1

Carleton University Winter 2015 Department of Political Science

PSCI 6601 Theory and Research in International Politics II

Monday 11:35-2:25 Please confirm location on Carleton Central

Instructor: Fiona Robinson Office: Loeb C663 Phone: x. 3120 E-mail: Fiona.Robinson@carleton.ca Office Hours: Mondays 9:30-11:30, or by appointment Course Description and Objectives This class is the continuation of the Ph.D. core course in International Relations (IR). Together, PSCI 6600 and PSCI 6601 provide a survey of IR theory and research with a view to preparing students for the Ph.D. comprehensive examination. Building on the material studied in the first half of the course, this second half focuses on critical, reflectivist, and post-positivist approaches, which have emerged in the field since the 1980s. It aims to familiarize students with some of the key works, central ideas and debates, and recent scholarship in this vein of theorizing. By the end of the course, students should be able to critically analyze the epistemological orientations, ontological assumptions, and political and ethical implications of different approaches and research traditions in IR. As a seminar, the course is centered on class discussion, which will be introduced by student presentations. Requirements and Evaluation Class Participation 25% Class Presentation 15% Two Review Essays 60% (30% each) Total 100% Class participation: Students are expected to attend all classes, read the assigned texts prior to class meetings, and participate actively and regularly in class discussions. Class participation will be evaluated based on the quality and quantity of contributions to class discussions with greater weight given to quality. Quality contributions to class discussions include questions and

2

comments which demonstrate that you can analytically, interpretatively, and critically reflect on and engage with the central ideas of the readings under discussion, and that you can make connections between these ideas and other themes or readings in the course. Class presentation: Each student must give an in-class presentations of about 25 minutes introducing and responding to the required readings (and optionally, recommended readings) for a particular class. You will sign up for the date of your presentation in the first class. The class presentation should (a) summarily outline the central ideas (overall argument and main points ONLY) of the readings; (b) discuss how the readings relate to each other (and/or to other approaches and themes discussed in the course) by identifying points of agreement and disagreement; (c) present analytical and/or critical reflections on individual readings or the general approach under discussion, and evaluate the overall contribution of the approach to the field; and possibly (d) raise questions about the readings and the approach for class discussion. It is essential that your presentation is not a mere summary of the readings. The summary outline of central ideas of the readings should only take up no more than half of your presentation (or less). The class presentation should be supported by a two-page handout highlighting the main points under discussion. Two review essays: Each student has to write two review essays (2400-3000 words plus bibliography, 12 point font, double-spaced). The review essay must provide a critical analysis and assessment of a particular approach to IR theory, as presented in the assigned readings for a given week. It is essential that your review essay develops a clear argument about the chosen topic in response to the readings. The approaches chosen for your review essays may not be the same as the one chosen for your class presentation. The review essays are due as hard copies at the beginning of class on the days the chosen approaches will be discussed. Weekly Topics and Readings Week 1 Introduction January 5 Wallace, William (1996) ‘Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: theory and practice in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 22, 301-321. Smith, Steve (1997) ‘Power and Truth: a reply to William Wallace’, Review of International Studies, 23, 507-516.

3

Reus-Smit, Christian (2012) ‘International Relations, Irrelevant? Don’t Blame Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(3): 525-540. Tickner, J. Ann (2006) ‘On the Frontlines or Sidelines of Knowledge and Power? Feminist Practices of Responsible Scholarship’, International Studies Review, 8(3): 383-395. Week 2 Metatheoretical Debates January 12 Required Lapid, Yosef (1989) “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era,” International Studies Quarterly 33(3): 235-254. Sil, Rudra and Peter J. Katzenstein, ‘Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions’, Perspectives on Politics (2010), 8: 411-431 Reus-Smit, Christian (2013) ‘Beyond Metatheory?’, European Journal of International Relations, 19(3): 589-608. Nicholson, Michael (1996) ‘The Continued Significance of Positivism?’ in Smith, Booth and Zalewski, eds., International Relations Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Smith, Steve (2004) “Singing Our World Into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11,” International Studies Quarterly 48 (3): 499-515. Recommended Wendt, Alexander (1998) “On Constitution and Causation in International Relations,” Review of International Studies 24(5): 101-117. Monteiro, Nuno P. and Kevin G. Ruby (2009) “IR and the False Promise of Philosophical Foundations,” International Theory 1(1): 15-48. Agathangelou, Anna M. and L.H.M. Ling (2004) “The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism,” International Studies Review 6(4): 21-49. Amitav Archarya and Barry Buzan (2007), ‘Why is there no non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific. 7(3): 287-312.

