1990 conclusion： reading dissidence-writing the discipline： crisis and the question of...

7/28/2019 1990 Conclusion Reading Dissidence-Writing the Discipline Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in Internation…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1990-conclusion-reading-dissidence-writing-the-discipline-crisis-and 1/51

Conclusion: Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereigntyin International StudiesAuthor(s): Richard K. Ashley and R. B. J. WalkerSource: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3, Special Issue: Speaking the Language ofExile: Dissidence in International Studies (Sep., 1990), pp. 367-416Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600576 .Accessed: 19/01/2011 10:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to International Studies Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600576?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600576?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isa




InternationaltudiesQuarterly1990) 34, 367-416

CONCLUSION

ReadingDissidence/Writinghe Discipline:Crisis and the Questionof Sovereigntyn

Internationaltudies

RICHARD K. ASHLEY

Arizona State University

R. B.J.WALKER

UniversityfVictoria

Introduction

The essays nthis ollection,ike somany fthe texts hat ustain hem, peakfromthe margins.They are instances f increasinglyisibleworks fdissident houghtproliferatingn internationaltudiestoday.Yet marginalitynd dissidence, ponbeingbrought otheattentionf a discipline,nvite tried ndall-too-familiarodeof nterrogationnd interpretation.heyinvite strategyfreading nd responsethatwouldassign o these nd othermarginalworks location n a scholarly ulture,a placeand functionnpolitical ife, rangeofpossibilitiesllowably xplored, nd aset of standards y which heirmerits nd claimsofseriousnessmustbe provenorshownto be lacking.

This interpretivetrategyeserves ttention.orwhat s at stake s notustthewayinwhich hediscipline eceives hese dissidentworks fthought-or putsthem n

their place. Far beyondthematter f academicprivilege, here s a questionofconsiderabletheoretical nd practical mport nvolved. t is a questionthatthepresent ssaystakevery eriously.t is also a question hatresonatesn all the farreachesofglobal politicalife oday,wherever nd whenever ime, pace,and politi-cal identityreput ndoubt and theterritorialityf modernbeing s uncertain. ndyet t is a questionto whichthe disciplinemust turna deaf ear-which it mustpresumeto be alreadyanswered-so long as the interrogationf marginal nddissident vents, ncluding hepresent ssays, s controlled ya certain trategyfreading nd response. n a word, t s thequestionofsovereignty.

In offeringn essayto close this ssue,we do not try o bringthequestionofsovereigntyo a close. We do not pretendto gather up and expressan implicitconsensus mongcontributorss to how thequestion fsovereignty ight rshouldbe answered.No suchconsensus xists.ndeed, f hepresent ssays xhibitnythingresembling greementon the questionof sovereignty,t is onlythat t must beregarded s ust that, question. n contrastothe vastpreponderance fwritingsappearing ntheQuarterlyver theyears, heessays n thesepages sharea suspicion

) 1990nternational Studies Association



368 ReadingDissidencelWritingheDiscipline

of all assertions f sovereignprivilege,nd they ssertnone of theirown. Theseessays o notpresume ospeaka sovereign oice, voicebeyondpoliticsndbeyonddoubt, a voice of interpretationnd judgment fromwhichtruth nd power arethought oemanate s one. Instead, heirmarginalityonsists ntheir ispositionomaintain heirdistancefrom ll presumptivelyovereign enters f interpretationand udgment.Theirdissidence onsistsntheir eadiness oregard veryhistoricalfigurationfsovereign resence-be itGod,nature, ynasty,itizen, ation, istory,modernity,he West,themarket's mpartial pectator, eason, science,paradigm,tradition,man of faith n thepossibilityf universalhumancommunity,ommonsense,or anyother-as precisely question, problem, contingentolitical ffectwhoseproduction, ariations,ndpossible ndoingmerit hemost igorous nalysis.

In this oncluding ssay,we shallexplore omeofthe mplicationsfthis issidentattitude,his nsistence n regarding overeigntys a question.These implicationsarefar-reaching,onnectinghe mmediate ealityfdisciplinaryrisis otonly oall

the unsettled ones of global political ifetodaybut also to all those historical n-stancesof cultural risis o which the "greattexts" f thedisciplinehave replied.There is,though, nother ask. fwe are to explorethe mplicationsfthepresentessays' ttitudes oward hequestion fsovereignty,e needtoaddressourselves othestrategyf nterpretationnvited ydissidentworks fthoughtt themargins fthediscipline.We need tounderstandhow this trategy orks nd what t does. Inparticular, eneed tounderstand hat t aborstoproducea silence n thequestionof sovereignty-a silencethatalwaysmarksthe timeand place thatsovereigntywould be.

A Strategy fReading: Some Preliminary bservations

Let usbeginby maginingome nstances f this trategyfreading t work. n eachinstance, reading nvolves n interrogationfmarginal nd dissidentworkswiththe help of some very ommonmetaphors.n each case, too, themetaphors sedand thequestionsposed are far from nnocent.They work to framepossible re-sponses, o mposeparametersnwhat heseworks,fthey re tobe taken eriously,mustbe heardto sayand mean.We offer ight xamples, ome quite succinct ndothersmoreelaborate.All areofour ownconstruction,ven whenweborrowwordssigned by others'names. But all have been heard before-albeit sometimeswithslightly ifferent hrasings nd inflections-onotheroccasionswheredissidentworks fthoughthave come intoview.

Example : I see in these marginalworks a gatheringon the borders of anestablisheddiscipline, nd I hear in theirdissidencetherattling fpreparationsto storm the citadels of establisheddisciplinary uthority.f these worksare tocarry heday, theymustput up a convincing isplay-of scholarship r power-inorder topersuade thediscipline o take them eriously.Reading theseessays,mustsay,thatdisplay s yetto come.

Example: These, clearly, re post-positivist orks, nd in contrast opositivism,theyare to be applauded for theiropening of the disciplineof internationalrelations to methodological pluralism and relativism.Yet these post-positivistworks,unlike thepositivistshey hallenge,do not"offer s any clearcriteria orchoosing among themultiple nd competing xplanations" heyproduce.I "Howarewe to choose from heabundance of

alternativexplanations?How arewe tojudge whether nterpretationA is to be preferredover interpretation in apost-positivistra? How are we to ensure thatpost-positivist luralism, n theabsence ofanyalternative riteria,will void legitimizinggnorance, ntolerance,or worse?"

1The quoted lines in thisexample are offeredby Biersteker 1989) in his reply to Lapid's (1989) discussion of"postpositivist" evelopments n international heory.For a contrasting eply, ee George (1989).



RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B. J.WALKER 369

To theircredit,positivists did have a clear,ifproblematic, asis for evalua-tion"-a basis developed "in part in reaction against facism, militarism, ndcommunism."These post-positivist orks re "wanting"n ust thisrespect. "Asmuchas I welcomethe openness and pluralism fpost-positivism,would like to

see some explicitdiscussion of criteriafor evaluatingalternatives efore I leapfrom heproblematic errain f positivismnto what could turnout to be a post-positivist oid."

Example : Once again, we witnessyouthful ravado contesting he authority festablished elders. Once again, we hear youth proclaim, "The king has noclothes." t is everthus.And as always, he naifsrevealtheir wn lack oftailoringall too boldly.

Example : LikeJiirgenHabermas, I hear in these workstheechoing of intensepolitical ommitmentsnd normative laims.They are commitments nd claimsthat would be familar,forexample, to anyonewho experienced theNew Leftrhetoric f the 1960s. Like manyradicals of the 1960s-indeed, likeeighteenth

and ninetheenth enturyRomantic reactionsto the alienatingconditionsof in-dustrialcapitalism-they "recapitulate he basic experienceof aestheticmoder-nity."2They exhibitoutrage at theunconsciousmanipulations f instrumentalreason.They belittle he progressive ccomplishments f modernenlightenmentand rationality-accomplishmentsike modernguaranteesofliberty,he ruleoflaw, and a protracted ra of peace among liberaldemocratic tates.

Yet there s something ltogethermore worrisomehere. The authorsof theseworkswould seem to "claim as theirownthe revelations f a decenteredsubjec-tivity mancipated from the imperatives f work and usefulness, nd with thisexperience, theystep outside the modern world. On the basis of modernisticattitudes, heyustify n irreconcilable ntimodernism."And what is worse, ndoing so, in takingwhat is indubitably normative tand,they re completelyarbitrary. or all theirpassion, theyofferutterly o explicablegroundfor theirpositions nd claims.They thereby xpose political ife to considerabledangers.They expose us to all thedangersthat ensue whenpolitical ommunication ndagreement s governed,notbyrationalargumentwhichaspires to increase theexplicitness funderlying ssumptions, utby nothing therthan theseductionsofphronesis,rt and literature.

Example : When I read these dissidentworks, am troubled, nd I am put inmind of somethingRobert Cox once wrote: "Theoryis always or someone andforsome purpose. All theories have a perspective.Perspectivesderive from aposition n timeand space, specificallyocial and politicaltime and space. Theworld is seen froma standpointdefinable n termsof nation or social class,of

dominance or subordination, frising rdecliningpower,of a sense of mmobil-ity r ofpresentcrisis, fpastexperience,and ofhopes and expectations orthefuture . . There is, accordingly, o suchthing s theorynitself, ivorcedfroma standpoint n time and space. When any theory o represents tself, t is themoreimportant o examine itas ideology, nd to laybare its concealed perspec-tive" Cox, 1986:207). This is what troubles me about these works: as worksoftheory,they profess to have no perspective,no identificationwith a class, anation, a subject of history, "someone" on behalf of whose purposes theytheorize.They takeup an attitude festrangement, ivorcing hemselves romevery standpointin time and space and readily questioning every subjectivestandpointfrom which theory mightbe written. herefore, if I am to count

2 The quoted lines in thisexample are fromHabermas (1987). In the same work,whichspecifically argetsFoucault, Habermas labels Foucault a "cryptonormativist,"nd an "irrationalist" ne at that. n thisHabermasfollowson the heels of Nancy Fraser (1981), who criticizes oucault by asking, "Whyis struggle preferabletosubmission?Why ought domination to be resisted?"For a wide-ranging iscussion of these issues, see variouscontributionso Hoy (1986).




theseworks s theory, must xamine hem s ideology. must sk what er-spective hey onceal.Really ow,ustwhose idearethey n?

Example : If thisbe theory,t s theory f,by, nd for jet-set lite. ts lan-

guage-so sophisticated,o "lit rit," o French-hasthering f so much lienand impenetrableargon. I waitto hear it clarifyur political ituations;tconfuses. anticipatetsprecise nswers o our problems;tcelebratesmbigu-ity. await tsrespectfulreatmentfourplace n ife; t eeks o displace.Whocould relate o such theory,ave thosewhocan affordelf-consciouslyo em-brace "postmoderntyle"nd eapoff npursuitf the o-calledfree-playfself-referentialignifiers"n nonstop light? amthinkingfthe style f theyuppiewho ndlessly roducesnd circulatesymbolsfthe ymbolsuccess"othathe can afford o chaseand consume ther uch ymbols,erhaps, r thestyle f thepersonwho, nJean-Francoisyotard's ords, listens oreggae,watches western,atsMcDonald's oodfor unch nd ocal uisine or inner,[and]wears aris erfumenTokyo nd retro' lothesnHongKong" Lyotard,

1984:12).Asfor hose fus whomust oilwith hematerial azards nddifficul-ties f ourplaces n ife-thisargon-on-the-wingmuglyeavesus behind.

Example: Skepticismbout hehubris fhegemonicaradigmss allverywell,butsurely celebrationfmarginalityust ignal retreat rom thical ndpolitical ommitment,legitimationfquietismndnavel-gazingntheface ftherealperils fglobal oliticalife.What o suchformsfscholarshipave osay bout hegreat roblemsnddangershat onfronts?Surely,nthe ield finternationalolitics specially, e must spire o thebigpicture,o theuniver-sal,even to theheroic.How else are we to respond oproblemsfwar andpoverty,nvironmentalegradationr the nternationalizationfproduction?

Example : Howavantgarde, hismpreciseanguage f iteraryllusion.How

playful. owenticing.ndhowveryonservative.lldressed p na stylisharb,theseworks lirtatiouslyhisperheradical ode ofresistance,ndthey herebyseduce therevolutionary ind,butin theend,they nducean antipoliticalslumberroughtnby diffuse,irectionless,rrational,ndultimatelyaralyz-ingreflectionn thequestion,whoarewe?Our commitmento a cause,ourrational tandardsfchoice nd udgment,urprospectsor oncertedoliticalstrategy,urrevolutionarynergies,urabilityo focus ndmobilize ur re-sources o that hatwhich epressesnd endangers s maybe defined ndoverthrown-allf this s relativized,cattered,ndultimatelyullifiedythisinsistentuestioning.eter ews 1987) sright: hatwehavehere sa "logic fdisintegration."ftereadinghese ssays,'mspent; ll want odo is roll ver,smoke cigarette,nd catch nap.

These fragmentsf critical eadingsprovidebut a fewexamplesof increasinglyfamiliarways n which cholars f international elations nd the socialsciences ngeneraloften nterpret,nterrogate,nd replyto worksof dissidence hatspeakfromdisciplinarymargins.No doubt otherexamplescould be offered.We thinkthesefragmentsuffice, owever, o illustrate considerable angeoflikely riticalresponses hat pansfromeft oright. ivethings bout these nippets renotable.

