Disciplinary International Relations and Its Disciplined Others
This book has, since its inception, been haunted by three conflicting propositions: that it possibly cannot, perhaps should not, and yet must be written. Each in its turn, these three frets speak to the issues to be taken up in this chapter and the next. As to the first, competency in the area of ethnographic research and writing methods was clearly requisite, but disciplinary International Relations has little to offer in this regard, making it impossible to proceed without a considerable investment of time and effort to become acquainted with the vast literatures on ethnography generated by (principally) anthropologists and sociologists. Second, and related to this, are the myriad ethical issues that unavoidably attach to any project involving ethnographic representation—particularly when undertaken from a position of privilege relative to those (re)presented. This has, quite rightly, given considerable pause to deliberate upon the moral quandaries that have been my constant companions throughout. But it does not necessarily follow from these daunting challenges and disquieting perils that the project cannot or should not be pursued. On the contrary, ethical dilemmas are not averted by respecting the disciplinary boundaries that have both isolated International Relations scholars from important debates about ethnographic research methods and simultaneously underwritten their inattention to Indigenous peoples.
KeywordsEurope Coherence Posit Defend Stake
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.