Questioning the quest for Pluralism: How Decolonial is Non-Western IR?

Abstract

Since early 2000s, scholars of international relations have been questioning the Western-centrism of their home discipline and, in a quest for pluralism, have been envisioning ways of conceptualizing the world beyond the West. At the same time, an intellectual movement known as modernity/coloniality research collective has been critically reflecting about modernity and its often-neglected counterpart, coloniality, to resist universalism and to decolonize knowledge. Engaging with the attempts to procure pluralism in the discourse of international relations, the purpose of this article is to question the different perspectives of non-Western international relations from a decolonial angle to identify intellectual projects that could lead to decolonizing the discipline. In its discussion of how decolonial non-Western IR theory is, the article argues that while some perspectives within the subfield openly reject or simply ignore the concerns raised by decolonial thought, others put forward intellectual projects where decolonial arguments resonate. Hence, rather than characterizing the subfield in general terms, the article distinguishes those perspectives that are attentive to the need of generating a true dialog among knowledges and, by so doing, it contributes to critical scholarship within international relations.

This World and the “Other”: Muslim Identity and Politics on the Indo-Bangladesh Border

“…By “de-exoticizing” the Hindu–Muslim problem (Viramontes, 2022), we find that the roots of both Muslim “othering” in Assam and tribal “othering” in Tripura can be found in colonial representations in which communities defined by religion were reinvented as political “interest” groups, and “tribal” ethnic groups were constructed as “backward” and “primitive.” The construction of the Muslim electorate by British colonial administrators was based on the perceived common interest of Muslims. Some Muslims did have a common interest, others did not, but the Muslim was certainly an “interest” to the decision-makers.…”

“…Understanding how such categories of difference are produced and maintained requires a critical examination of the practices by which they are created, and especially the practices of control and domination that underpin them. With regard to the West/non-West binary in “decolonial” IR, “decolonization” can be achieved by “de-exoticizing the non-West and exoticizing the West,” which implies “recognition of mutual exchanges between both realms and an awareness of the internal contradictions in each of them” (Viramontes, 2022: 57). In this case, “exoticizing the West” demands an inquiry into the colonial production of the Muslim identity, and the practices of control and domination involved in this production.…”

“…As described by Viramontes (2022: 46): “the colonial epistemic framework is not simply a set of assumptions that make possible the identification of pre-existing forms of knowledge practices, but they are rather normative criteria that constitute knowledge.” Among these colonial frameworks of representation are categories of essentialized difference between the “Self” and the “Other.” In colonial India, one such category is the Muslim, or “Muhammadan.” Established by the Parliament of the United Kingdom with the passing of the 1909 Indian Councils Act, the Muslim electorate was created to address a Liberal “policy problem” (Bacchi, 2009; 2012; Riemann, 2023) where the objective was to help the downtrodden Muslims and “guide the natives on the paths of progress” (Cross, 1922: 6). Understood as a political “interest” with the creation of the Muslim electorate, the “Muslim” was thus redefined as a political rather than a religious identity.…”

“…The rest of this article is organized as follows. The first section revisits India's colonial and post-Independence history with a focus on "othering" produced by colonial epistemic frameworks, inspired by a critique of non-Western international relations theory (Viramontes, 2022). The second section describes key issues in contemporary Northeast Indian identity politics and discusses how Muslim "othering" is reproduced and resisted in ongoing political debates, based on a set of recent newspaper articles.…”

“…calls “capitalization” and “refusal” of othering in political discourse. The paper investigates colonial as well as contemporary “post-colonial” or “de-colonial” narratives of difference (Viramontes, 2022). As the title of this paper suggests, the concept of “worlding” and “worlds of difference” (Tickner & Smith 2020) is also discussed.…”