First, uchcritical ommentarys nottypicallyffered r received s thenormal,proper activityf a discipline r tradition, owever hatdiscipline r tradition edefined. uch commentarys typicallyncounteredn a footnote, review ssay,contributionotheoccasional ymposiumn thediscipline's uture, reading emi-

nar,orthebanter nd sideplay fprofessionalonferences. arely s tencounteredas themaintheme f a refereedournalarticle ra formal esearch resentationtaprofessionalmeeting.n brief, uchcommentarys offered s parenthesis.t is putforth s a pause that s occasionedbythepassingencounterwith he moment fdissidence nd that s bracketed nd set off fromthe real projects o whichthecommentatorsnd their udiences are soon toreturn.




Second, when critical omments uch as these re offered, hey re typically ro-nounced n a cool, collected, elf-assured oice of an "I" or "we" thatneither tum-bles norquaverswith elf-doubt. ometimes, hisposture f self-assuranceakes heform f nonchalance, ven ndifference,s ifthe commentary ere roughly ompa-rableto a remark bout the hrubbery vergrowinghe ide of a highway ne travels.Anair of nonchalance s difficultosustain, owever,whendissident vents isturbsense of direction r when marginalworks f thought ose questions hat re diffi-cult o gnore.On such occasions, quanimity ften ivesway o exasperation ingedwith mbarrassment, sense that twouldbe betterfthese hings idnothave to besaid, a regret hatvoicesof dissidence-though sometimes aising nterestingues-tions-are somehow blivious o theobvious hings hat ruly efined cholars houldalreadyknow. On still theroccasions, uch as conversations etween eacher ndstudent, henthe ddresseeofthese ritical eadings annotyet e presumed o be amaturemember f the profession,n air of cool detachmentmight e replacedby atoneof sobriety,ven solemnity,hatreminds hepotentially ayward ovice thatthe reading s a kind of vow thathe, likeallmembers,must arnestlyecite.

Yet all these readingpostures-nonchalance, xasperation, olemnity uring herite f passage-have somethingncommon.Asgesturesnthemselves,hey toncepresuppose nd indicate he same ocation.These postures ndicate hat uch criticalremarks elongnotat the center fthe disciplinewhere ts serious nd productivework sproudly resented ndlogicallyweighed, utat tsboundaries,t ts dges, tthethresholds r checkpointsfentry nd exit.They indicate,n thesamestroke,thatthe discipline's erritorialoundaries re alreadymarked, hatthedifferencebetween utside nd inside salreadygiven, nd that hediscipline,hetradition,he"everybody ho knows nd agreeswith hisreading" s already ssuredly here.

Third, t follows hat hesecritical ommentarieso not come to therelationshipbetweenreaderand text nd effect posturebefittinghe situation fmarginalitypresupposedbythetexts hemselves. heydo not, or xample, dopta posture hatis s sometimes alled "female esponse riticism."3heydo noteffectn attitudenwhich he reader regardsherownidentitynd experience s a kindoftext n theprocess fbeingwrittennd, nview fthis,sgiven oquestionherownpoliticalndtheoretical osition nd assumptionsven as shereadsand criticizes text. nsteadofreadingfrom situation fmarginalityn which he reader'sownposition ndidentity re understoodto be in processand in dotubt-instead f "readingas awoman -these critical ragments dopt theattitude f one who is calledupon tospeakon behalfof a fixed nd proudly ertain we," "community," disciplinary

center, modernculture.They adoptthe uridical posture f "maleresponse riti-cism."Regarding hetexts s objects fjudgment, hey pproachthem na way hatprivilegeshereader s onepossessedof a certaindentityoundupwith n already-givenexperience nd position hat s outsidethe text nd presumablyharedwithother membersof a discipline, tradition, pointof view. Not questioning hissupposedly re-given eader's xperience, heynvoketas if tprovided n authori-tative round nd standardnterms f which hetextsmust ither rove heirmeritsorbe shownto fall short.

3On the question of reading as a woman see, for example, Felman (1975), Irigaray 1985), Jardine (1985),

Kristeva 1975, 1980, 1986ab), Showalter 1979), and Spivak (1980, 1983). An excellent collectionrelating thediversity nd excitement f Anglo-American eminist eplies tothequestion s Showalter 1985). For introductionsof French Feminist hought oAmerican udiences, see thevolumesedited by Marks and Courtivron1980) and byEisenstein nd Jardine 1980). Jardine 1985) offers particularlystute nterdisciplinary,ntertextual,nd inter-cultural nalysisof the Franco-American ebate in feministiterary heory.Moi (1986) offers detailed,theoreti-cally ophisticated,nd critical ntroduction o theproblemof the iteraryext nd itsrelations o theconcerns ndperspectives f feminist ractice.



372 ReadingDissidence/WritingheDiscipline

Fourth, n much the same vein, hesefragmentso not really eserve obe calledarguments r interpretations-not,t least, n a scholarly ense. They do not pre-tendto the status f careful, uanced readings f thetexts o which hey efer. heydo notoffer hemselvess theoretical epresentationsf a referent ext, n offeringthatwould immediately pen up notonlythequestionof the faithfulnessf therepresentationothe textbutalso the epistemologicaluestion f the ustificationfthe position romwhich epresentation roceeds.They do not put themselves orthas profound nd thoughtful rguments r knowledge laimswhose depths one isinvited o mine,whose ssumptions nd definitionsne is encouraged o examine, rwhose ogic one is urged criticallyo explore.Although hosewho claimauthorshipof such critical ommentaries n works f dissidencemight xhibit keen concernformethodological ransparencynd operational eproducibilityntheirpublishedresearchreports o the discipline,no such concerns re reflectedn theircriticalreadings f works t the margin. imply tated, hesecritical eadingsput the ques-

tionoftheir wn truthn suspension, s a question hathere and nowneed notbeentertained.Notraising hisquestion, hesecritical ommentariesnsteadoffer hemselves s

performanceso be appreciated entirely n the surface, n action, n the flowofconduct lreadyunderway, nd as repliesto challenges f dissidence mmediatelyencountered. heyoffer hemselves s intimatelyamiliarnstances fdoingwithoutreflectingn being,as postures f exemplarymenofaction"who mustpass udg-ment on the exigenciesof the times.And like all such instances, hesereadingsdepend for heir ignificanceoton a reconstructableogicofargument ecurring oauthoritativeirst rinciples, ut on theway n which heywork s cultural ractices,as mimesis, s active aborsofart.Their practical ignificanceepends,that s, upon

theways n whichtheydrawupon a variety f metaphors nd other culturalre-sources, vokefamiliar rientations rdispositions,nd thereby ork ocultivatenexemplarynd iterable ttitude, osture, r style f nterpretationnd conduct hatan audiencewill mmediately nd unquestioninglyeceive s right or thecircum-stances,s "whatmustbe done," aswhat t, oo, salready isposed o do inanswer othe difficultiesnd dangers posed by dissidence t the margins.

Finally, hese critical eadingsput their udience in thestructuralituation f adouble bind: a situationnwhich n audience s given he freedom o choose and iscalledupon to make a choiceeven as it is deprivedof anybasisfordoing o.4 Ingeneral, textproducing hestructuref the double bind is not ust ambiguous;beyond sheer ambiguity,hesystem fvalues n thetextbothcompels readerto

chooseand undermines hefoundations fanychoicethe readermightmake seeCuller, 1982:81). One especially amiliar xample s the situation f thechildwhohearsherparent ay, Showsomespunk!Don'tobeyme all thetime."Hearingsuchwords, he childknows hat he is urgedtomake a choicebetween bedience anddisobedience, ut she also knows hat hecannot hoosebecause,owing o a paradoxof theparental njunction, er obediencewouldbe disobedience nd herdisobedi-encewouldbe obedience.5Otherexamples re to be found hroughtouthetexts fmodern iterature,uch as Thoreau's Walden (see Michaels,1977; Chaloupka andCawley, 1988) or Rousseau'sProfession efoi (see De Man, 1979). Rousseau's texturgesthe readerto choose assentto a theisticinnervoice"of Natureovera meta-phorical nd error-prone rocessof"judgment,"ut n the sametext, ssent o this

theistic nner voice is defined as an act of udgm'ent.Urged to choose betweenjudgmentand theism,Rousseau's reader is put in an impossibleposition: fonerefuses heism nd chooses udgment,one is destined o be neitherudicious nor

4On the logic of thedouble bind see De Man (1979) and especiallyDe-rida (1978).5This example is takenfromCuller (1982:81).



RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B.J.WALKER 373

just, since udgment s prone to error; f one chooses theism, ne's choice s unwar-ranted,based as it s on udgment.

As texts n their wnrights, ritical eadings fworks f dissidenceproducefortheir udiencea similar ouble bind. On theonehand,they reate or heir udiencea role of one whomustmake an either/orhoicewith espect o thecritical eadingsthemselves: ororagainst he position aken, elief r disbeliefn the udgment ast.It is the roleofone who understands hat he hasthe freedom o make this hoice,that twould be irresponsible ot to choose,that he must akeresponsibilityor hechoice he makes, nd that ven a failure o choosecounts s a choice n thedemand-ing circumstancesf the moment. ependinguponthe pecific xampleconsidered,the choice s presented s one ofdisciplinaryuthority ersus gathering f mar-ginal challengers funproven egitimacy;hematurityndwisdom f eldersversusthe bravado oftawdry outh; commitmento a position r perspectiven historyversus lack orconcealment) fa position rperspective; ransparencyf anguageversus

mpenetrablelitist

argon; thepossessionf firm

valuativetandards ersustherelativismf a postpositivistoid; ethical ommitmentersus heradical bolitionof all ethical odes; reason versus rrationality;heaccomplishmentsfmodernityversusa reckless epudiation f theseaccomplishments; forthrightacingup toglobalproblems ersus diffuse nddisablingkepticism;dedication fenergies oproductive cholarlyaborsversus he pending fenergiesnfleeting leasures; ndso on. Consideringuchoppositions,he audience ssupposedtounderstand hatcritical eading fmarginal nd dissidentworks lignswith hefirst ermnany uchpair.The audience s alsosupposedto understand hat t scalleduponto choose thisalignment,oo. And the audience s supposed tounderstand hat n taking p thisposition,twillbe opposedto thedifficulties,angers, nd illiciteductions onnoted

bythe second term neach instance.On the otherhand,even as critical ommentariesuch as thoseconsideredhereurgethis hoice,theydeprivetheir udience ofanybasis forthe choice t s calledupon to make. In keepingwith he fourth bservation, heydo so by effectinghepostures f whatDe Man (1979:245) calls"exhortativeerformativeshatrequirethepassagefrom heer enunciation oaction"-posturesthatmake tplainthatusthere and now nthis ctivemoment f udgment tthediscipline's dges,the foun-dations f rational houghtnd argumentupposedly revailingtthe center fthediscipline imply o not and cannot pply.These commentariesnvoke he dea ofdisciplinarytandards tonewith perspective gainst hespectre frelativism,utthey ecur ono standard ave the dea ofstandards,nd theyhonorno perspective

save one thatknows tneeds a perspective. hey nvoke he bstractmageofanalyti-cally etached nd dedicated cholarship,utthey sk to bereceivednan attitudefimmediatendunquestioning amiliarity,ndthey xhibit odedicated cholarship.They invokethe ideals of truth nd literalmeaning, uttheyputthequestionoftheir wn truthn abeyance s they ngagein figural lay.

What is the audience to make of this? f, in the exercise of its freedom, heaudiencechooses to questionthesecritical eadings nd thesupposed discipline rculture hey efend, hen t would seemtopassovertothe ide ofthedissidents hoare theobjectsof criticaludgment. t at leastpotentiallytands onvicted fbeingdubiousabout rational tandards, f acking rconcealing perspective,ffavoringrelativism,nd ofbeingunconcerned bout matters f truth.But ifthe audience

choosesto embracethesecritical eadings nd the udgments heymake,then tschoice an be baseduponnorational tandard;tcanreflectocertain erspective;tmustbe a relativistichoice;and it mustbe a choice thatdefers ll encounterswiththequestionoftruth.

Now onemight bject hat hesefive bservations elittle ritical eadings f worksof dissidencebyconcentratingolelyon their tyle, heirposturing,heirtextual




structuring,heir allusions and metaphoricalplay-their aesthetics-ratherhanupon their pecific omplaints. ne mightdd that ymakingight fthese eadingsin this way, we evade the real weightof the criticisms hemselves.We take thisobjection eriously,nd we think hat response s due. We believe hat heconcernsraised merit he mostpainstaking eliberation,nd we do notwant t tobe thoughtthatwe are shrugging ffthecriticismsr gain saying he scholarswhomight einclined o offer imilarworries.We offer hree inesofreply.

First, ne can view a concentration n aesthetics s a belittlingf these readingsonlyif one belittles esthetics. f, for instance, ne regards"the aesthetic" s asubjectivematter f magination, eauty, nd taste hat s quite ncidental o the realbusiness at hand-in this case, the businessof communicating critic's ntendedcomplaints-thenone might oncludethat focusuponaesthetics eflects ttentionawayfromwhat s really mportantnthese riticisms. ne might ay that ur focusupon aestheticss roughly omparable o responding o an urgentmemoby com-

menting n the style f thescript r the colorof the nk. But what fone allows hatthere re, as Kant said, "considerable ifficulties"nvolvednseparating ctivities fartand aesthetic bjectsfrom heir urroundings?6What fone acknowledges hatart s a productiveaborand thatmeaning, ttitudes f nterpretation,nd sensesofobjectivityre amongthis abor'sproducts?What fone concedesthat he meaningof an "U-R-G-E-N-TM-E-M-O"mightdiffer rom n "UrgentMemo" or that amemo slashingly andprintednbold redinkmight onstruct ifferenteader andauthorrolesthanwould a memoneatly yped nblack? f one allows thesethings,then one cannotbe quite so sanguinein holdingaesthetics o be of peripheralconcern.One simply annot aywith nycertaintyhat ttention o aestheticsmissesthepoint.

