Dünyalaştıran Çoğaltma ile Uluslararası İlişkileri Yeniden İmal Etmek

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 70, 45 - 62, 13.08.2021

David L. Blaney Tamara A. Trownsell

https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.985929

Cited By: 6

Öz

Çağdaş uluslararası ilişkiler zanaatı, zaman-uzam manzaralarından bir çoğul evreni “tek-dünyalı bir
dünya”ymışçasına homojenleştirir. Biz, “dünya çoğaltmayı” ve muhtelif bilme/varolma/hissetme/yapma
biçimleriyle iştigal edebilen bir araştırmacılar kuşağı ve etkin bir karşılaşmaya yönelik hazırcevap bir disiplini
vücuda getirebilecek bir yeniden imal stratejisi öneriyoruz. Dünyalaştıran çoğaltma şunları içerir: 1) birbirinden
ayrı varoluşsal varsayımlar aracılığıyla kendini gösteren dünyaların çoğulluğunu ciddiye almak ve 2) birini
diğerine indirgemeden, ölçülemez düzeydeki yapma/olma biçimleri aracılığıyla inşa edilen zaman-uzam
manzaraları üstünden nasıl tercüme/okuma yapılacağını öğrenmek. Özenli biçimde hem pedagojide hem
de bilimsel alanda karmaşıklıkla yüz yüze gelmeye yarayan araçlar –yeni beceriler, kavramlar, oluş biçimleri–
geliştirmeyi öneriyoruz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeniden İmal, Dünyalaştırma, Ontoloji, Çoğulluk

Recrafting International Relations by Worlding Multiply

Öz

The contemporary IR craft homogenizes a pluriverse of time-spacescapes as if it were a “one-world world.” We
propose a strategy of recrafting to engender a nimble discipline for actively encountering ‘the world multiply’ and
a generation of scholars capable of engaging various forms of knowing/being/sensing/doing. Worlding multiply
requires: (1) taking seriously the plurality of worlds that emerge through distinct existential assumptions and
(2) learning how to translate/read across time-spacescapes built through incommensurate ways of doing/being
without reducing one to the other. We suggest conscientiously developing tools—new skills, concepts, ways of
being—for encountering complexity in both pedagogy and scholarship.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Recrafting, Worlding, Ontology, Multiplicity

