Racism and responsibility – The critical limits of deepfake methodology in security studies: A reply to Howell and Richter-Montpetit

Wæver, Ole; Buzan, Barry

doi:10.1177/0967010620916153

Cited by 47 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…29 Similarly, the publication of Howell and Richter-Montpetit's piece caused consternation for various reasons, one of which was the perception that authors discussed were being personally accused of being racist notwithstanding a disclaimer on this point. 30 A key point, yet one readily forgotten, is that 'the West' is on any plausible reading a racialised category indexed to 'Whiteness'. 31 Both concepts were 'invented' historically as part of European overseas expansion.…”

Section: See Robin Diangelo White Fragility: Why It's So Hard For Whmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts

Sabaratnam

2020

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Racism is a historically specific structure of modern global power which generates hierarchies of the human and affirms White supremacy. This has far-reaching material and epistemological consequences in the present, one of which is the production and naturalisation of White-racialised subject positions in academic discourse. This article develops a framework for analysing Whiteness through subject-positioning, synthesising insights from critical race scholarship that seek to dismantle its epistemological tendencies. This framework identifies White subject-positioning as patterned by interlocking epistemologies of immanence, ignorance, and innocence. The article then interrogates how these epistemological tendencies produce limitations and contradictions in international theory through an analysis of three seminal and canonical texts: Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979), Robert Keohane’s After Hegemony (1984) and Alexander Wendt’s Social Theory of International Politics (1999). It shows that these epistemologies produce contradictions and weaknesses within the texts by systematically severing the analysis of the international system and the ‘West’ from its actual imperial conditions of possibility. The article outlines pathways for overcoming these limitations and suggests that continued inattention to the epistemological consequences of race for International Relations (IR) theory is intellectually unsustainable.

show abstract

Section: See Robin Diangelo White Fragility: Why It's So Hard For Whmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts

Sabaratnam

2020

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2. In light of a recent response paper in Security Dialogue by Waever and Buzan (2020), the methodology that allows these sorts of papers to be published, which they termed a "deepfake methodology," is, as we claimed, unbecoming of research scholarship. They describe the "deepfake methodology" this way,…”

Section: Declaration Of Conflicting Interestsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Understanding the “Grievance Studies Affair” Papers and Why They Should Be Reinstated: A Response to Geoff Cole

Pluckrose¹,

Lindsay²,

Boghossian

2021

Sociological Methods & Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In April, 2020, Dr. Geoff Cole published, “Why the ‘Hoax’ Paper of Baldwin (2018) Should Be Reinstated.” We are the authors of the “Baldwin” paper published in Fat Studies. The paper satirized theoretical ideas within Fat Studies as part of a larger project to demonstrate the lack of rigor in certain theoretical approaches to cultural studies. In this response, we agree with Cole that our project should not be understood as hoaxes and that the retracted article should be reinstated, but defend our methods.

show abstract

“…As recent rhetorical disputes between self-describing 'Critical' traditions testify, competition about who is the 'most Critical' can vitiate the open potential in any IR theory (Hansen, 2020). Analyses are degraded and receive a degree of inoculation from appropriate scholarly evaluation, when self-describing Critical Scholars imply that achieving ethical and political purity (which may be defined variously) is the purpose and outcome of critique (Waever and Buzan, 2020).…”

Section: What Is a Minor International Theory?mentioning

confidence: 99%

What is a minor international theory? On the limits of ‘Critical International Relations’

Michelsen

2020

Journal of International Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that ‘Critical International Relations’, often counterpoised to ‘mainstream IR’, has come to function as a major theoretical category in its own right. It argues that critique involves ‘minor theorising’, defined as the practice of disturbing settled theoretical assumptions in the discipline. The article examines the role and significance of ‘minor theories’ in the context of ongoing debates about Critical IR. It argues that critique is defined by context, and is politically and ethically ambiguous. The article concludes that the scope for critique could be advanced if the terms ‘Critical IR’ and ‘Critical IR Scholar’ are dropped from scholarly parlance.

show abstract

Racism and responsibility – The critical limits of deepfake methodology in security studies: A reply to Howell and Richter-Montpetit

Cited by 47 publications

References 12 publications

Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts

Is IR Theory White? Racialised Subject-Positioning in Three Canonical Texts

Understanding the “Grievance Studies Affair” Papers and Why They Should Be Reinstated: A Response to Geoff Cole

What is a minor international theory? On the limits of ‘Critical International Relations’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About