Abstract
The dominant ways in which intellectuals and political elites around the world have come to think about world politics are not the result of either an open search for the best perspective or theory or a reflection of an essentially local perspective. The most prestigious repertoires of thinking about world politics represent the historical emergence of theoretical genres intimately associated with specific times and places which circulate and adapt in association with the spheres of influence of schools and authors with the best reputations and which in turn reflect the current geopolitical order. After providing a brief summary of various ways of conceiving the geography of knowledge, I present four premises for what I am calling the geopolitics of knowledge. I then consider the specific case of how a particular theoretical perspective of peculiarly American provenance came to dominate much academic thinking about world politics outside the United States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1, 53–80. doi:10.1080/09692299408434268.
Agnew, J. (2003). Geopolitics: Re-visioning world politics (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Agnew, J. (2005). Hegemony: The new shape of global power. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Agnew, J. (2007). Know-where: Geographies of knowledge of world politics. International Political Sociology, 1, 138–148. doi:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2007.00009.x.
Agnew, J. (2009). Globalization and sovereignty. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Anderson, L. (2003). Pursuing truth, exercising power: Social science and public policy in the twenty-first century. New York: Columbia University Press.
Biersteker, T. J. (1995). The “triumph” of liberal economic ideas in the developing world. In B. Stallings (Ed.), Global change, regional responses: The new international context of development (pp. 174–196). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174336.006.
Callahan, W. A. (2001). China and the globalization of IR theory: Discussion of “building international relations theory with Chinese characteristics”. Journal of Contemporary China, 10(26), 75–88.
Connolly, W. E. (2005). The evangelical-capitalist resonance machine. Political Theory, 33, 869–886. doi:10.1177/0090591705280376.
Donnelly, J. (1995). Realism and the academic study of international relations. In J. Farr, J. S. Dryzek, & S. T. Leonard (Eds.), Political science in history: Research programs and political traditions (pp. 175–197). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gareau, F. H. (1981). The discipline of international relations: A multi-national perspective. Journal of Politics, 43, 779–802. doi:10.2307/2130637.
Geertz, C. (1996). Afterword. In S. Feld & K. H. Basso (Eds.), Sense of place (pp. 259–262). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research.
Gramsci, A. (1992). Prison notebooks (J. A. Buttigieg, Ed. & Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press. (Original work Quaderni del carcere written between 1929 and 1935, but not published in Italian until after the Second World War). http://postcolonialstudies.emory.edu/hegemony-in-gramsci/#ixzz2P8T7ixfT
Grunberg, I. (1990). Exploring the “myth” of hegemonic stability. International Organization, 44, 431–477. doi:10.1017/S0020818300035372.
Guilhot, N. (2008). The realist gambit: Postwar American political science and the birth of IR theory. International Political Sociology, 2, 281–304. doi:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2008.00052.x.
Hellmann, G. (2009). Fatal attraction? German foreign policy and IR/foreign policy theory. Journal of International Relations and Development, 12, 257–292. doi:10.1057/jird.2009.11.
Inayatullah, N. (1997). Theories of spontaneous disorder. Review of International Political Economy, 4, 319–348. doi:10.1080/096922997347805.
Inayatullah, N., & Rupert, M. (1994). Hobbes, Smith, and the problem of mixed ontologies in neorealist IPE. In S. J. Rosow, N. Inayatullah, & M. Rupert (Eds.), The global economy as political space (pp. 61–85). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Jackson, M. (2002). The politics of storytelling: Violence, transgression and intersubjectivity. Copenhagen, Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Kahler, M. (1993). International relations: Still an American social science? In L. B. Miller & M. J. Smith (Eds.), Ideas and ideals: Essays on politics in honor of Stanley Hoffmann (pp. 395–414). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kahler, M. (1997). Inventing international relations: International relations theory after 1945. In M. W. Doyle & G. J. Ikenberry (Eds.), New thinking in international relations theory (pp. 20–53). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kaplan, M. A. (1961). Is international relations a discipline? Journal of Politics, 23, 462–476. doi:10.2307/2127101.
Kripendorff, E. (1989). The dominance of American approaches to international relations. In H. C. Dyer & L. Mangasarian (Eds.), The study of international relations (pp. 28–39). London: Macmillan.
Livingstone, D. N. (2005). Science, text and space: Thoughts on the geography of reading. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30, 391–401. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2005.00179.x.