4

Keohane, Robert O. (1988) “International Institutions: Two Approaches,” International Studies Quarterly 32(4): 379-396. Schmidt, Brian (1997) ‘Further Ahead or Further Behind? The Debate over Positivism’, Mershon Internaitonal Studies Review, 41(1): 107-112. Walker, R.B.J. (1989) “History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations,” Millennium 18(2): 163-183. Hollis, Martin and Steve Smith (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Waever, Ole (1996) “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate,” in Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski (eds.) International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 7. (See also other contributions to this volume.) Navon, Emmanuel (2001) “The ‘Third Debate’ Revisited,” Review of International Studies 27(4): 611-625. Lapid, Yosef (2003) “Through Dialogue to Engaged Pluralism: The Unfinished Business of the Third Debate,” International Studies Review 5(1): 128-131. Patomäki, Heikki and Colin Wight (2000) “After Post-positivism: the Promise of Critical Realism,” International Studies Quarterly 44(2): 213-237. Gunnell, John G. (2011) “Social Scientific Inquiry and Meta-theoretical Fantasy: the Case of International Relations,” Review of International Studies 37(4): 1447-1469. Bell, Duncan (2002) “Language, Legitimacy, and the Project of Critique,” Alternatives 27(3): 327-350. Peterson, V. Spike (1992) “Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender and International Relations,” Millennium 21(2): 183-206. Tickner, J. Ann (2005) “What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions,” International Studies Quarterly 49(1): 1-21. Shaw, Karena (2004) “Knowledge, Foundations, Politics,” International Studies Review 6(4): 7- 20.

5

Week 3 International Ethics and International Political Theory January 19 Required R.B.J. Walker (1993) Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3. Mervyn Frost (1998) ‘A Turn not Taken: Ethics in IR at the Millennium’, Review of International Studies, 24, Special Issue: 119-132. Richard Price, ‘Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics’, International Organization, 62(2), 2008: 191-220. David Campbell and Michael Shapiro, eds., Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999. ‘Introduction’. Hutchings, Kimberly (2013) ‘A Place of Greater Safety? Securing Judgement in International Ethics’, in Amanda Russell Beattie and Kate Schick, eds., The Vulnerable Subject: Beyond Rationalism in International Relations. London: Palgrave. Recommended Hutchings, Kimberly (1999) International Political Theory: Rethinking Ethics in a Global Era. London: Sage. Hutchings, Kimberly (1992) ‘The Possibility of Judgement: Moralizing and Theorizing in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 18(2): 51-62. Hutchings, Kimberly (2000) Towards a feminist international ethics’, Review of International Studies, 26 (5) : 111-130. Special Issue, Review of Internaitonal Studies, 26(5), 2000. Price, Richard. ‘Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics’, International Organization, 62(2), 2008: 191-220. David Campbell and Michael Shapiro, eds., Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.

6

Review of International Studies, 26, Special Issue, 2000. Robinson, Fiona (1999) Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory and International Relations, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Robinson, Fiona (2013) ‘Global Care Ethics: Beyond Distribution, Beyond Justice’, Journal of Global Ethics, Special Issue: Critical Approaches to Global Justice: At the Frontier, 9(2): 131-143. Schmidt, Brian C. (2002) “Together Again: Reuniting Political Theory and International Relations Theory,” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4(1): 115-140. Bell, Duncan (2010) Ethics and World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hayden, Patrick, ed. (2009) Ashgate Research Companion to Ethics and International Relations. London: Ashgagte: Franceschet, Antonio, ed. (2009) The Ethics of Global Governance Boulder: Lynne Reinner. Brown, Chris, Terry Nardin and Nick Rengger (eds.) (2002) International Relations in Political Thought: Texts from the Ancient Greeks to the First World War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boucher, David (1998) Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jahn, Beate (ed.) (2006) Classical Theory in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walzer, Michael (1977) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books. Beitz, Charles (1999) Political Theory and International Relations, second revised edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rawls, John (1999) The Law of Peoples. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cochran, Molly (1999) Normative Theory in International Relations: a Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, Fiona (1999) Globalizing Care: Ethics, Feminist Theory and International Relations. Boulder: Westview.