Kaynakça

• “Richard Sennett on Art and Craft”, Getty Museum, 3 December 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH1aX_6-xkY (Accessed 14 January 2020).
• Abraham, Itty (2006). “The Contradictory Spaces of Postcolonial Techno-Science”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No. 3, p. 210-217.
• Acharya, Amitav (2014). “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 58, No. 4, p. 647-659.
• Acharya, Amitav and Barry Buzan (eds.) (2010). Non-Western International Relations Theory. London, Routledge.
• Agathangelou, Anna M. and L.H.M. Ling (1997). “Postcolonial Dissidence within Dissident IR: Transforming Master Narratives of Sovereignty”, Studies in Political Economy, Vol. 54, No. 1, p. 7-38.
• Agathangelou, Anna M. and L.H.M. Ling (2004). “The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism”, International Studies Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 34-22.
• Arian, Anahita (2021). “An Ethics of Understanding”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 23.
• Aydınlı, Ersel and Gonca Biltekin (eds.) (2018). Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorizing. London, Routledge.
• Behera, Navnita Chadha (2013). Political Science: Volume 4: India Engages the World. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Bennett, Jane (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, Duke University.
• Berenskoetter, Felix (2018). “‘E Pluribus Unum?’ How Textbooks Cover Theories”, Andreas Gofas , Inanna Hamati-Ataya, and Nicholas Onuf (eds.), The Sage Handbook of History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations. New York, Sage, p. 446-468.
• Berman, Morris (1981). The Reenchantment of the World. Ithaca, Cornell University.
• Bilgin, Pınar (2016). ‘“Contrapuntal Reading’ as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR”, International Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, p. 134–146.
• Bilgin, Pinar (2016). “Do IR Scholars Engage with the Same World?”, Ken Booth and Toni Erskine (eds.), International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge, Polity, p. 97-108.
• Blaney, David L. and Arlene B. Tickner (2017). “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR”, Millennium, Vol. 43, No. 3, p. 293-311.
• Blaser, Mario (2016). “Is Another Cosmopolitics Possible?”, Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 31, No. 4, p. 545-570.
• Blaser, Mario (2018). “Doing and Undoing Caribou/Atiku: Diffractive and Divergent Multiplicities and their Cosmopolitical Orientations”, Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 47-64.
• Capan, Zeynep Gulsah (2016). “Decolonising International Relations?”, Third World Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 1, p. 1-15.
• Chan, Stephan and Peter Mandaville (eds.) (2011). The Zen of International Relations: IR Theory from East to West. London, Palgrave.
• Chandler, David (2018). Ontopolitics in the Anthropocene. London, Routledge.
• Connolly, William (2011). A World of Becoming. Durham, Duke University.
• Coole, Diana and Samantha Frost (eds.) (2010). New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham, Duke University.
• Cudworth, Erika et al. (2018). “Introduction—Framing the Posthuman Dialogues in International Relations”, Erika
• Cudworth , Stephen Hobden and Emilian Kavalski (eds.), Posthuman Dialogues in International Relations. London, Routledge.
• Darby, Phillip (2015). From International Relations to Relations International. New York, Routledge.
• De la Cadena, Marisol and Mario Blaser (eds.) (2018). A World of Many Worlds. Durham, Duke University Press.
• De Sousa Santos, Boaventura (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. London, Routledge.
• Escobar, Arturo (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy, and the Making of Worlds. Durham, Duke University Press.
• Eun, Yong-Soo (2018). What Is at Stake in Building “Non-Western” IR Theory?. London, Routledge.
• Fishel, Stefanie R. (2017). The Microbial State: Global Thriving and the Body Politic. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota.
• Grove, Jarius (2019). Savage Ecology: War and Geopolitics at the End of the World. Durham, Duke University Press.
• Hagmann, James and Thomas Biersteker (2018). “Counter Mapping the Discipline: The Archipelago of Western International Relations Teaching”, Andreas Gofas, Inanna Hamati-Ataya, and Nicholas Onuf (eds.), History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations. New York, Sage, p. 428-445.
• Harding, Sandra (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago, University of Chicago.
• Hill, Michael D. and Georgina Maldonado (2020). Para aprender a viajar así: movilidad en la vida de una mujer quechua. Quito/Lima, USFQ Press and Editorial del Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
• Hutchings, Kimberly (2019). “Decolonizing Global Ethics: Thinking with the Pluriverse”, Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 33, No. 2, p. 115-125.
• Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney (2004). International Relations and the Problem of Difference. London, Routledge.
• Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney (2015). “A Problem with Levels: How to Engage a Diverse IPE”, Contexto Internacional, Vol. 17, No. 3, p. 889-911.
• Jackson, Mark (ed.) (2018). Coloniality, Ontology, and the Question of the Posthuman. London, Routledge.
• Jackson, Patrick T. (2011). The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London, Routledge.
• Kaltofen, Carolin (2017). “Between Radical Posthumanism and Weak Anthropocentrism: The Spectrum of Critical Humanism(s)”, Clara Eroukhmanoff and Matt Harker (eds.), Reflections on the Posthuman in International Relations: The Anthropocene, Security and Ecology. Bristol, E-International Relations, p. 19-28.
• Karagiannis, Nathalie and Peter Wagner (2007). “Introduction: Globalization or World-Making?”, Nathalie Karagiannis and Peter Wagner (eds.), Varieties of World-Making: Beyond Globalization. Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, p. 1-13.
• Lapid, Yosef (1989). “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, p. 235-254.
• Law, John (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London, Routledge.
• Law, John (2011). “What’s Wrong with a One-World World”, Heterogeneities, p. 1-13.
• Law, John and Wen-yuan Lin (2017). “Provincializing STS: Postcoloniality, Symmetry and Method”, East Asian Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 211-221.