Second,wehave no choice but to concentratepon aesthetics ecause,as noted,thesecritical eadingsdepriveus of everyotherwayof responding eriously ndcriticallyo them.Were we to disallow ttentiono the aesthetic ractices f thesereadings,we wouldbe left orelatetothemwithin heconfines fthedouble bindthat he readings hemselveswork o produce. We could not seriously nd criticallyengagethequestions nd concerns osed bythese ritical eadings-questionssuchas legitimacyersus llegitimacy, aturityersusmmaturity,hepresence ersus heabsenceof evaluative tandards, eriousness ersusplay. nsteadofquestioninghedichotomiesnvolvednthesemetaphors ranalyzingheway n which hey re usedtoproducethedoublebind,we would havetoacquiesce o thedouble bind as we findit.We would have tochoosebetween mbrace rrepudiation fthepositions aken,

belief r disbeliefn the udgmentproffered. nd inmaking his hoice,we wouldhavetoconcede that hesereadings eaveus withno basisfor he choicewe make-no basis save somesupposedlyuncanny, pontaneous, nd inexplicable intuition,""senseofcommitment,"r "leap of faith."How is this ffect fthe uncanniness fintuitive eliefproduced?How are we toaccountfor heway n which ne readingmight licit spontaneous eap offaith nd anothermight ot?Werewe toruleoutattentiono aesthetics, e simply ould notsay. Regarding nycritical eading,wecould only experiencetheeffect nd make our choices,never able to say whywemake thechoiceswe do.

A third eply s thatgiventhecircumstancesfthesecritical eadings, focusonaesthetics ringsus face to face withwhat s no doubttheprincipal uestionthatthesereadingswrestlewith nd try o bringunder control: hequestionof sover-eignty. his third ineofreply s surely ontroversial.fter ll,thecritical eadingsat no point lludetothequestion fsovereignty,et aloneposeitbynameas a majorstakenthegame. fthey akeup thequestion tall, they o soperformatively.hey

6On theproblem of framing he aesthetic n Kant, see Derrida (1974, 1981).




do so by ssuming he exemplary ostures f ones who aresummonednto ction ospeak true and powerfuludgmentson behalfof a discipline, perspective,r aculture hat s challengedor imperiled y dissident vents.

That, though, s precisely ur point-a pointthatwe shalldevelopnotonlywithrespect o the overeigntylaims f a particular iscipline, ut lsowith espect othesovereigntylaims fmodern erritorialtates.Developing his hirdineofreply tsome length,we shallshowthatthequestionof sovereignty,iewed as a practicalpolitical roblem, s an intrinsicallyaradoxicalproblem hat an neverbe named,rationallyeliberated, nd solved.Whether ne speaksofthesovereigntyfa disci-pline or thesovereigntyf a modern tate, he question s one whose naming ndexplicit eliberationwouldpreclude tspractical esolution.t is a questionwhosetentative esolution, f resolution herebe, can depend upon aestheticpracticesalone.

As we shallsuggest, he aesthetic ractices f theseand similar ritical eadings,

includingtheir constructionf a double bind, labor to produce the effect f asovereign enter of udgment-in thiscase, the sovereigntyf a "discipline"inresponse o events hatputan institutionalrder n crisis nd indoubt.Aswe shallalso want to suggest, he aesthetic ractices t work n thesecritical eadingsareinstructiven far widerscope. They offerhelpful xamplesof a widelypracticedstrategicrtbywhich he effect fsovereignty-be t thesovereigntyf a territorialstate r thesovereigntyf a "state fthediscipline"-is producedunderconditionsofcrisiswhereinnotions fspace, time, nd political dentityre shaken othe core.Whatoccasions his trategicaborof art?Whatdoesit aborto do?Howdoes itdo it?What re theconditionsf this rt's ffectiveerformance?an this trategicrt nylongerbe effectivelyerformedna discipline r culturenwhich erritorialound-

ariesare everywherenquestion nd a sense of crisis s acute?What re the mplica-tionsforworks fthought hatwouldspeakin reply otheopportunitiesnd dan-gersofpoliticalife oday?Developing his hirdineofreply,we shallexplorethesequestions.

DissidentThought and DisciplinaryCrisis: The CircumstancesofCriticalReadings

Our firsttep s to attend o thecircumstancesnwhich hese ritical eadings ccur.Whatoccasions hese ritical eadings?Whatpromptsnto ction he estheticaborsthey xemplify? nly by attending o thisquestioncan we render ntelligible he

problem fsovereigntyowhich hesereadings eply.Onlythus anweunderstandtheir trategicituationnd what, s strategies,heir esthetic racticesabor todo.At firsthe answerto thesequestionswouldseemto be obvious.Whatprompts

these criticalreadings s dissidentworks of thought, ike those reflectedn thepresentessays, ssuingfromthe margins f the discipline.This obviousanswer,though, s insufficient. e need to know what it is about dissidentworks thatprompts ttentiono them.Why,put simply,houldcritical eaders ven care? Theanswer cannot be that dissidentworks of thoughtpromiseto providea bettermethod, superior ramework,morepowerfulway fproducingmoreconvincinganswersand more certain solutionsto questionsand problemsthat a disciplinereadilyposes. These works schew heroicpromises uchas these, nd as we have

seen,their ritics ften ndict hemfor heeschewal.There mustbe another nswer.Our answercan be baldly tated:dissidentworks f thought licit ttention nd

prompt ritical eadingsbecause theseworks ccentuate nd makemore evidentsenseofcrisis,whatone might all a crisis fthediscipline f nternationaltudies.They put thediscipline'snstitutionaloundaries n questionand put itsfamiliarmodesofsubjectivity,bjectivity,nd conduct n doubt; they ender tsonce seem-ingly elf-evidentotions fspace, time, nd progress ncertain; nd they hereby




make tpossible otraversenstitutionalimitations,xposequestions nddifficulties,and explore political nd theoretical ossibilitiesitherto orgottenr deferred. nshort, issidentworks fthought elpto accentuate disciplinaryrisiswhose inglemostpronounced ymptomsthat heverydea of"thediscipline"nters houghtsa question, problem, matter funcertainty.

Such an answer s,ofcourse,open toquarrel nat leasttworespects. he firstsour nterpretationfdisciplinaryrisis. n many yes, ur nterpretationouldseemto be an arbitrary epresentationhatfails odo usticeto therealities f the situa-tion.The second s therole we assignto dissident nd marginalworksnaccentuat-ing this crisis,however understood.We might eem to exaggeratethe ability fdissidentworks f thought, s thought,o cultivate isciplinaryrisis.

We shallattend tsome ength o each of these wo oncerns, aking achinturn.Alongtheway,we shallsee thatour understandingfdisciplinaryrisisdoes notrequireus torestrictur focustoanynotionof a present tateofthediscipline f

internationaltudies. t is,rather, n understandinghat nvites s toexplorecon-nections etween contemporaryisciplinaryrisis, n theone hand,and theprob-lem of sovereigntys it appears in a widercultural rc and throughoutmodernhistory,n theother.Alongtheway, oo,we shall ee that issidentworks fthoughtdo not affront homogeneousdiscipline f nternationaltudies nthe manner farude band ofdissentingntellectsearing nly heir econstructiveits nd strangewords.Rather, heyhavebeen able tocontributeodisciplinaryrisis ecause,com-ingfrom hemargins, hey xhibitnotonlytheanalyticalkills utalso the ethicaldiscipline hat enables themcreativelyo respondto and exploitthe paradoxicalcircumstancesfa far-reachingultural risis-one that lready esonateswithinhediscipline's emembered ulturalnheritances well s beyond hediscipline'smag-

ined boundaries.

Disciplinary risis/Cultural risis

In response o thefirstoncern,wemustmmediatelyoncedewhat eems o us tobebeyond dispute: our interpretationf the circumstances f disciplinary risispromptingritical eadingsdoes notdo usticetothose ircumstances. e must ay,in fact, hatno definitiveepresentationf the circumstanceseemspossible.Anyrendering fdisciplinaryrisiswill mmediatelye seen bysome or manynotas arepresentationhat sadequate to a referentealityutas an arbitraryontrivance,groundless iction,nd perhapseven a workofrhetorichatdoes violence o con-

tendingnterpretationsn the service fa politicalwill.The pointcan be put quitesimply:n this ituation,words fail.If, however, ne can agree thatwords omehow ail odojustice to thedisciplinary

crisis ccasioning ritical eadingsofworks f dissidence, hen, ronically, ne canalsoagreewith urinterpretationfthat risis. or atbottomweare saying omorethan his:Howeveronemight nterpret heroleofdissidentworks fthoughtntheaccentuation fdisciplinaryrisis, he risis tselfnvolveshediscipline's peningoutinto a regionof intrinsicallymbiguous, ntrinsicallyndeterminate ctivityhatknowsno necessary ounds and unsettles very ttempt o produce an enclosingrepresentationf whatthediscipline s and does.Whether ne speaks of the"disci-plineofinternationaltudies," he "discipline f internationalelations," he"disci-

plineofinternationalolitics," r the"discipline fworld or maybe global']poli-tics," he wordsmanifestly ail,even as theypromise, o disciplinemeaning.Thewords but broadlyconnote theycannotdenote) a boundlessnontime nd non-place-a deterritorialized,xtraterritorialone of discourse-where the work ofproducing hesubjects, heobjects, nd the nterpretationsf an institutionalrderand its imits isibly ludes the certain ontrol f thatorder'ssupposedly eigningcategories.




Ofcourse,understanding disciplinaryrisis nthiswaymakes t hard toconfinethe notionofcrisis o a discipline lone. One cannot ay that t s ust a crisis fthediscipline f international tudies, ecause the crisis, o understood, uts n doubtany maginable oundaries hatwould separate hediscipline f nternationaltudiesfrom therdisciplines nd, indeed, from ll other ontested ites f moderngloballife.To think f disciplinaryrisis n thisway s thus o understand crisis hatfoldsoutbeyond discipline's maginedboundaries, onnecting o a crisis f thehumansciences, crisisof patriarchy, crisisof governability, crisisof late industrialsociety, generalized risis f modernity.

More specifically,o think fa disciplinaryrisisn thisway s tounderstand hatthe crisis-promptingffect f dissidence n the discipline f internationaltudiesresonateswith he effects f marginal nd dissidentmovementsnall sorts f otherlocalities.t resonateswith heeffectsffeministmovements uestioning hemodesof socialand politicaldiscipline ngendered s "masculine," cologicalmovements

questioning he disciplines f "industrialociety," eace movements uestioninghedisciplines f "national ecurity"states,workermovements uestioning he disci-plinesof "managerial rder," nd culturalmovements uestioning he disciplines f"information."Internationaltudies," masculinity,"industrialociety," nationalsecurity,"managerial rder," information"-thesend countless therwordsmustnow be writtenn quotationmarksbecause the modes of disciplining omainsofhumanconduct heywould designate re now openly n question, n doubt, n crisis.The boundariesthatwouldseparateone domain from nother nd one dissidentstruggle rom notherare put,as itwere,under erasure. The attempt o imposeboundaries-to exclude theconcerns f cultural nd ecologicalmovements rom hepoliticalprogramsof workermovements, ay,or to exclude feministcholarship

from nternationaltudies-becomes distinctlyisible. t becomes mmediately ec-ognizable s an attempt o mpose xclusionaryoundaries.And theattempttself sthereby oliticized, oming obe seenas an arbitraryctofpowerwhosevery nder-taking ncitesresistance nd the transgressionf any boundaries thatmightbemarked.

This, though,s not allthere s tosayabout this risis.fwe aretopreparethewayfor n understandingf thepractices fdissidentmovements-especially heroleofdissidentworks f thought n the crisis f nternationaltudies-then we must are-fully xamine everal spectsof this risis.We believe hat tleasteightpointsneedtobe made.

First,t wouldbe wrong osaythat he sort fcrisis xperienced ythediscipline

orbymodern ulturemoregenerallys nany ensea contemporaryrrecent vent.It is as old as modernitytself.As historians ouldremindus, the cultural risis fmodernityhattoday'sdissidents akeseriously as occurrednot ust recently utveryoften n thehistoryhat modern culture laimsas its own. Exampleswouldinclude thebreakdown f thetraditional irtuesn Athens t the timeofSocratesand Aristophanes,he declineof the Hellenisticworld,and the recessionof theChurch s an effectiveenter ftemporal uthorityhatmarked heopeningof theRenaissance.Otherexampleswouldbe the end ofmetaphysicst thetimeofKantand,much morerecently,hede(Euro)centeringfgeopolitical hought ccasionedbymovements fdecolonization.