7

Robinson, Fiona (2009) ‘Bridging the Real and the Ideal in International Ethics’. Review of Richard Price, ed., Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, in International Studies Review, 11(2): 396-398. Seckinelgin, Hakan and Hideaki Shinoda (eds.) (2001) Ethics and International Relations. New York: Palgrave. (See especially the chapters by Hutchings, Robinson, and Campbell.) Jeffery, Renee (2011) ‘Reason, Emotion and the Problem of World Poverty: moral sentiment theory and international ethics’. International Theory, 3(1): 143-178 Bohman, James and Matthias-Lutz-Bachmann (eds.) (1997) Perpetual Peace: Essays on Kant’s Cosmopolitan Ideal. Cambridge: The MIT Press. (See especially the chapter by Habermas.) Cohen, Jean L. (2008) “Rethinking Human Rights, Democracy, and Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization,” Political Theory 36(4): 578-606. Benhabib, Seyla (2009) “Claiming Rights Across Borders: International Human Rights and Democratic Sovereignty,” American Political Science Review 103(4): 691-704. Fraser, Nancy (2009) Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia University Press. Brassett, James and Christopher Holmes (2010) “International Political Economy and the Question of Ethics,” Review of International Political Economy 17(3): 425-453. Week 4 Constructivism I January 26 Required Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chs. 1, 3-6. (Read as much as you can; skim passages as you see fit.) Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,” International Organization 52(4): 887-917.

8

Adler, Emanuel and Vincent Pouliot (2011) “International Practices,” International Theory 3(1): 1-36. Recommended Kratochwil, Friedrich and John Gerard Ruggie (1986) “International Organization: The State of the Art on an Art of the State,” International Organization 40(4): 753-775. Kratochwil, Friedrich V. (1989) Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nicholas Onuf, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. Richard Price, ‘Transnational Civil Society and Advocacy in World Politics’, World Politics, 55:614-644, 2003. R. Charli Carpenter, ‘Setting the Advocacy Agenda: Theorizing Issue Emergence and Nonemergence in Transnational Advocacy Networks’, International Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 2007: 99-120. Martha Finnemore, National Interests and International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. Thomas Risse, Stephen C. Ropp and Kathryn Sikkink, eds., The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Thomas Risse, ‘Let’s Argue!: Communicative Action in International Relations’, International Organization, 54(1): 1-40, 2000. Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Rules for the World. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Audi Klotz, Norms in International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995.

9

Neta Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Christian Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Pouliot, Vincent (2008) “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities,” International Organization 62(2): 257-288. Week 5 Constructivism II February 2 Required Christian Reus-Smit, ‘Human Rights and the Social Construction of Sovereignty’, Review of International Studies, 2001, 27, 519-538. Buzan, Barry, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, ch. 2. Acharya, Amitav (2004) “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localization and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism,” International Organization 58(2): 239-275. Mona Lena Krook and Jacqui True, ‘Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality’, European Journal of International Relations, 18(1): 103-127. Recommended Christian Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999. Reus-Smit, C. (2013). Politics of Rights in the Expansion of International Society. Cambridge University Press. Richard Price (2003) ‘Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines’, International Organization. 52(3): 613-644. Weldes, Jutta (1996) “Constructing National Interests,” European Journal of International Relations 2(3): 275-318.

10

Finnemore, Martha (1996) National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Finnemore, Martha (2009) “Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity: Why Being a Unipole Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be,” World Politics 61(1): 58-85. Katzenstein, Peter (ed.) (1996) The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press. Barnett, Michael and Martha Finnemore (2004) Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Acharya, Amitav (2009) Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Risse-Kappen, Thomas (1995) “Democratic Peace – Warlike Democracies? A Social Constructivist Interpretation of the Liberal Argument,” European Journal of International Relations 1(4): 491-517. Williams, Michael C. (2001) “The Discipline of the Democratic Peace: Kant, Liberalism, and the Social Construction of Security Communities,” European Journal of International Relations 7(4): 525-553. Week 6 Historical Materialism and Critical IPE February 9 Required Cox, Robert W. (1986 [1981]) “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory,” in Robert O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 204-254 [originally published in Millennium 10(2): 126-155]. Rupert, Mark (2003) “Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (Re)Vision of the Politics of Governance/Resistance,” Review of International Studies 29(S1): 181-198. Barry Gills (2001) ‘Re-orienting the New (International) Political Economy’, New Political Economy, 6(2): 233-245.

