Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
IR theory has a considerable race problem on multiple fronts. A variety of scholarship has demonstrated ways in which the history of the study of international relations has been shaped by colonial and racist ideas. For example, many of the key figures (for example, Kant and Woodrow Wilson) were racist, and critics allege that concepts central to international relations reflect their problematic origin. There is also the criticism that much of international relations is Eurocentric — that is it is based on a limited and biased sample of world events — and that it reflects a flawed understanding of even the cases it centers, ignoring the important role that race played in pivotal events such as WW1.
Scholars at the forefront of this work are largely engaged in a critical project, investigating the ways that race has played an unacknowledged role in IR. However, they have left open the question of what comes next. In this paper I synthesize the various criticisms of mainstream IR theory, accepting the critique, and attempt to explore the question of what comes next. This is particularly important for IR practitioners who are downstream from this debate, using concepts but not interested in theoretical discussion.
The paper has three parts. The first summarizes and synthesizes the wide range of racial critiques of mainstream International Relations. The second part attempts to translate this collection of critiques for a policy audience that may not be used to the specialized discourse that is employed by much of this scholarship. The third part of the project is an attempt to answer the “so what?” question. I will explore a number of different strategies from the most slight challenge to the status quo — encouraging more studies of non-European states to avoid statistical bias — to a reimagining of significant parts of IR as it is currently practiced.