Political science engages similar types of identity on different terms. There are extensive literatures describing phenomena related to national, ethnic, class, and gender identity; however, these literatures in isolation give us little insight into broader political mechanics of identity itself. Furthermore, many of the theoretical approaches to identity in political science tend to proceed from the macro-level, without conceptualizing its building blocks. How should we conceptualize and operationalize identity in political science? In this article, we examine the existing literature on identity in ethnic politics, nationalism studies, and gender politics to show this disconnect in conceptualizing identity across research agendas. We then provide an integrated model of identity, focusing on how gradations of visibility, conceptualization, and recognition form the basis of claims and conflicts about the politics of identity. We conclude by elucidating a path to overcoming these issues by opening space for a rethinking of identity in political science.

No abstract

No abstract

Discussions of liberalism as a political ideology often focus on the progressive, civilisational, and triumphalist ideologies of liberal thinkers. Scholarly work on liberal empire situates these issues in the context of colonialism, and contemporary discussions of liberal world order devote much intellectual space to optimism about liberalism. Scholars have spent much less time connecting liberalism to deep cynicism and suspicion. This article, in focusing on what I term a ‘pessimistic liberalism’, fills this gap by examining the ways that the spectre of totalitarianism influenced post-war liberal thought. The mid-20th century was a pivotal moment where both liberalism and its critics proceeded to make arguments about politics that began from similar attitudes about the nature of the political: suspicion, cynicism, resignation, and fear. Specifically, the article analyses historian Jacob Talmon’s genealogy of modern leftist thought to illustrate the shift in liberal thinking from its 19th century optimism to its 20th century pessimism and scepticism. Talmon’s engagement with the issues of political messianism, nationalism, and cosmopolitanism represented a ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ ( pace Paul Ricoeur) that critiqued the triumphalism of previous political projects. The article concludes by connecting this project to the broader development of ‘contemporary political thought’ and reflects on pessimism’s place in politics.

Can there be a “radical IR?” Scholars have given little attention to the question of the following: where is radicalism in the discipline? I argue that not only is it possible to think about radical international theory, but that it is necessary in the contemporary world. International theorists have to grapple with developments of fundamental change, including the so-described decline of the (neo)liberal international order, transformations in global capital, and an upsurge in populist political movements that advocate for fundamental political change. In approaching the question of radicalism in IR, the article develops a working definition of radicalism as an approach to politics that focuses on the International as a whole, uses theoretical tools from the humanistic sciences to engage in an active politics of fundamental transformation, and deploys methods that are historicist, genealogical, and oriented toward “getting to the root of things.” Additionally, the paper illustrates the virtues and promises of a radical IR by using the case of (neo)liberal world order arguments to show how a radical IR could change the trajectory of these engagements.