11

Bedford, Kate, and Shirin M. Rai. "Feminists theorize international political economy." Signs 36.1 (2010): 1-18. Van der Pijl, Kees (2013) ‘The Wages of Discipline: Rethinking International Relations as a Vehicle of Western Hegemony’. Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies, 4(1): 5-26. Recommended Bieler, Andreas and Adam David Morton (2004) “A Critical Theory Route to Hegemony, World Order and Historical Change: Neo-Gramscian Perspectives in International Relations,” Capital and Class 28(1): 85-113. Gill, Stephen (ed.) (1993) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gill, Stephen R. and David Law (1989) “Global Hegemony and the Structural Power of Capital,” International Studies Quarterly 33(4): 475-499. Stephen Gill, (1995) ‘Globalization, Market Civilization and Disciplinary Neo-liberalism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 24(3): 399-423. Isabella Bakker and Stephen Gill, eds., Power, production, and social reproduction : human in/security in the global political economy. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Germain, Randall and Michael Kenny (1998) “Engaging Gramsci: International Relations Theory and the New Gramscians,” Review of International Studies 24(1): 3-21. Murphy, Craig N. (1998) “Understanding IR: Understanding Gramsci,” Review of International Studies 24(3): 417-425. Rupert, Mark (1998) “(Re-)Engaging Gramsci: A Response to Germain and Kenny,” Review of International Studies 24(3): 427-434. Worth, Owen (2008) “The Poverty and Potential of Gramscian Thought in International Relations,” International Politics 45(6): 633-649. Peterson, V. Spike (2003) A Critical Re-writing of Global Political Economy: Integrating Reproductive, Productive and Virtual Economies. London: Routledge.

12

Van der Pijl, Kees. Transnational classes and international relations. Vol. 1. Psychology Press, 1998. Overbeek, Henk, and Kees Van der Pijl. "Restructuring capital and restructuring hegemony." Restructuring Hegemony in the Global Political Economy, ed. H. Overbeek (London: Routledge, 1993) (1993): 1. Bedford, Kate, and Shirin M. Rai. "Feminists theorize international political economy." Signs 36.1 (2010): 1-18. Griffen, Penny (2010) ‘Gender, Governance and the Global Political Economy’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, 64(1): 86-104. Woods, Ngaire, ed. The political economy of globalization. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000. Woods, Ngaire. The globalizers: The IMF, the World Bank, and their borrowers. Cornell University Press, 2006. ** No class on February 16th – Reading Week ** Week 7 The Frankfurt School and Emancipatory Critical Theory February 23 Required Linklater, Andrew (1996) “Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State,” European Journal of International Relations 2(1): 77-103. Jahn, Beate (1998) “One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism,” Millennium 27(3): 613-641. Kimberly Hutchings (2005) ‘Speaking and hearing’: Habermasian discourse ethics, feminism and IR’, Review of International Studies, 31:155-165. Booth, Ken (2007) Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chs. 2 and 3. Recommended

13

Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1990. Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in International Relations. London: Macmillan, 1982 Andrew Linklater, The Transformation of Political Community. University of South Carolina Press, 1998. ‘Forum on The Transformation of Political Community’ Review of International Studies, vol. 25, no. 1, 1999. Richard Wyn Jones, ed., Critical Theory and World Politics. Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 2001. Mark Hoffman, ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16(2), 1987. Richard Shapcott (2002) ‘Cosmopolitan Conversations: justice, dialogue and the cosmopolitan project’, Global Society, 16(3), 2002: 221-43. Richard Shapcott, Justice, Community and Dialogue in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Jurgen Haacke (2005) ‘The Frankfurt School and International Relations: on the centrality of recognition’, Review of International Studies, 31, 2005:181-194. Jurgen Haacke, ‘Theory and Praxis in International Relations: Habermas, Self-Reflection, Relational Argumentation’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 1996. Mark Neufeld, The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Review of International Studies, Volume 33, Supplement S1, 'Critical International Relations Theory after 25 Years', April 2007. Robinson, Fiona (2011). ‘Stop Talking and Listen: Discourse Ethics and Feminist Care Ethics in International Political Theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 39(3): 845-860.

