The Everyday Spaces of Global Politics: Work, Leisure, Family

Universal but not truly ‘global’: governmentality, economic liberalism, and the international

“…This represents both an 'ontopolitical critique' 103 of rationalist models that anthropomorphise inanimate structures to give us a (static) 100 picture of political action, and a corrective to post-structuralist theories which produce a purely discursive analysis of power. 105 Even if critical IR made an effort to include the voices of women, indigenous people and formerly colonised subjects in the conversation, it has done so only to the extent that their testimonies could illuminate the discipline's already established areas of interest -war, domination, and subjection. 104 As Davies and Niemann explain, IR theory mystifies and obscures the reality of global affairs 'behind a veil, which designates the practice of IR as the exclusive domain of experts, statesmen, diplomats and, more recently, the chieftains of global business'.…”

“…105 Even if critical IR made an effort to include the voices of women, indigenous people and formerly colonised subjects in the conversation, it has done so only to the extent that their testimonies could illuminate the discipline's already established areas of interest -war, domination, and subjection. 108 Second, global governmentality studies can help develop more empirically grounded research of actually existing liberalism. Global governmentality, with its focus on how power is dispersed, exercised, and experienced in everyday life, 107 has the potential to repopulate the discipline and return it to the promise contained in its title, namely, the study of international social relations in all their richness and randomness.…”

Everyday Matters in Global Private Security Supply Chains: A Feminist Global Political Economy Perspective on Gurkhas in Private Security

“…in terms of its levels', because 'such an ahistorical conception reifies everyday life as a realm separate from the global' (Davies, 2006, p. 230, emphasis in original). Davies and Niemann (2002) further claim that, through creating and upholding this separation, International Relations (IR) and International Political Economy (IPE) theory serve as a 'mystification of global relations' (p. 561) when they define their subject areas in terms of political and economic elites and powerful institutions (p. 559).…”

Enacting Everyday Boundaries in Post-Dayton Bosnia and Herzegovina: Disconnection, Re - Appropriation and Displacement(s)

“…Similarly, Davies and Niemann (2002) argue that a focus on the everyday life brings the complexity of international relations, long ignored by the mainstream literature. By incorporating to their analysis working people, most often consign to oblivion by an elitist discipline, Davies and Niemann intend to demonstrate that international relations are not an external alien or oppressive forces, but they are the products of their daily practices.…”

“…First, and as a 'common sense' (Davies and Niemann, 2002), the everyday is described as which we presume to be mundane, familiar and unremarkable (Moran, 2005;Scott, 2009, Lefebvre, 2008 3)). By itself, however, this definition can be very imprecise, ambiguous and subjective: what is perceived to be trivial and familiar to some people can be quite the opposite to others.…”