Second, althoughcrisis o understood annotbe tracedto any anydeterminate

originor cause,one can, in a wayreminiscentf Durkheim's1964) notionofdy-namicdensity, ffer very general proposition: he emergenceof crisiscan beattributedo an agitationnd acceleration fsocialactivityuch that tstrains, up-tures, verflows,r otherwiseransgresseshe nstitutionalimitationsf a socialor-der. Crisis an be attributed,n otherwords, o a proliferationftransgressionsfthe nstitutionaloundaries hatwoulddifferentiate, arkoff, nd fix ime, pace,and identity ithin socialorder, ncluding he identities f subjects s agentsof




knowing nd the objectsthat they would know. Such instances f transgressionmight fcourseoccur nthesmall, s itwere.They might ccur,for nstance,nthediscordantmoments f the plantation r factorys much as theconservatory rstudio, n the dreamsand unspeakablefrustrationsf the ourneyman r clerk smuchas the nspirationsf the poetor scientificenius. They might lso occur nwider cope,as when theoverwhelming rowth fdemandsupon the nstitutionfthe parish dole in the countryside f an England in the throes of feudal crisiscontributedo the acceleration f people's movement rom ountry o town.Morecontemporary xamplesof pervasive ransgressionsan be foundin a variety fambiguous happeningsof interest o scholars f international elations, speciallythoseoftenbroadly lluded to butnotreally esignated) nder theheading inter-dependence." When transgressionsre pervasive, ighly isible, nd noteasily on-tained n specific nstitutionalites-when institutionaloundariesblur ntoopenlytraversiblemargins nd themarginswiden relative o theinstitutionalpaces the

boundarieswould supposedly ontain-they producea generalized ocial crisis fthe sortwe have in mind.Third, the effect f suchtransgressionssnotonly oput nstitutionaloundaries

indoubtbut also todeprive n institutionalrderofstable ppositions.n a crisis fthis ort, here s no clearand indubitable enseofinside versusoutside,domesticversus nternational,articular ersusuniversal, evelopedversusunderdeveloped,reality ersus deology, aradigmversus ounterparadigm,act ersus iction, oliti-cal theory ersuspoliticalpractice, dentity ersusdifference, rogressversus re-gress, ontinuityersus hange,father ersusmother, ationalityersusrrationality,system f communication nd circulating xchangevalue versusnature,positivityversusnegativity, aturityersus mmaturity,eriousness ersusplay, ense versus

nonsense.These and otheroppositions re openlycontested.Accordingly,ny at-tempt o invoke ome privileged nterpretationf, say,reason n orderto controlevents ast as irrational-or to invokesome privileged nterpretationf domesticorder tofendoff hedangersofinternationalnarchy-is immediatelyusceptibletoquestion.The privileged otionof reason nvoked an be shownto contain nddepend upon traces f the rrationalitytopposes. The privileged otion fdomesticorder can be shown to be grounded n nothingmorethan an anarchic truggle fcontestingnterpretationshattraversesny maginable omestic ounds. In sum,thediscourse f an institutionalrdercan no longerreliably espondtoambiguousand uncertain ventsbyrecurringo contradictions,odialectic, o thepromise fresolution hrough eterminate egation.

Fourth, crisis f this ortmaybe called a crisis frepresentation.ust now," ust"here," n the nstitutionalrder n crisis, here s no possibilityf a well-delimited,identicalpresenceof a subjectwhose interiormeaningsmightbe re-presentednwords,for it is impossible o exclude thecontesting nterpretationsf subjectivebeingthatmustbe absent fthispresence ssimplyobe. There is, ikewise, o fixedand indubitable resenceof an external bjecttowhichwords, s re-presentations,might e referred,ecause the ctive ubjectivityhatmust e absent f n object stobe purely bjective annotbe excluded.Without heabsolutepresence f an institu-tionalized ubjectwhosemeaningswordsmight epresentnd without he absolutepresenceof an institutionalizedbjectto whichwords, s representations, ightrefer, he wordbreaksoff Connolly, 987; Heidegger,1971).Wordscanno longer

doustice ecausetheynolongerbear a promise fcertain,iteraludgment nbehalfof a socialorder,a community, discipline, culture.

As a result, he verypossibilityf truth s put in doubt. Everyrepresentationappearsnot as a copyorrecoveryfsomething eally resentnsome other ime rplacebutas a representationfotherrepresentations-none riginal, ach equallyarbitrary,nd none able to exclude otherrepresentationsn order to be a purepresence,n absolute rigin ftruth ndmeaningn tself. n trial s the elf-evident




reality f objectswhichmightbe unambiguously epresented,ssigneda definitesocialvalue,and entered nto irculationna systemfcommunicationrexchange.On trial, oo, s thevery ifeof the nstitutionalizedubjectof the socialorder. ncrisis,ubjects nd objects ppearnot as sources fmeanings hatmight e signifiedor represented n words but as open textsthatare ever in the processof beinginscribed hrough hazardouscontest frepresentations.he subject s deprived fa senseofself-evidentdentity.Whatdoes itmean for his ubject ospeaksincerely,truthfully,n a way thatprojects ts innerbeing?What is the innerbeingof thesubject hatmustbe nurturedndprotectedn an order hatwouldbejustortrue oits subjects? n a crisisof representation,hesequestionsbecomeunanswerable.Every nswer s mmediatelyeceived s butonemoregroundless epresentation,omore and no less sincereor legitimatehananyother.

Fifth, everal ttitudesmerge nresponse o theunfoldingf sucha crisis, uttwoespecially re worthy f note.WithAnthonyGiddens 1979), YosefLapid (1989),

andJimGeorgeandDavidCampbell this ssue),wemight all one ofthese ttitudescelebratory:

A celebratory ttitudegreets the event of crisis n a posture of oyous affirma-tion, posture thatprivileges heestrangement, aradox,ambiguity, nd oppor-tunitiesforcreativity, n the one hand, over the supposed need to cast everyword and deed as a familiar epresentation f stablemetaphysical ertitudes, nthe other.The celebratoryttitude oes notaspireto return osomecomforting,securelybounded domicileof self-evident eing. It insteadexhibits readinessto explore the new culturalconnections and resultingnew modes of thinkingand doing thatbecome possible when boundaries are traversedand hithertoseparatedcultural textsmeet,contradict, ombinein ambivalentrelations, nd

relativize ne another.

Another ttitude,whichwould include Giddens's despairing" nd "dogmatic" e-sponses swell s the posture f"systematiceconstruction"hatGiddens nd Lapidcallfor,7might e called religious:

7There can be no doubt that Gidden's call for a systemic econstructionn reply to crisis,reiterated n theinternationalrelations field by Lapid, does differ n noteworthy espectsfrom the despairing and dogmaticresponses fromwhichGiddens and Lapid take theirdistance.Let us quote Lapid (1989:236, emphasis added), whois faithful o Giddens in thisrespect: "Alarmed by the conspicuous absence ofa single shared conviction bout the

nature nd destination f social theory, he despairing esponse articulates n instinctiveesire ot to be disturbedby

foundational, r meta'-scientific,roblems . . [and it] clings o pre-Kuhnianverities bout objectivity,estability,and falsificationnd encourages social scientists o goon with ome useful'or practicalwork."As for thedogmaticresponse, t t exhibits a foundationalist raving o restore ntellectual ecurity" y appealing to "an 'authoritative'figure uch as Karl Marx orMax Weber." n otherwords,both thedespairing nd thedogmaticresponses a) valuecrisis na negativeway, s something o fear and escape or transcend, b) desiresomeabsolutefoundation s a wayof escaping what they fear, and (c) reply by retreating o one or anotherhistorical enditionof a foundationalauthority, e it scientific ules in thecase of a despairing response)or a sanctified igure in the case of a dogmaticresponse). Clearly, he postureofsystematiceconstructioniffers rom hese:forthrightlyacingup to the event ofcrisis, t "cautiously approves" the celebratoryresponse and the resulting wakening to new possibilities, ndaccordingly,t acknowledgesthe impossibilityf a desperate retreat o one or another nterpretationf "estab-lishedfoundations."

Yet in other respects, he posture of systematic econstruction as much in common with the despairing anddogmatic responses to crisis.As words like "cautious approval" might uggest, he constructivistosture regardscrisisnot as something hatmightbe valued in itsown right,not as something o be lastingly elebrated,but assomething o be facedup to, something o be exploited, nd yet omething roblematical nd evendangerousthatmust ultimately e transcended.Thus, Lapid (1989:336, emphasis added) recitesGidden's worriesthat the em-braceof"theoretical luralismmay nadvertentlyggravatehecrisis," nd he speaksofGiddens wanting oaddress"thisproblem y trying o order and transcend diversitywithout ubstituting new orthodoxyfor the old one."Thus, too, Lapid himselfopposes a positively alued possibility f "TheoreticalRestructuring" o a negativelyvalued "Disarray" n thetitling f his firstmajorsection 1989:238). It is in ust this mpulse-to privilege n idealof identity r unity ver the realitiesof difference nd diversity, olding tight o the former nd regarding the




A religious attitudereversesthe priorities f the celebratory. he proliferationof culturalpossibilitiess not welcomedbut received as an irruption funname-able dangers, and the event of crisis s greeted with sadness,a sense of nostal-gia, a kind of homesickness for an institutional rder that can impose stable

boundaries and bring n ambiguous and indeterminate eality ndercontrol.Asin the thought,writings, nd practices of today'sneoconservatives nd other"liberals disillusionedby reality," he religious response casts the event nega-tively,n termsof the absence of a center, collapse of foundations, loss of aself-evident riginofmeaningand authority, destruction f a domicileofpureidentity, descent into an abyss of hopelessness. It sees in crisis a dangerousmoment n which he nstitutionalizedubject s made witness o thepossibility fits own dissolutionand death.

It should notbe thought hat hesetwo ttitudes mount oalternativeositions,perspectives,r modesofsubjective eingthat re orcouldbe dialecticallypposed,as ifthe religious ttitudemight epress hecelebratorynd thecelebratorymight

seekemancipationrom hereligious. hese arepracticalttitudesrpostureswork-ing ntime, nd they rekeenlyensitiveothetemporalityftheir eal situation ndtothe contingencyfevery maginable osition. heyare notcoherent nd totaliz-ing mis)representationsfrealityffered s ifprojecting fixed nd timeless oicefromwhich ruth nd power reliably riginate s one. As attitudes, hey hare andmutually all forth sense of the crisisto whichtheyreply, crisis n which aparadoxical ealityeemsto undoevery ositionnd resist nclosure nanytotalizingrepresentation.f the one relates o thecrisis ptimistically-joyfullyffirmingheunfoldingf unnameablepossibilitiesmergingwith hetransgressionf imitationsonce takenforgranted-and the otherrelates o itanxiously-lamenting he pass-ing of a time nwhich dentity as secured by imitations otdoubted-both startfrom herecognitionhat n the crisisof thepresent ll limitationsre in fact nquestionand all positions r perspectives re undone. Bothunderstand hathereand now no stable positionmightbe appealed to as a source of truth nd powercapableoffixingimitationsnew. Andboth, herefore,re deprived f anytimelessand universalbasisforself-affirmation-forhe proof of the rightness, ruth, rethical tanding f theattitudeshemselves.

Wherethe two ttitudes iffer-and it ssurely very mportant ifference-is ntheir ractical rientationsonnectinghe mmediacyfan uncertain ocation othewiderworld nd linkingmemories hrough heambiguouspresent oimaginationsofpossiblefutures. heydiffer,notherwords, ntheir ispositionsoaction midstthe undecidable

mbiguitiesfspace, time,

ndidentity

ncountered ereandnow.It is a differencefregister,fyouwill:

The celebratory eceptionto crisisproceeds in a register ffreedom,freedomthat s priorto all abstract nd universalizing otionsofnecessary imitations,finterior or exterior necessity, f need, even of intrinsically eedful subjectswhose needs mightnow be repressed or distorted n denial of their freedom.Affirminghe realityof the crisis,a celebratory ttitudedoes not deny thatpeople live hazardous lives and confront erious perils. It does not deny that

latter as a fearsome fall fromgrace-that the posture of systematic econstruction istinguishes tselffromacelebratory ttitude and reveals its religious affinities,o much in common withdespairingand dogmatic re-sponses.No, thepostureofsystematic econstruction oes notpretend, s despairing nd dogmatic responsesdo,

that one or another historicalrepresentation f the transcendentaldeal of an authoritative oundation s nowpractically ffective.But if it lets go of specifichistorical epresentations f this deal-if it even oins in theirquestioning-it does not let go of the abstract deal tself.As is characteristic f religiouspostures n general, torients tsdiscoursearound the problemof how tobringtheprivileged deal to ife n people's practices, ot as anorthodoxy,not as a straightjacket,otas something hatpeople think s imposedupon them,but n theformofafoundation hatcan be unquestioningly eceivedas a matter f innocentfaith. n theterminologywe shalluse, itspeaks in a register f deszre.



RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B. J. WALKER 381

people's labors, even their procreative nd cognitive abors of self-making, rechanneled and bent to tasks that theydo not originate n the localitiesof theirwork.Yet a celebratory osture, n facingup to theseconditions, lso gives prideofplace to the reality f a crisis n which here s no stableposition r perspective

that can determine for one and all what these local strugglesmean, what theirstakes mustbe,what universalneeds are repressed or negated. It does not try ohold on to some imagined totalizing tandpoint-in crisisbut a rarefied deal-that would regulate discourse regarding what must be done. Instead, as thename implies, t celebrates space of freedom-freedom for thought, or politi-cal action n replyto hazards and dangers, for theexplorationof new modes ofethical conduct detached from the presumption of a transcendental tand-point-that opens up when, n crisis, his deal is deprived of practicalforce.

