavas, and Constance Duncombe. 2023. “Race and Racial Exclusion in Security Studies: A Survey of Scholars.” Security Studies 32 (4-5): 593-621.
One of the best-known accounts of feminist reflexive research practice in IR is Carol Cohn’s account of US “defense intellectuals” discussing nuclear weapons, strategy, and war (Cohn 1987).
Since positionality statements are intended to signal one’s subjectivities and are an acknowledgement that any research might be affected by one’s standpoint and emotions.
From here onwards, we will refer to these two categories as “white” and “PoC” (or “WoC” when specifically referring to women of color), though we recognize all such categories are constructed in geographical and political contexts. Our thanks to the reviewers for inviting us to expand on these distinctions.
This article was first presented on October 20, 2019 at the Millennium Conference at LSE in a panel titled “On Knowledge Production, Extraction, and Cooptation of Women of Color in the Academy” organized by Jasmine Gani. The visible and vocal validation received from the mostly WoC audience, who attested to the power of the paper in making explicit what they had felt intuitively but struggled to acknowledge openly given the critical and reflexive origins of positionality, was an important milestone in the development of this article. Many colleagues shared their own stories with us immediately after the panel. We also received emails from non-PoC colleagues and PhD students, who acknowledged this was the first time they had been asked to consider the harmful effects of positionality and that it made them view it in a new light. The stark contrast between those from marginalized backgrounds who were instantly able to recognize their experiences in our arguments, and those from hegemonic backgrounds for whom our arguments were entirely revelatory, was notable. IR scholarship on reflexivity has primarily focused on reflexivity in relation to practice and critique (e.g., see Amoureux 2015; Dauphinee 2015; Steele 2015). In contrast, the scholarship on reflexivity in anthropology, sociology, and feminist IR, has provided greater insight on reflexivity through the method of positionality, and often coupled the two together. Hence in this section our discussion focuses more on the latter given our scrutiny of positionality. On the entanglement of race and colonialism within knowledge production in the west, and especially within the discipline of IR, see, among others, the work of Grovogui (2001), Bhambra (2011), Anievas, Manchanda, and Shilliam (2014), Bhambra, Medien, and Tilley (2020), Lentin (2020), Shilliam (2021), Henderson (2014), Sajed and Persaud (2018), Bell (2013, 2022), Quijano (2000), Mignolo (2007), Sabaratnam (2020), Madhok (2021), Pasha (2017), Rao (2020) and Gani and Marshall (2022).
Gentry notes the idea of rationality is a “deeply loaded concept tied to gendered and racialized structure stemming from the Western Enlightenment.” For more on religion as a signifier for racial difference in colonial-modernity, see Rabea Khan . White feminists do not exclusively represent white women. In fact, white feminist ideas, attitudes, and behavior can be displayed and embodied by actors from diverse backgrounds. As Zakaria points out, “[t]he term describes a set of assumptions and behaviors which have been baked into mainstream Western feminism, rather than describing the racial identity of its subjects. At the same time, it is true that most white feminists are indeed white, and that whiteness itself is at the core of white feminism.” As she further explains, “[m]ore broadly, to be a white feminist you simply have to be a person who accepts the benefits conferred by white supremacy at the expense of PoC, while claiming to support gender equality and solidarity with “all” women.” While white feminism is not limited to those racialized as white, it is not possible to separate the racial foundations and signifiers (i.e the whiteness) from this feminism, especially given the way it is deployed through positionality. To give an example, during Israel’s military assault on civilians in Gaza in 2023-24, normally vocal, critical academics – feminists, philosophers of forced displacement, and experts of empire among them – were criticised by fellow academics for their conspicuous silence on the issue of Gaza. For further examples of decolonial, feminist scholarship that seeks to recenter WoC and challenges the whiteness inherent to mainstream white feminism, see Rosalba Icaza (2021), Akanksha Mehta (2019), Anna Agathangelou (2017), and Olivia Rutazibwa (2018), among others. For a good application of speech act theory in IR, see Faye Donnelly’s (2013) exploration of securitizing speech acts by the Bush administration during the 2003 Iraq War. Authors cite Ngunjiri, Hernandez, and Chang (2010).