14

Week 8 Poststructuralism March 2 Required Edkins, Jenny (1999) Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, ch. 1. Campbell, David (1998) Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, Chapters 3 & 4,. Laffey, Mark (2000) ‘Locating Identity: Performativity, Foreign Policy and State Action’. Review of International Studies, 26(3): 429-444. Pin-Fat, Veronique (2000) ‘(Im)possible universalism: reading human rights in world politics’, Review of International Studies, 26: 663-674. Recommended Der Derian, James and Michael J. Shapiro (eds.) (1989) International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. New York: Lexington Books. (See especially the chapters by Der Derian, Shapiro, Ashley, and Connolly). Ashley, Richard K. (1986 [1984]) “The Poverty of Neorealism,” in Robert O. Keohane (ed.) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 255-300 [originally published in International Organization 38(2): 225-261] Milliken, Jennifer (1999) “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods,” European Journal of International Relations 5(2): 225-254. Ashley, Richard (1988) “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique,” Millennium 17(2): 227-262. Campbell, David (1990) Global Inscription: How Foreign Policy Constitutes the United States,” Alternatives 15 (3): 263-286. David Campbell, ‘Cultural Governance and Pictorial Resistance: Reflections on the Imaging of War’, Review of International Studies, 29, Special Issue, 2003: 57-73. Marieke de Goede (2003) ‘Beyond Economism in International Political Economy’, Review of International Studies, 29: 79-97.

15

Mark Laffey 2004, ‘The red herring of economism: a reply to Marieke de Goede’, Review of International Studies 30(3): 459-468. Weber, Cynthia (1995) Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hansen, Lene (1997) “A Case for Seduction? Evaluating the Poststructuralist Conception of Security,” Cooperation and Conflict 32(4): 369-397. Hansen, Lene (2006) Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. New York: Routledge, chs. 1-4 (and skim one of the chapters in part II). Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1993) Foreign Policy as a Social Construction: A Post-Positivist Analysis of U.S. Counterinsurgency Policy in the Philippines,” International Studies Quarterly 37(3): 297-320. Doty, Roxanne Lynn (1996) Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bartelson, Jens (1995) A Genealogy of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Week 9 Postcolonialism March 9 Required Seth, Sanjay (2013) ‘Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations’, in in Sanjay Seth, ed., Postcolonial Theory and International Relations. London: Routledge. Chowdhry, Geeta and Sheila Nair (2002) “Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World: Race, Gender, and Class in International Relations,” in Chowdhry and Nair (eds.) Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class. New York: Routledge, ch. 1. Shilliam, Robbie (2012) ‘Who will Provide the West with Therapy?’ in Amanda Beattie and Kate Schick, eds., The Vulnerable Subject. London: Palgrave.

16

Barkawi, Tarak and Mark Laffey (2006) “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies,” Review of International Studies 32 (2): 329-352. Kohn, Margaret (2013) ‘Postcolonialism and Global Justice’, Journal of Global Ethics, 9(2): 187-200. Recommended Hobson, John (2103) ‘The Other side of the Westphalian Frontier’ in Sanjay Seth, ed., Postcolonial Theory and International Relations. London: Routledge. Shaw, Karena (2002) ‘Indigeneity and the International’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31(1). Shaw, Karena (2004) ‘Creating/Negotiating Interstices: Indigenous Sovereignties’ in Jenny Edkins, Veronique Pin-Fat and Michael Shapiro, eds., Sovereign Lives: Power in International Politics. London: Routledge. Agathangelou, Anna and L. H. M. Ling, ‘Power, Borders, Security, Wealth: Lessons of Violence and Desire from September 11’, International Studies Quarterly, 48(3): 517-538, 2004. Krishna, Sankaran (1993) “The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International Relations Theory,” Alternatives 18(3): 385-417. Darby, Phillip and A.J. Paolini (1994) “Bridging International Relations and Postcolonialism,” Alternatives 19(3): 371-397. Kapoor, Ilan (2002) “Capitalism, Culture, Agency: Dependency versus Postcolonial Theory,” Third World Quarterly 23 (4): 647-664. Hobson, John M. (2007) “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphilian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR,” Review of International Studies 33(1): 91-116. Shani, Giorgio (2008) “Toward a Post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory,” International Studies Review 10(4): 722-734. Laffey, Mark and Jutta Weldes (2008) “Decolonizing the Cuban Missile Crisis,” International Studies Quarterly 52(3): 555-577.