Long, J. D., Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M. J. (2005, March 1–5). Teaching and research in international politics: Surveying trends in faculty opinion and publishing. Paper presented at the 2005 Convention of the International Studies Association, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Lowenthal, D. (1961). Geography, experience, and imagination: Towards a geographical epistemology. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 51, 241–260. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1961.tb00377.x.
Lukes, S. (2000). Different cultures, different rationalities? History of the Human Sciences, 13(1), 5–18. doi:10.1177/09526950022120566.
Mignolo, W. D. (2000). Local histories/global designs: Coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Müller, M. (2008). Situating identities: Enacting and studying Europe at a Russian elite university. Millennium, 37, 3–25. doi:10.1177/0305829808093728.
Nader, L. (Ed.). (1996). Naked science: Anthropological inquiry into boundaries, power, and knowledge. London: Routledge.
Nossal, K. R. (2001). Tales that textbooks tell: Ethnocentricity and diversity in American introductions to international relations. In R. M. A. Crawford & D. S. L. Jarvis (Eds.), International relations—still an American social science? Toward diversity in international thought (pp. 167–186). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Oren, I. (2009). The unrealism of contemporary realism: The tension between realist theory and realists’ practice. Perspectives on Politics, 7, 283–301. doi:10.1017/S1537592709090823.
Powell, R. (1994). Anarchy in international relations theory: The neorealist-neoliberal debate. International Organization, 48, 313–344. doi:10.1017/S0020818300028204.
Prewitt, K. (2002). The social science project: Then, now and next. Items and Issues, Social Science Research Council, 3(3–4), 1–2.
Said, E. W. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Harper.
Sapiro, G. (Ed.) (2009). L’espace intellectuel en Europe: De la formation des États-nations à la mondialisation XIX-XXI siècle [Intellectual space in Europe: From the formation of the nation-state to globalization, 19th–21st centuries]. Paris: La Découverte.
Schmidt, B. (2008). International relations theory: Hegemony or pluralism? Millennium, 36, 295–310. doi:10.1177/03058298080360020601.
Schuett, R. (2007). Freudian roots of political realism: The importance of Sigmund Freud to Hans J. Morgenthau’s theory of international power politics. History of the Human Sciences, 20(4), 53–78. doi:10.1177/0952695107082491.
Seth, S. (2000). A “postcolonial world”? In G. Fry & J. O’Hagan (Eds.), Contending images of world politics (pp. 214–226). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Shapin, S. (1998). Placing the view from nowhere: Historical and sociological problems in the location of science. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23, 5–12. doi:10.1111/j.0020-2754.1998.00005.x.
Smith, S. (1987). Paradigm dominance in international relations: The development of international relations as a social science. Millennium, 16, 189–206. doi:10.1177/03058298870160022501.
Smith, S. (2008). Debating Schmidt: Theoretical pluralism in IR. Millennium, 36, 305–310. doi:10.1177/03058298080360020701.
Tsygankov, A. P., & Tsygankov, P. A. (2004). New directions in Russian international studies: Pluralization, Westernization, and isolationism. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 37, 1–17. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2003.12.005.
Tsygankov, A. P., & Tsygankov, P. A. (2007). A sociology of dependence in international relations theory: The case of Russian liberal IR. International Political Sociology, 1, 307–324. doi:10.1111/j.1749-5687.2007.00023.x.
Waever, O. (1992). International society: Theoretical promises unfulfilled. Cooperation and Conflict, 27, 97–128. doi:10.1177/0010836792027001004.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wolf, E. (1982). Europe and the people without history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Xinning, S. (2001). Building international relations theory with Chinese characteristics. Journal of Contemporary China, 10(26), 61–74. doi:10.1080/10670560125339.
Yang, G., & Li, M. (2009). Western political science theories and the development of political theories in China. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 14, 275–297. doi:10.1007/s11366-009-9061-y.
Zhang, Y. (2003). The “English School” in China: A travelogue of ideas and their diffusion. European Journal of International Relations, 9, 87–114. doi:10.1177/1354066103009001003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Agnew, J. (2015). The Geopolitics of Knowledge About World Politics: A Case Study in U.S. Hegemony. In: Meusburger, P., Gregory, D., Suarsana, L. (eds) Geographies of Knowledge and Power. Knowledge and Space, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9960-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9960-7_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9959-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9960-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)