Subject and Object dualism: Problematique of the discipline of international
##semicolon##
https://doi.org/10.66871/trf-j.v1i2.013##semicolon##
dualism, decolonisation, eurocentrism, ontological singularity, subject, object, historicist teleology, relationality, knowledgeसार
The subject and object separation with its roots in Cartesian dualism constructs the realm of ‘the international’ as universal and cosmopolitan. Europe emerged as a homogeneous space embedded in modernity ushered by enlightenment and renaissance, invented static spatio-temporality, synchronic history and geography, and installed the rest of the world (object) in this montage of ontological singularity (Kumar, 2023). The knowledge was produced by the civilised West and engraved on the tabula rasa of inferior and uncivilised non-West. The politicisation and naturalisation of the vocabulary of the paternalistic eurocentric world view led to the construction of ‘the international’ as monochromatic realm. The thinking subject has in a way invented the whole world and therefore has power and agency over the world order. A multifaceted multilayered epistemic approach to international can ground the subject and object into a relational epistem of ontological multiplicity. The examination of problematique of subject and object have the potential to free the ship of ‘international’ from the firm docking of the Eurocentric harbour and anchor it to the pluriverse of knowledge. This approach can explain the absent silent thought of space outside West.
##submission.citations##
1. Acharya, A. (2014). Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4): 647-659.
2. Agnew, J. (1994). The Territorial Trap: The Geographical Assumptions of International Relations Theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1 (1): 53-80. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177090
3. Anghie, A. (1996). Francisco De Vitoria and the Colonial Origins of International Law. Social & Legal Studies, 5 (3): 321-336.
4. Behera, N.C. (2009). Re-imagining IR in India. In Acharya, A. and Buzan, B. (ed.) Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia (92-116). Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861431
5. Bilgin, P. (2020). Opening up international relations, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love non-Western IR. In Roach, S.C. (ed.) Handbook of Critical International Relations (pp. 12-28). Edward Elgar Publishing.
6. Chatterjee, P. (1993). The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press.
7. Chatterjee, S. (2019).In India’s Spatial Imaginations of South Asia: Power, Commerce, and Community. Oxford International Relations in South Asia (online ed).
8. Çüçen, A.K. (1998). Heidegger’s Reading of Descartes’ Dualism:The Relation of Subject and Object. The Paideia: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, 6: 57-64.
9. Fanon, F. (2008). Peau Noire, Masques Blanc ( Markmann, C.L., 3rd ed. ). (Original work published in 1952).
10. Hobson, J. M. (2000). The State in International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
11. Hobson, J.M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory,1760-2010. Cambridge University Press.
12. Hoffman, S. (1977). An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus, 106(3): 41-60.
13. Koselleck, R. (1988). Critique and Crisis: Enlightenment and the Pathogenesis of Modern Society. Harvard University Press.
14. Kumar, S.H.M. (2023). Decolonizing Grand Theories: Postcolonial Ontology, Historical Sociology and Mid-level Theories in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
15. Kumar, S.H.M. (2025). Orientalism, Liberalism and Colonial Governmentality: Deconstructing the Imperialized Historiography of Modern South Asia. Bloomsbury
16. Maletz, D. J. (1983). History in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. The Review of Politics, 45(2): 209–233.
17. Mignolo, W.D. (1995). The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality and Colonisation. University of Michigan Press.
18. Nayar, J. (2014). On the Elusive Subject of Sovereignty. Alternatives, Global, Local, Political. 39(2): 124-147.
19. Niang, A. (2018). Rehistoricizing the Sovereignty Principle: Stature, Decline, and Anxieties About Foundational Norm. In Iñiguez de Heredia, M., Wai, Z.( ed.). Recentering Africa in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan.
20. Owen, C., Heathershaw, J., & Savin, I. (2017). How postcolonial is post-western IR? Mimicry and mētis in the international politics of Russia and Central Asia. Review of international studies, 44 (2): 279-300. Doi : 10.1017/S0260210517000523
21. Pogge, T.W. (1993). Cosmopolitanism and sovereignty. Ethics, 103, 48-75.
22. Quijano, A. (2007). Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality. Cultural Studies,
21(2–3),168–178. DOI: 10.1080/09502380601164353
23. Saramago, A. (2019). Reality-congruence, emancipatory politics and situated knowledge in International Relations: A process sociological perspective. International Relations, 1-21.
24. Schmidt, B. C.(1998). The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. State University of New York Press.
25. Singh, J.G. (1996). Colonial narratives/Cultural dialogues:“Discoveries” of India in the language of colonialism. Routledge.
26. Spurr, D. ( 1994). The Rhetoric of Empire: Colonial Discourse in Journalism, Travel Writing, and Imperial Administration. Duke University Press.
27. Walt, S.M. (1998). International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy,110: 29-46.
28. Tickner, A.J.(2011). Retelling IR’s Foundational Stories: Some Feminist and Postcolonial Perspectives. Global Change, Peace & Security, 23 (1): 5-13.
29. Tickner, A.B. & Smith K. (2020). International relations from the Global South: World of difference. Routledge.