17

Hall, Martin and John M. Hobson (2010) “Liberal International Theory: Eurocentric but not always Imperialist?” International Theory 2(2): 210-245. Himadeep Muppidi, 'Colonial and Postcolonial Global Governance' in Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, eds., Power in Global Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Forum: “Edward Said and International Relations” (2007) Millennium 36(1): 77-145. Forum on Race and International Relations (2009), International Studies Perspectives 10(1): 77-107. Kayaoglu, Turan (2010) “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory,” International Studies Review 12(2): 193-217. Fanon, Frantz (1963) The Wretched of the Earth. New York: Grove Press. Said, Edward W. (1994 [1978]) Orientalism, second edition (with new preface). New York: Vintage Books. Week 10 Feminism and Gender Studies March 16 (** Please note: I may be away this week due to the public school March Break. If so, there will be no class this week, and will discuss the final set of readings on April 6th). Required Peterson, V. Spike (2004) “Feminist Theories Within, Invisible To, and Beyond IR,” Brown Journal of World Affairs 10(2): 35-46. Tickner, J. Ann (1997) “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements between Feminists and IR Theorists,” International Studies Quarterly 41(4): 611-632. Waylen, Georgina (2006) ‘You still don’t understand: why troubled engagements continue between feminists and (critical) IPE’. Review of International Studies, vol. 32: 145-164. Cockburn, Cynthia (2010) ‘Gender Relations as Causal in Militarism and War’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 12(2): 139 – 157.

18

Enloe, Cynthia (2004) “Margins, Silences, and Bottom Rungs: How to Overcome the Underestimation of Power in the Study of International Relations,” in The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, ch. 2. Recommended Tickner, J. Ann (1988) “Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism: A Feminist Reformulation,” Millennium 12(3): 429-440. Tickner, J. Ann (1992) Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security. New York: Columbia University Press. Tickner, J (2010) "You may never understand: Prospects for feminist futures in International Relations." Austl. Feminist LJ 32: 9. Enloe, Cynthia (2014) Bananas, Beaches, and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, Completely Revised and Updated. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sylvester, Christine (1994) Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sylvester, Christine (2002) Feminist International Relations: An unfinished journey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sylvester, Christine (2013) War as Experience: Contributions from International Relations and Feminist Analysis. New York: Routledge. Sylvester, Christine (1994) “Empathetic Cooperation: A Feminist Method for IR,” Millennium 23(2): 315-334. Whitworth, Sandra. Feminism and international relations: towards a political economy of gender in interstate and non-governmental institutions. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994. (2004) Special Issue, Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10(2). Marchand, Marianne and Ann Sisson Runyan, eds. (2011) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, ‘Introduction: feminist sightings of global restructuring: old and new conceptualizations’.

19

Rai, Shirin M., and Georgina Waylen, eds (2013) New frontiers in feminist political economy. London: Routledge. Whitworth, Sandra. Men, militarism, and UN peacekeeping: a gendered analysis. Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004. Lene Hansen, 'The Little Mermaid's Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School', Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29(2): 285-306. Christine Sylvester (2012), ‘War Experiences/War Practices/War Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies. 40(3): 483-503.

Sjoberg, Laura (2012) “Gender, Structure, and War: What Waltz Couldn’t See,” International Theory 4 (1): 1-38.

R. Charli Carpenter, "Women, Children and Other Vulnerable Groups": Gender, Strategic Frames and the Protection of Civilians as a Transnational Issue, International Studies Quarterly, 49 (2): 2005: 295-334 Laura Sjoberg, 'Gendered Realities of the Immunity Principle: Why Gender Analysis Needs Feminism', International Studies Quarterly, 50(4): 889-91, 2006. Laura Sjoberg (2006)Gender, Justice and the Wars in Iraq: Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006. Wibben, Annick TR (2011) "Feminist Politics in Feminist Security Studies." Politics & Gender 7.04: 590-595. Jill Steans, Gender and International Relations. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997. Marianne Marchand and Ann Sisson Runyan, eds., Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances. London: Routledge, 2000. Catherine Eschle and Bice Maiguashca, ‘Rethinking Globalised Resistance: Feminist Activism and Critical Theorizing in International Relations’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 9(2): 2007. Robinson, Fiona (2003). ‘Human Rights and the Global Politics of Resistance: Feminist Perspectives’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 29, Special Issue: 161-180.