The religious reception, by contrast,proceeds in a registerof desire. ven incrisis, t refuses o turn oose of the ideal, now grown bstract, f a self-identicalinstitutional ubject contentedly t home with n institutionalrder whose limi-

tations re self-evidentlyiven and at one with he word. It holds fast, hat s, tothe deal of inhabiting securelybounded territoryf truth nd literalmeaningbeyond doubt,a place givenas ifbysome authorbeyondtime, place where theunruly an be reliablynamed and tamed and themanofunquestioning aith anbe secure.Privileging his bstract deal as a pure positivity,he religiousposturethenunderstands the crisis f the presentnot n a way open to its opportunitiesas well as itsdangers, but as a pure negativity-a loss, a lack, a repression orcorruption of something necessary and intrinsically aluable. It receives thepresent risis, herefore, s something o fear.And itturns hisfear nto desire,a desire tofill hevoid,tocompensateforthe ack,to imposea centerof univer-sal judgment capable of effecting imitations nd fixinga space, a time, anidentity eyond question.

Sixth,wherethought nd conversation re dominatedby religious ttitudes ndanimatedbythisdesire, they akeon the cast of what would be familiar o us aspolitical iscourse, orthey re preoccupiedwith heparadoxicalpolitical roblemofsovereignty.t isa problem osedamidst crisis frepresentation:n unmappableregionofambiguity, ncertainty,ndeterminacy,nd multiplyingultural ossibili-tieswheretimeknowsno certainmeasure, space knows no certainbounds,andhumanconductreliably beysno law-not lawsofnature, ot awsof anguage, ndnot awsoffather, ing, r state. t is a problem fenclosing hisboundlessregion,definingwhat is alien to it, making t a territoryn space and time, giving t atemporalmetric,nd imposing hereupon center f udgmentbeyonddoubt that

caneffectivelyolicetheboundaries, endoff healien,preside ver allquestions fdifferencend change within,nd decide forone and allwhat very isputedhap-peningmust mean. Four propositions egardingdiscourses f sovereigntymeritnotice:

1. Discourses of sovereignty annot relate to theirobject,sovereignty,s otherthan a problemor question.This is so because sovereigntyntersdiscoursenot as a matterof describing omething hat s thoughtto be real, alreadypresent,and perhaps distinguishablefrom other equally real and presentthings,but precisely s a reflection n a lack,on a loss,on something hatmighthave been but s no longer. n a crisis frepresentationwherethe wordbreaks off, here s no taken-for-grantednderstanding f reality hatgoes

without aying nd thatreliably unctions s a sharedbackground nterms fwhichpeople can stabilizemeaningsand orient nd ustifywhatthey ayanddo.

To speak of sovereignty, herefore, s never to name somethingthat al-readyis. It can neverbe to referto some source of truth nd power that sself-identical,hat imply xists n itsown,thatgoeswithout aying. [S]over-eigntyhas no identity,s notself, or tself,owardtself, ear tself"Derrida,




1978:265). Even when one asserts,for example, that "God," "king," man,""nation," or "social scientific iscipline" is sovereign beyond doubt-evenwhen one says that uch a figure, o the exclusion of all others, an decide allquestions of time, pace, and identitywithin n institutional rder-the very

need to stilldoubts by pronouncing the assertionbelies the assertion tself.Always a work of imagination,the assertion announces a question that istingedwithdesire: How to fill he void. How to compensate for the lack.

2. The problemof sovereigntys profoundlyparadoxical. Accenting he root,we may say that it is profoundn the sense that it is preoccupied with theproblem of foundation:a fundamentalprinciple, supporting tructure,base on which ociety ests, fund ofauthority apable ofendowing possibili-ties, accrediting ction,and fixing imitations.Accenting heprefix,we maysay that t s profound n the sense that hat tproceedsfrom situation headof all foundation, n favor or support of foundation,to produce or bringforthfoundation,that will count as or substitute or the foundation now

lacking. When one adds something bout the natureof thedesired founda-tion-that to be effectivetmustbe regarded as infinitely eep, self-found-ing, dependent upon no activity hat proceeds withoutfoundations, andhence a foundation beyonddoubt-one sees theparadox.

To come to termswiththe problem,formalize t as a problem,affirm tscentrality o a discourse, and deliberate it in the search for solutions s toguaranteethattheproblemcannot be solved. It is toannounce to one and allthat ny"resolution"profferednthe circumstances f a crisis frepresenta-tion s but one more groundless representation-no less legitimate hananyotherperhaps,but also no more. And it sthereby o insure that hatwhich sofferedas the foundation capable of imposing limitations nd stilling lldoubts will tselfbe received as an object of doubt.

3. It follows hat exts r discoursesthatwould produce a semblanceof a resolu-tion to theproblemof sovereigntymustengage in a kind ofduplicity.Whilenecessarily pening up and responding to the crisis of representation hatoccasions them, theymust also move byvarious devices to accomplish twothings.On theone hand, theymustmake tpossibletostigmatizend excludefrom he domain of serious discourse those happenings,postures, nd inter-pretationswhose serious considerationwouldputtheproposed resolution ndoubt. This, ofcourse,is a work of stigmatizationnd exclusionthat, n theabsence of the sovereignfoundationto be establishedbytheresolution, anonlybe arbitrarynd subjecttodispute.On the otherhand,and in the samestroke, heymustmake itpossibleto understandthat hisworkofstigmatiza-

tionand exclusion,far fromgroundless, s itself ndertaken n theservice fa sovereignfoundationalreadyeyond question,a resolution lreadyinishedand given.

Clearly,such moves are as paradoxical as the problem theyundertake toresolve.Clearly, oo,such movescannot call attention othemselves, s iftheydeserve to be formalized nd announced as centralto theenterpriseunder-taken by a text or discourse. Such moves must be offerednot as theoryinviting riticaldeliberationbutin the manner ofperformative osturesem-erging n reply o instantly pprehensibledifficultiesnd dangersand prom-ising to show how these difficultiesnd dangers mightbe arrested or re-solved.They mustbe offerednotas partof the central nd ostensibly imelesslogic of resolution,but in an exigentmood belongingto themarginsof the

text or discourseand summoningthe central ogicof resolution ntobeing.4. The "resolutions"to the problemof sovereignty rofferedby texts or dis-

coursescan onlybe unstable nd tentative. hey areunstableecause thetextsor discourses that would enact such "resolutions" annot reallybe ridof theparadoxes of space, time,and identity hat become visible n crisis nd thatthe texts or discourses purportto solve. The marginsof these textsor dis-courses always nvolve the arbitrary eployment f cultural resources n the




performanceof the paradoxical moves ust mentioned-moves which,werethey taken seriously,would undo the supposedly central logic by which a"resolution" s made to seem certain and final.

Such "resolutions" re tentativebecause texts r discourses re able to post-

pone seriousand unsettling ttention o theirmarginalperformance f thesemoves only so long as the moves themselves re received in an attitudeofimmediateand unquestioningfamiliarity,s that whichgoes without aying.With the unfoldingof a crisis of representation-with time, change, theacceleration of activity, nd the transgressionof institutional imitationshitherto nquestioned-the themes,postures,words, nd images that mightonce have elicited such a spontaneous and unquestioning reception are nolonger able to do so. No longer self-evident,heybecome strange, f dubiousvalidity, nd subjectto dispute n terms f theirpretensions o truth.As this sso, thearbitrary marginal ovesthat textor discourseundertakes hroughthedevelopment of these cultural resources take on a certain transparency,becoming immediately isible as the paradoxical movesthey re. And when

thishappens, the supposed "resolution" t the supposed center of a text-alwaysdependent upon the paradoxical moves at itsmargins-comes to beseen as no resolution t all. Paradox displaces theparadigmatic resolution."Crisissurfaces. And whereverreligiousdesire moves,theparadoxical prob-lem of sovereignty nnounces itself new.

These fourpropositions,aken ogether, uggest nother,more general han therest.Whenspoken n a religious egister fdesire, he word"sovereignty"s oftenused ideologically,s if trepresentedomesourceofmeaning, omeeffectiverga-nizationalprinciple, ome mode of being already n place, some simply nd self-evidently ivenresolution fparadoxesofspace, time, nd identity. et thisword s

only poken mid and inreply o a crisis frepresentationhereparadoxesofspace,time, nd identity isplace all certainreferentsnd put all originsof truth ndmeaning n doubt.As this s so, sovereigntyannotreallyrepresent nyof thesethings. he word can butconnotea boundlessregionofambiguous ctivityhatvagabond desire-itself rootless, owerless, nd empty f content ave a rarefiedidealof an exclusionaryrderbornofmetaphysical race-would mark ff, ill,ndclaim s a territoryf tsown. t can but connote boundless egion ffreedom hatdesire, ver nsearchof an elusivefinality, ight truggle oexcludeand forget utcan neverfinallyrasefrom tsmemory.

Seventh,whatweknow o be thegreat exts f modernpolitical iscourse-amongthem hetexts hat hediscipline f nternationaltudiesmemorializess thecultural

inheritance ixingts dentity-are ntimatelyngaged n a crisis f ust the sortwehave been discussing.Machiavelli,Hobbes, Rousseau,Bentham,Marx, Kant,We-ber-the texts ignedbytheseand manyothernamesemerge nd work n specificsites nd circumstances heretransgressionsfinstitutionalimitationsroliferate.They emerge nd reply o historicalircumstances heremarginswiden, mbiguityand chance seemtoundermine very ertain eferent,emporalityeemstodisplaceevery xtratemporaltandpoint, orgotten asts nd deferred utures ntrude ponthe present,words lose theircapacity o stillviolence and come to seem violentthemselves,heplayofpowereludes thecontrolling ord oftruth,heverydea oftruth sshaken,what t meanstospeak meaningfullynd seriouslys ndoubt, nd acrisis frepresentationnfolds. n variousways, hese exts ngagethat risis. hey

affirmt. They celebrateand exploitthe richvariety f culturalresources-theparadoxes,theironies, heopportunitiesorparodyand figurative lay-that be-comepossiblepreciselywhen nstitutionalimitationsn thoughtnd discourse reput nquestion, orgottenexts anbe reopened, nd alienthemes anbe examinedanew. Exploiting heseresources, heyprovideexciting ccounts f the crisis heyengage-accounts that eemsomehow o speakto otheruncertain imes, ncludingourown. Yet thesetexts an also be read todo somethinglse as well.Theycan be




read for heways nwhich hey eemtospeak nanswer oa religious esire r, moreexactly, o providea semblanceof a resolution o a paradoxicalproblem f sover-eignty owhich,ncrisis, hisdesire givesform.These are, then,highly mbiguoustexts.They are paradoxically pen todifferent aysofreading.

Eighth,with he emergence f thequestionof sovereigntyn crisis, exts uch asthese becomepartof theopenlycontested ultural errain.Contested hemselves,they ffer esources ywhich ontestswaged. n general, hese extsmight e readand putto work n a crisis frepresentationntwoways, achprojectingne of thetwo attitudes o which crisisgivesrise. One is a wayof reading undertaken n areligious egister f desire.According o what t activelyabors to do to a text,wemight all it a memorializingreading.The other s a wayofreadingundertakenn acelebratory egister ffreedom.We might all tcountermemorializingeading.8 othtake their exts uite seriously,lthough hetwodiffer reatlyntheirunderstand-ing of seriousness.

For a memorializing eading, o take a text eriouslys to try oretrace, eaffirm,and be at one with heworkings f desire within t:

Coming to an ambiguous and paradoxical text, memorializing eading positsand privilegesthe abstract deal of a unique and unequivocal sovereignfigurewhowould control theauthenticmeaningof thetext, nd itaspiresto arrive atan interpretationhatwould be at one with he ntentions nd willofthisfigure.It thereforeproceeds from hat moment n a textwhen uncertainties nd para-doxes of a crisis of representation re actively ncountered as threats to thissovereign figure, nd hence take on colorationsof fear,to that moment whenthisposited sovereign sredeemed and securedthrough he text'sproductionofan ostensibly oherent and finalresolutionto paradoxes of space, time,andidentity. or a memorializing eading,thisheroicresolution n theface of utteruncertaintys what the textmust be rememberedfor all time and from allperspectives o mean.

One result s to attribute o a text high degree of coherence. The text an beeasily summed up and even shamelesslycaricatured,oftenin a short list ofsupposedlybasicassumptions r principles, ecause all thetext's ncounterswithparadox, ambiguity, nd indeterminacy re read over intothedomain of diffi-cultiesand dangers that the text, n itsculminatingmoment, hows us how toresolve. Paradox, ambiguity, nd indeterminacy re not allowed to disturbtheostensibly entral ogicofresolution hatredeems thesovereignpresence positedat the start.

Another result s to turn the text nto a uniquely interpretable aradigm inwhicha discipline, tradition, culturemight nchoran identity.Memorializedas paradigm,the text s notprincipally emembered s a static epresentation fa referentreality which might,afterall, be quite unlike the realityof thepresent). t is rememberedas an iterableexemplar of how men and women ofreligiousdesiremight ear, hink, ct,and resolveparadoxes ofspace, time, ndidentity ven in our own unrepresentable imes. t is remembered s thatmoststrangesortof foundation: an exemplary way in whicha sovereignmode ofbeing iterably ounds itself n replyto chance events,uncertainties, nd unset-tlingparadoxes of space and time.