• Ling, L.H.M. (2014). The Dao of World Politics: Towards a Post-Westphalian, Worldist International Relations. New York, Routledge.
• Mitchell, Audra (2017). “‘Posthuman Security’: Reflections from an Open-Ended Conversation”, Clara Eroukhmanoff and Matt Harker (eds.), Reflections on the Posthuman in International Relations: The Anthropocene, Security and Ecology. Bristol, E-International Relations, p. 10-18.
• Onuf, Nicholas (1989). World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, University of South Carolina Press.
• Onuf, Nicholas (2018). “What We Do: International Relations as Craft”, Andreas Gofas, Inanna Hamati-Ataya and Nicholas
• Onuf (eds.), The Sage Handbook of History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations. New York, Sage, p. 513-526.
• Peterson, Spike V. (2014). “Family Matters: How Queering the Intimate Queers the International”, International Studies Review, Vol. 16, No. 4, p. 604-608.
• Peterson, Spike V. (ed.) (1992). Gendered States: Feminist (Re)visions of International Relations Theory. Boulder, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Picq, Manuela L. (2013). “Indigenous Wording: Kichwa Women Pluralizing Sovereignty”, Arlene B. Tickner and David Blaney (eds.), Claiming the International. London, Routledge, p. 121-140.
• Puar, Jasbir (2007). Terrorist Assemblages: Homonationalism in Queer Times. Durham, Duke University Press.
• Querejazu, Amaya (2016). “Encountering the Pluriverse: Looking for Alternatives in Other Worlds”, Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional, Vol. 59, No. 2, p. 1-16.
• Querejazu, Amaya (2021). “Why Relational Encounters?”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 31-34
• Querejazu, Amaya (forthcoming). “Cosmopraxis: Relational Methods for a Pluriversal IR”. Review of International Studies. Quijano, Anibal (2007). “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality”, Cultural Studies, Vol. 21, No. 2-3, p. 168-178.
• Reddekop, Jarrad and Tamara Trownsell (2021). “Disrupting Anthropocentrism through Relationality”, David Chandler et al, Franziska Müller and Delf Rothe (eds.), International Relations in the Anthropocene. Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 441-458.
• Rojas, Cristina (2016). “Contesting the Colonial Logics of the International: Toward a Relational Politics for the Pluriverse”, International Political Sociology, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 369–382.
• Rothe, Delf (2017). “Global Security in a Posthuman Age? IR and the Anthropocene Challenge”, Clara Eroukhmanoff and Matt Harker (eds.), Reflections on the Posthuman in International Relations: The Anthropocene, Security and Ecology. Bristol, E-International Relations, p. 87-101.
• Sennett, Richard (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven, Yale University Press.
• Shani, Giorgio (2008). “Toward a Post-Western IR: The ‘Umma,’ ‘Khalsa Panth,’ and Critical International Relations Theory,” International Studies Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, p. 722-734.
• Shilliam, Robbie (ed.) (2011). International Relations and Non-Western Thought. London, Routledge.
• Shilliam, Robbie (2015). The Black Pacific: Anti-Colonial Struggles and Oceanic Connections. London, Bloomsbury.
• Shimizu, Kosuke (ed.) (2019). Critical International Relations in East Asia: Relationality, Subjectivity, and Pragmatism. London, Routledge.
• Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam (1994). Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media. London, Routledge.
• Smith, Steve (1997). “Epistemology, Postmodernism and International Relations Theory: A Reply to Østerud”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 33, No. 3, p. 330-336.
• Tickner, Ann J. (1992). Gender in International Relations. New York, Columbia University Press.
• Tickner, Ann J. (2001). Gendering World Politics. New York, Columbia University Press.
• Tickner, Arlene B. (2013). “By Way of Conclusion: Forget IR?”, Arlene B.Tickner and David Blaney (eds.), Claiming the International. London, Routledge, p. 214-232.
• Tickner, Arlene B. and Amaya Querejazu (2021). “Weaving Worlds: Cosmopraxis as Relational Sensibility”, International Studies Review p. 1-18.
• Tickner, Arlene B. and David L. Blaney (eds.) (2013). Claiming the International. London, Routledge.
• Trownsell, Tamara et al. (8 January 2019). “Recrafting International Relations through Relationality”, https://www.e-ir. info/2019/01/08/recrafting-international-relations-through-relationality/ (Accessed 9 January 2019).
• Trownsell, Tamara et al. (2021). “Differing about Difference: Relational IR from around the World”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 22, No. 1, p. 26-64
• Trownsell, Tamara et al. (eds.) (forthcoming). “Pluriversal Relationality: Between Theory and Practice”. Review of International Studies.
• Trownsell, Tamara (2021). “Ontological Agility as Pedagogical Imperative”, Jan Lüdert (ed.), Signature Pedagogies in IR. Bristol: E-International Relations, p. 55-69.
• Trownsell, Tamara (forthcoming). “Recrafting Ontology: A Strategy for a More Inclusive Discipline”. Review of International Studies.
• Valladolid Rivera, Julio (1998). “Andean Peasant Culture: Nurturing a Diversity of Life in the Chacra”, Frédérique ApffelMarglin and PRATEC (eds.), Spirit of Regeneration: Andean Culture Confronting Western Notions of Development. London, Zed Books, p. 51-88.
• Wæver, Ole and Arlene B. Tickner (2009). “Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies”, Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver (eds.), International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London, Routledge, p. 9-10.
• Weber, Cynthia (2016). Queer International Relations. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
• Whitehead, Alfred N. (1979 [1929]). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. New York, Free Press.
• Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1958). Philosophical Investigations. New York, Macmillan.
• Woons, Marc (2014). “Decolonizing Canadian Citizenship: Shared Belonging, Not Shared Identity”, Settler Colonial Studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 192-208.
• Woons, Marc (2014). Restoring Indigenous Self-Determination: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. Bristol, E- International Relations Publishing.
• Youatt, Rafi (2014). “Interspecies Relations, International Relations: Rethinking Anthropocentric Politics”, Millennium, Vol. 43, No. 1, p. 207-233.