20

Robinson, Fiona (2008). ‘The Importance of Care in the Theory and Practice of Human Security’. Journal of International Political Theory, 4(2): 167-188. Kimberly Hutchings, ‘Feminist Ethics and Political Violence’, International Politics, 44(1): 90-106. Hutchings, Kimberley (2008) “1988 and 1998: Contrast and Continuity in Feminist International Relations,” Millennium 37(1): 97-105. M. Zalewski, 'The Women/'Women' Question in International Relations' in Millennium, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 407-23. Zalewski, Marisya (2010) ‘I don’t even know what gender is’: a discussion of the connections between gender, gender mainstreaming and feminist theory’, Review of International Studies, 36(1): 3-27. Marysia Zalewski, Ann Tickner, Christine Sylvester, Margot Light, Vivienne Jabri, Kimberly Hutchings, and Fred Halliday, ‘Roundtable Discussion: Reflections on the Past, Prospects for the Future in Gender and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 37 (2008), pp. 153–79. Locher, Birgit and Elisabeth Prügl (2001) “Feminism and Constructivism: World Apart or Sharing the Middle Ground?” International Studies Quarterly 45(1): 111-129. Ackerly, Brooke and Jacqui True (2008) “Reflexivity in Practice: Power and Ethics in Feminist Research on International Relations,” International Studies Review 10(4): 693-707. Bedford, Kate. "Governing intimacy in the World Bank." (2008): 84-106. Dyan Mazurana et al (2001) ‘Girls in Fighting Forcers and Groups: Their Recruitment, Participation, Demobilization and Reintegration’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 8(2): 97-123. Week 11 International Political Sociology March 23 Required Bigo, Didier and R.B.J. Walker (2007) “International, Political, Sociology,” International Political Sociology 1(1): 1-5.

21

Sending, Ole Jacob and Iver B. Neumann (2006) “Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power,” International Studies Quarterly 50 (3): 651-672. Joseph, Jonathan (2010) “The Limits of Governmentality: Social Theory and the International,” European Journal of International Relations 16(2): 223-246. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri (2000) Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, xi-66. Enloe, Cynthia. "The mundane matters." International Political Sociology 5.4 (2011): 447-450. Recommended Lawson, George and Robbie Shilliam (2010) “Sociology and International Relations: Legacies and Prospects,” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23(1): 69-86. Walters, W. (2010) ‘Migration and Security’, in J. Peter Burgess (ed.) The Handbook of New Security Studies. London: Routledge, 2017-228. Reid, Julian (2005) “The Biopolitics of the War on Terror: A Critique of the ‘Return to Imperialism’ Thesis in International Relations,” Third World Quarterly 26 (2): 237-252. Barkawi, Tarak and Mark Laffey (2002) “Retrieving the Imperial: Empire and International Relations,” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31 (1): 109-127. Jaeger, Hans-Martin (2007) ”Global Civil Society” and the Political Depoliticization of Global Governance,’ International Political Sociology 1: 3, 257-277. Jaeger, Hans-Martin (2010) ‘UN Reform, Biopolitics and Global Governmentality’, International Theory 2(1): 50-86 Dean, Mitchell (2010) ‘International Government’ in Governmentality: Power, Rule and Modern Society, second edition. London: Sage, ch. 10. Lippert, Randy (1999) “Governing Refugees: The Relevance of Governmentality

22

to Understanding the International Refugee Regime,” Alternatives 24(3): 295-328. Dillon, Michael and Julian Reid (2001) “Global Liberal Governance: Biopolitics, Security and War,” Millennium 30(1): 41-65. Jabri, Vivienne (2007) “Michel Foucault’s Analytics of War: The Social, the International, and the Racial,” International Political Sociology 1(1): 67-81. Larner, Wendy and William Walters (2002) “The Political Rationality of ‘New Regionalism’: Toward a Genealogy of the Region,” Theory and Society 31(3): 391-432. Larner, Wendy and William Walters (eds.) (2004) Global Governmentality: Governing International Spaces. New York: Routledge. Walters, William and Jens Henrik Haahr (2005) Governing Europe: Discourse, Governmentality and European Integration. London: Routledge. Walters, William (2012) Governmentality: Critical Encounters. New York: Routledge.

Merlingen, Michael (2006) “Foucault and World Politics: Promises and Challenges of Extending Governmentality Theory to the European and Beyond,” Millennium 35(1): 181-196. Forum: “Assessing the Impact of Foucault on International Relations” (2010) International Political Sociology 4(2): 196-215. Week 12 Critical Methodologies in IR March 30 Required Hutchings, Kimberly (2001) ‘The Nature of critique in critical international relations theory’, Critical Theory in World Politics, Boulder: Lynne Reinner. Aradau, Claudia and Jef Huysmans (2014) ‘Critical Methods in International Relations: The politics of techniques, devices and Acts’, European Journal of International Relations, 20(3): 596-619. Ackerly, Brooke and Jacqui True (2006) ‘Studying the struggles and wishes of the age: feminist theoretical methodology and feminist theoretical methods’, in