Fora countermemorializingeading, otakea text eriouslys not to retrace ndreaffirmheworkingsfdesire. t isnot toposit nd givepriorityo a religiousdealof a sovereign enterthat upposedlyrulesa text nd might how us how to ruleourselves nd our own difficultimes. t is decidedlynot to try o enclose a disci-

8 On the notion of countermemory nd its affinities o Nietzscheangenealogy, ee Foucault (1977, 1980, andespecially1984c). For early discussions and applications of genealogical analysis n international tudies, ee DerDerian (1987) and Ashley 1987).




pline's discoursewithin heroic narrative f paradox resolved nd paradigm re-deemed-a narrativewhose limitations e, in honoring he memory f the text,must ndlessly ecite n our own contemporaryabors.On the contrary, or coun-termemorializingeading, o take a text eriously s to give serious ttentiono theunfinalized elebration f freedom nd paradox thatgoes on within t, celebrationthat he text anneverreally till rexclude. t istherefore o refuse oforgetwhatmemorializing eading mustforgetn order to claimto retrieve uniquemeaningfrom text: hat hese lassical exts re already ntimatelynd activelyaughtup ina crisisof representation,much like our own, in whichany supposed sovereignresolution f paradoxes of space, time,and identity an neverbe more than aquestion, problem, paradox in itsownright.

Refusing to repeat this willful mnesia, countermemorializing eadings analyzeafresh theways n which classic texts ontendwith mbiguity, ncertainty,ndresistant ounterinterpretationsf all sorts; avail themselves f all manner of

disparate culturalresources;and struggle t the same time oimposea sovereignperspectivecapable of resolvingparadoxes of space, time,and identity nd tomarginalize those paradoxes, already alive, that would unsettleany sovereignperspective they might tryto impose. Affirminghe veryreal crisis-emergentparadoxes thatoccasion a text nd that hetextwouldmarginalize, counterme-morializingreading shows how they threatento render radicallyunstable thepretensesof sovereign resolutiondutifully ecorded inmemorializing eadings.

The resulton the whole is to enrich,notdiminish, heculturalresources of adiscipline, ommunity, r culture.The disciplinethatpaysitsrespects o a tex-tual inheritance o read is not imited o the ritualrehearsal of the "resolutions"to the problem of sovereignty iven pride of place in memorializing eadings.Nor is itsurprisedto find hat he "resolutions" romisedby tstextsprovetobe

unstable in the present time. It is drawn instead to appreciate the intrinsicambiguity, ncertainty,rony, nd recombinatorial ossibilities f tsowntextualinheritance. t is able to see thatcontemporary ncounters with paradoxes oftime, pace, and political dentity o not mark the "end ofthediscipline" r "theend of modernity." hey are alreadythere n thediscipline's nd the culture'stextual"beginnings."

It's notdifficulto findnstances fthese womodes of reading nthe iterature finternational elations.Consider, for example, contesting nterpretationsf Ma-chiavelli'sThePrince.Waltz's 1979) readingmemorializes hePrince. n it,Ma-chiavelli s cast as a paradigmatic igure-at once a foundation nd origin-of therealisttraditionn which Waltz would locate his own theorization f balance of

power. n Waltz'sreading, oo, what s affirmeds the resolutiono theparadoxicalproblem fsovereigntyowardwhichThePrince,nprojecting religious esire,nodoubt wants omovein itsclosing Exhortation":he production f a statethat sunitary, ounded and distinct rom tsexternal nvironment,nd decisivelyon-trolled ya uniquecenter fgovernance. hus,forWaltz,Machiavellixemplifieskind oftimeless aison 'e'tatmong unitary erritorialtateswanting o survive ndbending verymeans to this nd. And Waltzhimself, orking rom "foundation"memorializedn thisway,can then proceedto assume thattheproblemof sover-eigntysalways lready olved.He canstart rom n assumptionhatpermits imtotheorize n "anarchic" omainof"internationalolitics" mong overeignerritorialstates hat s alreadydifferentiatedrom he "hierarchical rders"within overeign

territorialtates.As George and Campbell suggest n their contribution o this ssue,Walker's(1989) readingof The Prince s a countermemorializingeading.Here it becomesclear thatMachiavelli's ext anhardly rovide foundationrorigin fthe sort frealisttraditionWaltz would like to invoke. The mostunsettlingf paradoxicalproblems esides t thevery enter f Machiavelli's oncerns:how tofound state. n




Walker's eading, recisely ecauseThe Prince s referringo the specialproblems fnew stateswhoseunityndboundaries ertainlyannotbe assumedunderconditionsof cultural risis n whichMachiavelliwrites, he text hatWaltz nd so many therswouldtreat astheunproblematic rigin ftraditions tself bsessedwith hehighlyproblematic atureof origins, f foundations, f the establishmentnd subsequentpolitics f traditions"1989:33). Once Machiavelli s read thisway,The Prince is nolonger aricatured s a paradigm apableoffounding nd limiting he thought f atraditionr discipline hatwouldreligiouslyffirmhe solution o the problemofsovereigntyt so desparatelydesiresto reiteraten its own uncertain imes.Theenclosure fMachiavelli-as-paradigmolds pen, and theThe Princeconnects oTheDiscourses n Livy, The History fFlorence,The Artof War,and beyond ven these extsto thewide-ranging enaissance trugglesfMachiavelli, uicciardini,avanarola,and others to make sense of paradoxical problemsof time, pace, and politicalcommunity y callingupon, questioning, urning, nd introducing nce forgotten

terms o the shaken categories f Christian niversalisthought.

Crisis nd theRole ofDissidence

We have comefarenoughin our considerationfcrisis-a crisis f a discipline,crisis fmodernity-toenable us totakeup the secondofourtwo oncerns.We cannow seewhyt has beenpossiblefordissidentworks fthoughto activate sense ofdisciplinaryrisis.We can alsounderstand owdissidentworks fthought, iven hispossibility,aveproceededto exploit t, thereby romptingritical eadings fthesort hat oncernus here. Let us firstakeup the"why," hequestionofthe condi-

tionsof

possibility.Why s disciplinaryrisispossible?Dissidentworksof thought,we can say at the

outset,have not incited senseof crisisby approaching naive and insulardisci-pline, paradigm, r tradition rombeyond tsboundaries, s ifbearingnews fromfar-offandsor,as detractorsmight ay,from heforeign apitols fcontemporaryfashion.Nor havetheyhurledtheir iterary its nd intellectualevices t the ram-parts fa coherent radition,herebyopuncture oles ndlet ightn.Andcertainlytheyhavenotfomented risis y aying eigeto a discipline, radition,r paradigm,hopingthat he attritionfa discipline'sntellectual esourceswill ead its dherantsnot onlyto give up faith n Machiavelli,Hobbes, Kant, Grotius,Bull, Deutsch,

Hoffmann,Waltz, nd others, ut also tofling pen gatesto a parading rmy ear-ingthepromised ustenance fDerrida, Foucault,Baudrillard,Bakhtin, odorov,Kristeva, arthes, nd more. All of these mages nvolvemagining erritories,or-ders,wallsalready n place.All therebymposetwo imitationsn theway n whichwethink boutthecondition fthediscipline rior o the onsetofcrisis nd aboutthe ocation fdissidentsn relation o thediscipline:

1. On a spatialdimension, hey equireus to imagine n initial ituationfdichotomouslypposedpositionsor nywork f hought: ith egardo thediscipline,he mages uggest,ne must e inside routside, or ragainst.The images eserve heoppositionalpaceof the outside s the dissidents'point 'appui.

2. On a temporal imension,he mages equire s to understandrisis s amomentfdiscontinuityhat pensupwhen hediscipline'sontinuousime,homogeneous lace,and coherent nd well-boundedextual nheritancebreaks porgivesway. he images mplyhatworksfdissidence,eginningon theoutside,must omehow isturb prior table ontinuitynorder oproduce hediscontinuityfcrisis.




In bothof theserespects, hese magesmiscast he ituation. hiscan be seen withthe benefit fhindsight,hat s to say,from he "point f view" fthe crisis hatwehave come to senseso keenly oday.Whether ne speaks n a celebratory egister ffreedom r a religious egisterfdesire, ne cannot ail o notice hat emembrancesof a supposed "pre-crisis ast" are verymuch a part of the disputed errain n thecrisis ftoday. f, ncrisis,we"mustrefer o "ourselves"nquotationmarks-thustosignaldoubts s towho,doingwhatkindofwork nd sayingwhatkinds fthings,really elongs n "our" conversation- we" must lso allow that his s in large mea-sure due to emerginguncertainties nd ambiguities egarding he inheritance owhich we"are indebted.Members f a discipline, paradigm, r a tradition we"might laim to be. But "we" cannot ayfor urewho"we" are because "we" cannotdecide whatmustbe the exclusionary oundaries fthe rememberednheritance owhich we" n "our"workmustpay respects. very ttemptofix heterritorialityfa discipline, aradigm, r traditionodayby offeringne or anothermemorializingreading of a supposedlypure and incontrovertiblenheritance for

example,the

attempts o fixthesupposed continuityf"thetradition"n Keohane's [1983] andGilpin's 1981, 1984] readings fThucydides) s mmediatelyxposedas an arbitraryconstructionn countermemorializingeadings f the same culturalnheritanceasAlker 1989] and Garst 1989] show n theirreadings fThucydides).What s theinheritanceo whichwe owe a debt?What must t mean forus? What limitationsinscribed n "our" textualhistorymust e obeyedbythosewho would claim hat heirworkhonors nd continues hishistory?n thecrisis ftoday, hesequestionshavebecome undecidable.

How could thishave happened? Answeringhis uestion,we see thepoint: f, ncrisis,we are todayunable to decide how to limit, ead,and remember he textual

historyn whichto anchor a discipline r paradigm, hiscan onlybe because thetextualhistory o which we refer has never een a territoryf unequivocalandcontinuousmeaning.It has never been fixedthroughtime,well-bounded, ndclosedtocontestingnterpretations.he discipline'sextualhistory as always eenparadoxically pentoa proliferationfmutually estabilizingeadings.t hasalwayscontained tensions nd paradoxes thatnot onlythreaten o undo the supposedcertitude f any positionfromwhich nterpretationroceedsbut also threaten omakewayfor otherreadings hat supposedly orrect eading, obe thought or-rect,mustexclude.

One simply annot ay, hen, hat here nce wasa timeprior othepresent risisinwhich hediscipline roudly toodbeforedissidentcholars s a continuous, ell-

boundedterritory.o such erritoryver xisted.o exclusionaryoundariesvereparatedthe isciplineromtherupposedlylien nd ncommensurablelementsf cultureeyond-notntoday's isciplinaryrisisndnotbefore.ven f t spossible o romanticize pastinwhich hediscourse finternationaltudiesmanagedto sustain ome semblanceofanunequivocalvoice at one with continuous isciplinary eritage ndoccupyinga definite erritorialomain,thiscould not have been because thisvoice and thesupposedboundariesdemarcatingtsplace reallywerefixed, ure, nd undisputed.It couldonlyhave been because t waspossiblefor time and bymeansanalyzable)actively o marginalize, orget, nd defer encounterswithparadoxes, contestingthemes, nd resistantnterpretationshat re always artofthedisciplinarynheri-tance, hat ransgressll imaginable oundaries, nd thatrenderradically nstable

allrenditionsf an unequivocalvoice. tcouldonlyhavebeenbecause twaspossiblefor a timeto marginalize heveryparadoxes, themes, nd interpretationshoseincreasing isibilitytthe upposedcoreofthediscipline aveproduced he enseofdisciplinaryrisis oday.

To understand his s to see whydissidentworksof thought ssuingfromthemargins ave been able toincite senseofcrisisn internationaltudies. n a disci-




plineor n modern ulturemoregenerally, e have suggested, crisis f representa-tion s occasionedbytheproliferationftransgressionsf institutionalimitations,and ifthis s so, then a condition f crisis s that nstitutionaloundariesbe trans-gressable. his condition,we can now say,has always een satisfied y the disciplineof nternationaltudies.The "boundaries" fthediscipline, evermorethan ontin-gentand ambiguouseffects f active nd arbitraryaborsofmarginalization,avealwaysbeen susceptible o transgression.

How have dissidentworks f thoughtncited isciplinaryrisis? In addressing this sec-ond question tmakessense to begin wheredissidentworks fthought egin,withthatmostparadoxicalof "beginnings":marginality.n contrast o scholarlyworksthatwouldspeak in unison with hesupposed "core" of a discipline, radition,rparadigm,works fthought hat ssuefrom hemargins annot eriously ntertainreligious ttitude.For them,the contingency,mbiguity,nd transgressabilityf

"boundaries"has alwaysbeen the mmediate eality flifeto be celebrated.Why sthis o? The answer ies n thevisibilityfparadoxat themargins.How, giventhiscelebratoryttitude, re marginalworks fthought riented o conduct hemselves?The answer ies inwhatwemight all the ethics fmarginal onduct.

