Investigate the Mutual Learning among Civilizations, of Which there is More Historical Evidence than there is for the Clash of Civilizations
I'm not surprised to hear that his approach has many critics within the discipline. It is grounded in a positivist approach where things can actually be studied as reality, rather than simply taking a posture of critique towards dominant approaches. The genuine (if measured) optimism I'm sure strikes a false note for some people but I found it refreshing.
lam has been at the epicenter of the “clash of civilizations” debate and the “war on terror.” But a historical perspective reveals that Islamic civilization not only served as a “successor civilization” (Braudel 1993:41) to the earlier civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia but also as a “bridge of the world,” and as the pioneer of the world economy (Hobson 2004:29–49). Islamic scholars and rulers during the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad and in subsequent periods not only translated and preserved Greek, Roman, and Indian scientific and philosophical ideas, but also contributed to that knowledge through their own innovations. These ideas played their part in the making of the European Renaissance and modern Europe (Carboni, Trinita, and Marwell 2007; Saliba 2007). This is reminiscent of the crucial role of Chinese translations of Buddhist texts from India, which preserved them for the posterity after Buddhism more or less disappeared in India itself.
I think what I particularly like in the article as a whole is this meeting of theory and historical context, and the use of historical context to challenge stereotypes. This made the article genuinely quite fascinating.
And while race has been receiving attention in IR (Bell 2013:1), there remains a problem with “the manner of its current inclusion which is basically one of paternalism”
This is very interesting and I wish he had elaborated on it
The IR of Sahib and Munshis is over. The time for Global IR has come. I invite you to discuss and debate the project of Global IR and help move our discipline to a new frontier which leaves behind arrogance and exclusion and “where humility and learning drive one's engagements with others” (Ling 2010:225). Together, we must ensure that the Global IR project does not suffer the fate of the Fort William College in British India, but becomes a vibrant, innovative, and inclusive enterprise that reflects the voices, experiences, interests, and identities of all of humankind.
Overall I'm extremely impressed by this article. I'm not surprised to hear that he is a giant in the field, as Liam described in the short lecture, the article is magisterial. I'm particularly impressed by how he describes not just a need for a different program of research but in detail how it can be done. It's such a huge contrast to the article in week 1 which seems to contain only good intentions. This is someone who has really done the work of scholarship.
What’s more, while we do recognise the privilege that makes calling for failure possible, we also argue that the current academic system does not really allow for failure. Though some may have more possibilities, or rather safety nets, to fail, the structure itself is not conducive to failure. The ever-present sentiment of ‘publish or perish’, the demands of global university rankings, the need to demonstrate ‘impact’ in easily quantifiable terms, increasing student numbers with little additional support, high teaching loads, and highly competitive job markets mean that most simply do not have the freedom nor time to fail. Further, the rethinking and reformulating that is inbuilt in the process of failing, as well as ‘getting back up again’, requires space for thought, creativity, and reflection – something that is often at the bottom of to-do lists or just not encouraged. There is no room for non-linear progress within the neoliberal university system/academia.
I feel this section could have led into a broader criqitue of academia. If the structure of it discourages innovation and risk, then what is it doing? Is it a space where we can feel like we're doing something radical while just reproducing the system?
In this vein, before we unpack how ‘reflexivities of discomfort’Footnote 19 have helped us to learn and teach amidst the implosion of IR, we briefly turn to the concept (and failure) of reflexivity in feminist research.
I appreciate this critique of reflexivity. I think often it can come across as a way to avoid criticism, like, "I know my work is Eurocentric but I'm reflecting on it!" I think the reflection should happen off the page, in the context of receiving feedback about work and choosing what work to do next. The work should be judged on its merits, regardless of whether the author is reflecting on it
Starting from this proposed ‘implosion’ of critical IR, this article reflects on our hopes, as two current PhD candidates and one early career researcher in global politics, for teaching and learning in this future world.
My main frustration about this article comes from what I would characterise as an overall tone of "we're trying, please be nice to us!" It reads like a statement of good intentions, and as if perhaps the good intentions are displayed to mollify the feelings of complicity. It reads to me like they had a great conversation at a conference and then thought let's write this conversation into an article. I sort of wish they would just do the work rather than talking about how they are intending to do the work
By seeking to criticise mainstream IR, critical IR (including its various manifestations of post-colonial, decolonial, feminist, and others) has thereby departed from accepted understandings within mainstream IR – without unpacking its underlying assumptions – and has produced a continued centring of explicit ‘Westerness’
To be honest, my critique above of the authors of the article for describing the academic work they want to do rather than doing it also applies to Eriksson Baaz and Parashar. As scholars they are in a position to create new work which fulfils the program they have outlined, and also to connect with other scholars, organise conferences, etc etc.
Coming of age within ‘implosion’
After having read this article I went and read the Eriksson Baaz, Parashar piece they are responding to and was surprised how much they have centred the word "implosion" which in the original article comes in this context "This perhaps would mean moving beyond the established canons of critical IR, moving away from IR itself, letting it unsettle and implode. What would this implosion look like?" I read that as meaning that if scholars moved away from traditional IR what is left might fall in on itself and collapse. Bendfeldt et al talk about implosion more as if it is a transformation or renewal but I think that's quite a liberal interpretation of the original article