23

Brooke Ackerly, Maria Stern and Jacqui True, eds., Feminist Methodologies for International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pouliot, V. (2007) “Sobjectivism”: Toward a Constructivist Methodology’, International Studies Quarterly, 51(2): 359-384. Milliken, J (1999) ‘The Study of discourse in International Relations: A critique of research and methods’, European Journal of International Relations 5(2): 225-254. Recommended Geuss, Raymond (1981) The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Week 13 Conclusion and Review April 6 Academic Accommodations

The Paul Menton Centre for Students with Disabilities (PMC) provides services to students with Learning Disabilities (LD), psychiatric/mental health disabilities, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), chronic medical conditions, and impairments in mobility, hearing, and vision. If you have a disability requiring academic accommodations in this course, please contact PMC at 613-520-6608 or pmc@carleton.ca for a formal evaluation. If you are already registered with the PMC, contact your PMC coordinator to send me your Letter of Accommodation at the beginning of the term, and no later than two weeks before the first in-class scheduled test or exam requiring accommodation (if applicable). After requesting accommodation from PMC, meet with me to ensure accommodation arrangements are made. Please consult the PMC website for the deadline to request accommodations for the formally-scheduled exam (if applicable).

For Religious Observance: Students requesting accommodation for religious observances should apply in writing to their instructor for alternate dates and/or means of satisfying academic requirements. Such requests should be made during the first two weeks of class, or as soon as possible after the need for accommodation is known to exist, but no later than two weeks before the compulsory academic event. Accommodation is to be worked out directly and on an individual basis between the student and the instructor(s) involved. Instructors will make accommodations in a way that avoids academic disadvantage to the student. Instructors and students may contact an Equity Services Advisor for assistance (www.carleton.ca/equity). For Pregnancy: Pregnant students requiring academic accommodations are encouraged to contact an Equity Advisor in Equity Services to complete a letter of accommodation. Then, make an appointment to discuss your needs with the instructor at

24

least two weeks prior to the first academic event in which it is anticipated the accommodation will be required. Plagiarism: The University Senate defines plagiarism as “presenting, whether intentional or not, the ideas, expression of ideas or work of others as one’s own.” This can include: • reproducing or paraphrasing portions of someone else’s published or unpublished

material, regardless of the source, and presenting these as one’s own without proper citation or reference to the original source;

• submitting a take-home examination, essay, laboratory report or other assignment written, in whole or in part, by someone else;

• using ideas or direct, verbatim quotations, or paraphrased material, concepts, or ideas without appropriate acknowledgment in any academic assignment;

• using another’s data or research findings; • failing to acknowledge sources through the use of proper citations when using

another’s works and/or failing to use quotation marks; • handing in "substantially the same piece of work for academic credit more than once

without prior written permission of the course instructor in which the submission occurs.

Plagiarism is a serious offence which cannot be resolved directly with the course’s instructor. The Associate Deans of the Faculty conduct a rigorous investigation, including an interview with the student, when an instructor suspects a piece of work has been plagiarized. Penalties are not trivial. They may include a mark of zero for the plagiarized work or a final grade of "F" for the course. Submission and Return of Term Work: Papers must be submitted directly to the instructor according to the instructions in the course outline and will not be date-stamped in the departmental office. Late assignments may be submitted to the drop box in the corridor outside B640 Loeb. Assignments will be retrieved every business day at 4 p.m., stamped with that day's date, and then distributed to the instructor. For essays not returned in class please attach a stamped, self-addressed envelope if you wish to have your assignment returned by mail. Final exams are intended solely for the purpose of evaluation and will not be returned.

Grading: Standing in a course is determined by the course instructor, subject to the approval of the faculty Dean. Final standing in courses will be shown by alphabetical grades. The system of grades used, with corresponding grade points is:

Percentage Letter grade 12-point scale Percentage Letter grade 12-point scale 90-100 A+ 12 67-69 C+ 6 85-89 A 11 63-66 C 5 80-84 A- 10 60-62 C- 4 77-79 B+ 9 57-59 D+ 3 73-76 B 8 53-56 D 2 70-72 B- 7 50-52 D- 1

Approval of final grades: Standing in a course is determined by the course instructor subject to the approval of the Faculty Dean. This means that grades submitted by an

25

instructor may be subject to revision. No grades are final until they have been approved by the Dean. Carleton E-mail Accounts: All email communication to students from the Department of Political Science will be via official Carleton university e-mail accounts and/or cuLearn. As important course and University information is distributed this way, it is the student’s responsibility to monitor their Carleton and cuLearn accounts. Official Course Outline: The course outline posted to the Political Science website is the official course outline.