Marginality: hevisibilityfparadox. What constitutes he so-called sovereign "core"ofa discipline r paradigm snot, s we haveseen,a territory,osition, rhomoge-neous pointofview anchoredand definedby reference o a coherent, ontinuous,and well-bounded extual nheritance.Whatconstitutes "core" is the ability,nwhatever ocation, ctivelyo sustainforsome time semblance f a commandingsovereignpresence by adoptinga certainblindness o the paradoxical abors by

which, vennow, memorializing eadingsof a textual nheritancere undertakenand unsettling ncounterswithparadoxesof space, time, nd identityre margin-alized. Here, where hework f marginalizationanbeforgotten,t anmake ensetospeak in a religious egister fdesireand affirmmemorialized oundations.Here,where t is possibleto forget hedependence of a discipline r paradigmand itssupposed foundations n this ctive nd arbitraryabor ofmarginalization,ne canprofess sovereign ight o fill n exclusionary pace and tospeakand act na waythatrepresentsnd defends coherent,well-bounded erritory.ne can speak n aregister f desire,play the hero's part, nd say, Thiswork peaksfor he discipline,thetradition,heparadigm, nd itspeaks n answer o those lienhappenings nddifficultieshatwouldpose a challenge, puzzlement,r a danger."One cando this

and get awaywith t, f only for a time.Whatconstitutesmarginalitys preciselyhe manifestnabilityospeakand laborina register fdesire and get awaywith t,evenfor moment. ike the notion f a"core,"thenotionof a "margin" annotreallydesignate time, space, a code, acanon,a pointof view,a futureutopian order,an ordernostalgically ecalled,personifiable tateof mind,or a pointd'appuiof any sort. What distinguishes"margin" f a discipline rparadigm rom ts o-called core," ccordingly,annotbesome real positions hatmightbe markedon a social or intellectualmap. Whatdistinguisheshe"margin"s that here" and "now" t s impossibleodo whatmustbe done if, n answerto a religiousdesire, ome semblance f a well-bounded ndcoherent erritorys to be sustained: t simpossibleo be blindtothe active aborof

marginalizing aradoxes of space, time, nd identityhat threaten o undo everypretense hatone might peaka sovereign oiceof a discipline, paradigm, com-munity,r a culture.

Where are the"margins?"n theparadoxical nstantwhenthepeace researcherdiscovers hatherdynamic rms race models n theRichardson radition-her at-tempts o think s outofprocesses hat ccur when decisionmakers don'tstoptothink"-imposefixedparametershat upposeand affirmhenecessary toppageof




thought. n the reading of Weber that takesseriouslyWeber's engagementwithNietzscheas well as Marx. In the momentwhere the analyst omes to see thatrepresentationsfvoluntaristicgencydisrupt epresentationsf the autonomousdeterminationsfgenerative ocial structuresnd vice versa-and that structura-tion"can meanforherno more than a desire to affirm nd occupy ome scientificstandpointprior to all representations hat can surelyresolve the paradoxes ofagency nd structure.n the nstantwhen theorizationfan internationalnarchy/domestic ierarchyichotomys disrupted ythedissolution f one of twopoles of asupposedlybipolarworld. In the workof a theoristwho wantsto make sense ofThirdWorldsovereignty, here narchy eemstobe on the "inside" nd the centerofauthorityeems to be on the "outside." n thework fpositivisticegime heoristswhodiscover, s KratochwilndRuggie 1986) show, hat nobjectivistpistemologycannot ustain study fregimeswhentheontologyfregimesssubjective hroughandthrough. n the frustrationsf feministheorists hoseeffortso gain a hearingfor

their nsidiousquestions re greetedbya discipline's ondescending uidanceregarding he"influences" ne mustnotfallprey o,thequestions ne mustnot ask.In the workofscholars tudying ocial movements hosepractices, trangely,eemlittle oncernedwith heproblem fseizing, oppling, rcontrollinghe "actor" hatinternationalheory eclares tobe central.

Where, gain,are themargins? heyare allthoseboundless, nnameable egionsof activity here an itinerate eligiousdesire mmediatelytruggles o marginalizeparadoxes of time, space, and identity;where thisactiveand arbitrary ork ofmarginalizationshighly isible nd cannotbe forgotten; here, hanks othevisibil-ity fthe truggle, esirenecessarily ails; ndwhere, s a result,he overeigntyfadiscipline rparadigmbecomes strange ndrarefieddeal,a questionneverfinally

answerable, paradoxicaltaskthat annotbe one's own. This is what marginality"means. t can meanno more.For works f thought hat ssue from hemargins, herefore, nlya celebratory

posture antake eriouslyife's ealpossibilitiesnd limitations.n the marginal ite,only heregister ffreedom-a registerhat ffirmsnd exploits mbiguity,ncer-tainty,nd thetransgressabilityf nstitutionaloundaries-can effectivelypeaktotheparadoxes,dangers, nd opportunitiesmmediately nfolding.

It is thusquiteclear whyworks fthought ssuing rom hemarginsredisposedocelebrate nd takeadvantageofthetransgressabilityfboundaries,tself hecondi-tionofcrisis.But ifwe are to answer he"how"questionposed,we need to under-stand omethingbout thepractical rientation-onemight aythediplomaticthos-

implicitnworks fthought hatwould proceed n a celebratoryegisterffreedom.ContraGiddens 1979) and Lapid (1989:237),weneed tounderstand hat he cele-bratoryttitudefdissident cholars oesnotneed "constructiveritical elimitationinordertoanticipatendpreempt hedangers f ndiscriminateheoreticallation."In terms f ethicaldiscipline t least,dissidentworks f thought ssuingfrom hemargins re alreadydoing verywellon their wn.

Marginality:he thicsf onduct.t is oftennoted, s we havenoted, hat peakingand acting n a celebratory egister f freedom nvolves readinessto questionsupposedlyfixed standardsof sovereign udgmentand to transgressnstitutionallimitations,nd from his t softennferred hat onductnthis egistermounts o

a sort f icentiousctivity hosecredomight e "Anything oes!" t is inferred hatwhenwords nd deedsproceed nthis egisterffreedom very otion fcriticizingand discipliningonduct s out the windowbecause, given he refusal o refer on-ductto somepresumably ixed nduniversal tandard fjudgment, veryword nddeed must e presumed obe as good,as ethical, ras effectives the next.This,forexample, s the nference hatMichael Walzer 1986) drawswhen he reads MichelFoucault's work, itselfconducted in a registerof freedom. Walzer describes




Foucault'swork s a "radical bolitionism"hatwould ook upon all moral nd ethicalsystemsnd say, Awaywith hem ll!" He concludes hatFoucault'swork s a sort fnihilismhatwouldleave people in a moral and ethicalvoid, open thewayfortheentry f "new codes and disciplines," eprivepeople of any wayofknowing thatthesewillbe anybetter hanthe ones wenow ivewith,"nd evendenypeople "anywayofknowingwhat better'mightmean" 1986:6 1).

The inference, hough, s not so binding s Walzer and others eem to think. tdepends forits logical forceon an equation of disciplined, thicalthought ndconductwiththe imposition nd observance f limitationshatcan themselves eunambiguously efined nd ustified rom he standpoint f a sovereign enter fjudgment thatcommands space, authenticates hat s valuable and good within,defines lien or dangerous modes of thought nd conductto be excluded, and isitself eyondquestion. n otherwords, he nference resupposes n understandingofdisciplined, thical onduct hat s articulated ith nd that annotbe practically

effectiventheabsenceof a territorializationf social ndpoliticalife nall ts spects.This, surely, s an important nderstandingfethicaldiscipline.No doubt t hasprevailedforsome time nmodernculture, panning t leastfromHobbes's moralphilosophy hroughKant's categorical mperative o Habermas's universalprag-matics f the deal speech situation. ndcertainly readiness ositivelyovalue thisunderstandingrticulates ellwith heworkingsf a nomadic nd abstract esire,religious esiretoeffect territorialomicilewheremen ofunquestioningaith aninnocentlynd securely well.Even so, t s not the onlyunderstandingmaginable,and it s not mmune o criticism. onsiderust twocriticisms.

First,his erritorializingnderstandingfethics s ntrinsicallyaradoxical. n thedisciplineof international tudies and in general,to be practicallyffectiveny

semblanceof a sovereign enterto whichethicaldiscoursemight e referred e-pends upon the orgettingf theongoing aborofmarginalizinghoseambiguities,uncertainties,nd contestingnterpretationshatwould even now undo or disruptthepretense fsovereign ertitude.As this s so, any understandingfdisciplined,ethical conductthatwould aspire to cast all activitiesn the clarifyingightof asovereign enter funiversaludgment-in the ight fsomegivenconsensus, orexample, r somecanon for heproduction fconsensus-ironically ependsupontheexemption fcertain ctivitiesrom he critical,uridical ight o which t wouldrefer. t depends upon theundertakingf an active abor ofmarginalizationhatmustbe forgotten,hatmust lude this ight, hat annotbe ustified r licensedbyreference o a center fcriticaludgment, nd that annotbe disciplinednthisway.

A universalisticthical ystem,o understood, lways epends upon a reachofactiv-ity hat xceedsthe system'sthicalgrasp.Second,as noted, ospeakin a registerfdesireand value the abstractdeal of a

territorialnd sovereign-centeredthicaldiscipline s a pure positivity-to alue itas at once thenecessary reconditionnd telosofhumanbeings' thical iscourse-is also to value work onducted n a celebratory egisters purelynegative,s workthatnegatesethical considerations nd leaves people unable to distinguish oodconduct rom ad orbetter vents romworse.Thisvaluation, hough,san instanceofconduct n itsownright,nd so wemight sk of tsomeethical uestions.Why sthisvaluationgood, right, r better han others?Why houldwe embrace t to theexclusion fattemptsoexploreotherways fthinking uestions fethics, fsocial

discipline, r self-discipline? hy,especially,fany attempt o intonea universal"we"todaymust nclude thosemultiplying arginal iteswherereligious esire svisiblyntenablenthe sense that tvisibly ails oresolveparadoxesofspace, time,and identitynd to produceforpeople anysecureand practicable erritorialen-ancy? n all thewideningmargins f a disciplinend a culture, hequestion choes:why?




If those who profess o be comfortablyt home and at one with he ostensiblysovereign enters f a discipline r a culturefeigndeafness o the question, hosewho abor nthe margins o not it dly waiting nswers hat an never ome. Therearemore mportant hings o do. After ll,there re dangers obe avoided and dealtwith.There are resources f ife o be produced.There are conditions f scarcity-limitationsn thesocial resources hat ne can access nd put to use inthe ocality fone's labors.Encroaching rom very irectionhere s a varietyfdisparatenarra-tives, achprojected s iffrom omesovereign enter, utnoone moretrue o one'sparadoxical ituation han henext.These narrativesisibly ie to project hemselvesinto one's uncertain ocation, o claimone's time, o control ne's space, to imposerepresentationsf whatone necessarilys and does, to summon ustifications foneself nd one's conduct n terms fsome distant orm againstwhichone mightalwaysbe seen to fail, nd to imposesomepenalties fdeprivationr exclusion ninstances f failure.And yetthere s no prospect hatone can,with he resourceslocally vailable,resolve heparadoxesof one's immediate ituation, xcludeambi-guities nd contesting nterpretations,nd make of oneself and one's locality nextension fanyofthe territoriesfsovereign eingprojected ythese narratives.With none of these territoriesan one be innocently, ontentedly,nd safely thome.

Itiseasyto seehowpersons nsucha situation ould refuse religious rientationwhose deal ofsovereign eingcan be deployedtoimpose imitationsnd sanctionpunishmentswhilespeakingnot at all to thepracticalhazards and difficultiesfmaking ife go on in theseuncertainmarginal ircumstances.t is easy to see howpersonswouldbe givento speak and act in a register f freedom, o exploittheambiguitiesefore hem, oquestion hose imitationsnstitutionalizeds necessary,

and to expand the resources vailableto them.But it s also easyto see somethingmore.If conduct n the marginsproceeds n a celebratory egister f freedom, tcertainly illnot announce that Anything oes!"Precisely ecausefreedoms val-ued under circumstancesikethese,no maxim ouldbe considered essefficacious.Here especially, ne mustalwaysbe preparedto understand hatsome waysofacting, peaking, ndwritingre better rworse,moreorlesseffective,nd moreorless dangerous.Here especially, uestions f ethicaldiscipline,vendiplomacy, reparamount.

It is true thatwe cannot represent, ormalize, r maxim-izedeterritorializedmodalities f ethical onduct.We cannot evokea juridicalmodel,define hegoodlife, nd laydown thecode crucial o itsfulfillment,s ifbespeaking ome universal

consensus ormed ccording o rulesofdiscourse lreadygiven,without t the sametimecovertlymposing principle f territorialityhat these modalities efusetoentertain. ut our inabilityo representhumanbeingsdoes notpreventus fromtalking bout tor from ryingo understandhow itmight rientdeterritorializedethics n thevaluation nd discipliningftheir ctivities.

Any attempt o understand uch an ethicalorientationmusttakevery eriouslythe realand vitalproblem ftheperson n one or another pecificmarginal ite, eit at themargins f thediscipline f internationaltudiesor one of the countlessothermarginal itesof modern culture.For thisperson,the practical ite s onewhereparadoxesofspace, time, nd identityisturb nd undo any attempt o liveand act accordingto some semblanceof sovereign, erritorial eing. For this

person,whomustmake her ifebutcannotmakeof t a triumphfreligious esire,theproblemmightbe posed thus:How might neproceed n a register ffreedom oexplorend testnstitutionalimitationsna waythat ustains nd expands he ultural pacesandresourcesnabling ne toconduct ne's abors f elf-makingn ust this egisterffreedom,further xploringnd testingimitations?everal features f a problem o posedmeritnotice:




1. The problem asno determinateolution. ofixed oalorstable nd-statesaspired o.As Foucault1984a:375) might aveput t, heproblems not"determinedya preestablishedolitical utlook,"nd it does not"tendtoward he realization f some definiteolitical roject." he problem s

precisely ne of how,hereand now, n immediatend concrete ircum-stances, oengage n criticalabors hat otonlywork n nstitutionalimita-tionsbut also further nable such criticalabors. f anything ermanentwouldorcould comeofthis,t sonly hepermanencef this riticalaborworkingn limits.

2. While his roblemocuses n thepersonn the ocal ite,t s not nindivid-ual whomay epresumedo have nynecessary,imiting,ndtranscenden-tally pprehensible aturaldentity,eastof all some fixed nd necessaryessence frationality.nany ite, dentitys ndoubt,what ountssreasonsvisiblynquestion,nd the reason hat ounts, racticallypeaking,s thatwhich nables hetestingfthe nstitutionalimits f thenecessary.

3. It followshat hisperson annot e engendereds "man," r evenengen-dered tall; for his erson ll nstitutionalifferences,vengender iffer-ences, repotentiallyndoubt,nquestion,nprocess fbeing mposedndresisted llatonce.

4. The problems verypractical,ven a matter f life nd deathforthosepersonswho must oilto sustain hemselvesnd nurture heir hildrennmarginalites. ifedepends ponthe bilityoquestionnd traverseulturallimitations,hus oexpandthe resources hatmight e puttoworkntheautonomous onstitutionfself ndselves. et nany nstantarious over-eignauthoritiestandready o harden nstitutionaloundaries, ass udg-ment, ewardwhat hey egard s compliance,ndinflictunishmentpon

those hey egard s transgressors.5. If t s a practicalroblem,t salsoa politicalroblemnvolvinguestionsf

power ndresistance,trategyndcounterstrategy.etpreciselyecause heperson'sdentitynddefiningimitationsre indoubt nd inprocess, necannot asttheproblemn terms f anyatomistic odelof politics,necannot omprehend trategicction n terms f one or another ationalmodel f choice ndconduct,nd onecannot omprehendower ccordinganymodel f therepressionfa true rsovereigndentitylreadynplace.Atthe ame ime, ecause heproblemsposedfrom his ocal ite nvolvesrefusaloembraceny overeign-centeredranscendentalarrative,t annotbe framedn terms f structuralotalitieshatbear downupon, imit, rgeneratendividualgents,heir ossibilities,ndtheir nternalonstraints.

6. Since theperson'sdentitys inprocess nd indoubt o thevery ore, necannot hink f theproblem f self-makingn the modelof a sovereignauthorwhowouldwrite imselfs text,nd onecannot quate heproblemof freedomwith heproblemfexpandingheexclusionaryrcof a socialterritoryhosemeaningsan be uniquelynd autonomouslyetermined.Self-makings not "private" atter;reedomannot e reduced o a matterofexpandinghedomain f privateroperty"utonomouslyontrolled;heexpansionffreedomimplyannot eequatedwithhe xpansionf over-eignpowers.

Appreciatinghesefeatures ftheproblem,wecanbeginto glimpsewhy t s not

only practical nd political roblembut also a problemhaving distinctlythicalcast.The person nvolvedn thisproblemmight e said to be preoccupiedwith her"local taskof self-making,nd she mightbe said to be concerned above all withexpanding"her" ocal space offreedom.But in saying his, ne musttake care toinsert veryuse ofthe possessive ase between uotationmarks, or theperson nquestion an leastof allbe said tobe a possessivendividual. he distinctionsetween"her" task of self-making nd "our" task of self-making,etween her"space of




freedom nd "our" space of freedom, r between local" and "global"or "private"and "public"forthatmatter-all of thesedistinctionsre already partof "her"problem.All are already mongthe nstitutionalimitationshat she," n working n"her" limits, s givento question and possibly raversen the expansionof "her"

cultural pacesoffreedom. Her" problem ftestingimits nd expanding culturalspace offreedomn "her" mmediate ocality, herefore,s always lreadypart ofaproblemof pushing "ourselves,"n Foucault'swords 1984b:43), to explore whatlimitationsrenotor are no longer indispensable or he onstitutionfourselves sautonomous ubjects."And t satjust this oint-wherethedifferencesetween he"she" of a locality nd the "ourselves"who span localities re tested-that ethicalconsiderations,which are also practical,political, nd diplomatic onsiderations,arise.

There are uncertaintiesnd risks nvolved n any attempt o test nstitutionallimitations nd open up culturalpossibilitiesn concretehistorical ituations. oquestion, est, nd expose the arbitrarinessf institutionalimitationshat raverseone s immediate ocalitys nprincipleo open up one's spaceoffreedom yexposingcultural esourceshitherto orgottenr closedoff.Were it possibleto treatone'simmediate ocalityn isolationrom thers, nemight aythat hat sallthere sto t.Viewing he mmediate iteas an enclosedworldunto tself, paradigm nand foritself, ne could makean unrestrained uestioning f limitationsne's principle fconduct.One couldunhesitatinglyudge good all conduct onformingo thisprinci-ple.But it s plain that hisnotion f solation tself nvolves limitation, boundarythat eparates he ocality rom itesbeyond.Andit splain, oo,that nquestioningthis imitation, ne becomes sensitive o the possibilityhat thereare other sitesbeyond ne's own where ne'squestioningndtestingf imitations ight onstitute

a danger.Thereare,after ll,otherpeoplewho aretryingogeton with heir ives nambiguousand hazardous circumstances,nd thesepeople might ry o inscribetheir dentitiesnd demarcate heir mbiguous ocationsby appeal to institutionalcategories hat t once presupposeand affirm henecessitynd impermeabilityfthevery imitationsne might uestion none'sown ocalsite.Forthem, he nstitu-tional ategoriesmight e practical esources f ife-resources that mpower.Andforthem, hequestioning f limitationsupposedly ixed n thesecategoriesmightthreaten odeprive hem f theseresources, epleting heir ower nd leaving hemin a highly ulnerable ondition fscarcity.

True, one's questioning f these imitations resupposesthe possibilityhat theinstitutionalategories re contingentnd in the processof being imposed,not

necessary nd already given;thattheboundaries nscribedn thesecategories retransgressablenalldirections; hat,nfact, hepeoplewho would ocatethemselvesin terms ftheseboundaries re notreally therooneself; nd that heopeningoftheseboundarieswouldexpand spaces and cultural esources f freedom hat re"theirs" s much as one's own. But to presupposethis s also to presupposethepossibilityhat hepeople whowould ocate themselvesn terms fthe boundariesone questions re in circumstanceso lessparadoxical,no less uncertain hanone'sown: they hareone's own problemof freedom ven if, n their pecific oncretecircumstances,hey ely n differentesources nd contendwith differentonstel-lationof immediate imitationsn whatcan be thought, aid, and done. In otherwords, nemust llowthat their"mmediate ndvery ealstrategicituationsnthe

struggle orfreedom re not behindone's ownor inferioro one's own butsimplydifferingrom ne's own. That iswhy here re risks.

If, in the processof testing imitations,ne assumesthat one's local strategicsituations a paradigmorthestruggle orfreedomwherever tunfolds, henone isalltoo ikelyo be impatient ith thers' abors nothers' trategicituations.n one'simpatience, ne is all too likely o be insensitive o theways n whichone's ownconduct-one's wayofquestioning imitations-might amify eyondone's locality




and threaten odepriveothers fthe cultural esources ywhich hey eply o theproblem f freedomnother quallydifficulttrategic ettings.n turn, his hreat,so real to others, s likely ogeneratemostunfortunateesults.Wanting o sustainthe culturalresourcesthatempowerthem n theirown local strategicituations,thosewho are threatened re likely o participaten thosearbitraryractices ywhich nstitutionaloundaries re affirmed.

For them,the result s to consecrate ome semblanceof a sovereign erritorialgroundtheymight all their wn,even at a costoffreedom.No longer re they oable as theymight nce have been to exploit hosecultural esources hatmustbemarginalized nd forgottenf these boundaries, nd ust these, re to definethedomainthey efend s their wn.Fortheone who wouldquestion heseboundaries,the result s disastrous!With thehardening f boundaries, ne's own domain offreedom s now more limited.What is worse,one must now contendwith omesemblance f a sovereign they"who are likely o know ne as an alienOther.Given

what"they"know to be thescarcityf "their" esources, they"might e giventoclaimone's own resources nd practical pace as "their" wn and to udge one'sconduct nd find t wanting y"their" tandards. uch an outcome sdangerous.t isbad,farworsehan others hatmighthave been produced.

And whatofthe mpatient,nsensitiveonductborn ofparadigmaticonceit hatproduces this result? t is strategicallyrtless, racticallyneffective,nd ethicallywrong.t would have been farbetterohaverespected heparadoxical ealityfone'slocalsituation, realityhat adicallyubverts llpretenses hat ne's situationmightbe bounded, clearly epresented, nd re-presenteds a paradigmforthestrategicsituationsfothers.Respecting hisrealitywould not ead to anykind ofintrover-sion, mperialconceit, r smugindifferenceo others' ircumstances.east of all

would t ead topassivity.twould nstead ncourage patientabor of isteningndquestioning hat eeks to explorepossibleconnections etween hestrategicitua-tions fothers nd one'sown, lways ensitive o theproblem fexpanding he paceand resources ywhich heongoing truggle orfreedommaybe undertaken hereas wellas here.

This, certainly,s not sort fethics hatwould end tselfo anykind fahistoricalmonological ccount;thatwoulddiscipline eople by callingupon them omeasuretheir onductas better r worserepresentationsf some universalnorm, ode, orperspective; r that ould be calledupon tosummon, ocus, nd excuse "our"exer-cises of "our" means of violence to punishor exclude thosepeople who wouldtransgresshe imitationshat we" taketo be crucial othesustainingrproduction

of"our"good life.Buta sort f ethics tsurelys. If t refuses hediscipline fsomesupposedly uthoritativeoiceof a universal we," tdoes discipline he active aborof self-making,rienting hat abor notonlyto respect he uncertaintiesf everyimmediateocality utalso to explorethe connectionscross ocalities pon whichthestruggle orfreedomdepends. If it s notoriented omobilize nd concentratesocialviolence nthe exclusion ftransgressors,tdoesdispose persons nsistentlyoquestion nd resist,n their wn conduct s well as that fothers, very mpulsetoadoptthereligiouspostureofone whoheroically peaksand acts as thesovereignvoiceof an exclusionaryomain. And if, n thestruggle orfreedom,tencouragestransgressionshat overeignuthoritiesmightonstrues local nstancesfviolenceagainst xclusionary ightsfpossession,tdoes orient ersons oquestion nd undo

all institutionshatwould mobilize otalviolencenthe nameof a territoryniquelypossessed.Of this thicswemight sk twoquestions.

First,thasbeen noted that positive aluation fa sovereign-centerederritorial-izingethics ntails negative aluation nd an exclusion fan ethics fthe sortwehave been discussing. s the reverse lso true? No. To value what,withFoucault(1988),wemight all an ethics f freedom s nottonegateorexclude those nstancesofethicaldiscourse hatwould affirm ne oranother overeign enter f udgment.



RICHARD K. ASHLEY AND R. B.J.WALKER 395

It is instead o be disposedto undertake patientwork fquestioning nd listeningthatmakes t possible for discourseto cross the territorial oundariesthatwouldenclose ny uch overeign enter's upposedly xclusionary omain.The problem snotone of how to mposethis thics rom n high r how to makedoubters elieve nit-a problemwhose veryposingcan only eem strange o people of marginal iteswhowouldpractice his thics ffreedom.t s a problem fhow,working rom ocalsites nd according o this thics ffreedom, o enablethe rigorous ractice f thisethics n the widestpossible ompass.

Second,can thisethics, yvirtue f encouraging struggle orfreedom, icenseactivitieshatwouldquash democratic iscourse ndproduce ome form f totalitar-ianism?Absolutelynot. Where this ethics s rigorously racticed, he democraticpractices f listening, uestioning, nd speakingare encouraged to traverse heinstitutionalimitationsf privateproperty, rivate otingbooths,privatenterestgroup politics, nd privateparadigms; hey re encouraged o traverse he nstitu-tional imitationshat eparatenations, lasses, ccupational ategories, enders, ndraces; theyare encouragedto traverse he institutionalimitations hatseparatecenters romperipheries, avesfromhave-nots, ood citizens rom liens withoutand scape-goatswithin,nd the uncertain ealities fthepresent romnostalgicallyremembered olden ages or promisedutopianfutures.Where this thics s rigor-ouslypracticed, o voice can effectivelylaim to standheroically pon some exclu-sionary round,offeringhisgroundas a sourceof a necessary ruth hathumanbeingsmustviolently rojectnthenameof a citizenry,eople,nation, lass,gender,race, golden age, or historical ause of any sort. Where this ethics s rigorouslypracticed, o totalitarian rdercould ever be.

Thepracticesfdissidentorksf thought.n their uestioning f the institutional

limitationsfthe discipline f internationaltudies, issidentworks fthought otonly elebrate hepossibilityftransgressingoundaries utalso, ndoing so,put ntopractice omethingike the ethicswe have beendiscussing. his isnot tosaythatthese dissidentworkshave exhibited perfect ommandofa new ethical r diplo-matic rtoftheoreticalnd political ractice.n viewoftheuncertaintiesnd ambi-guities f marginal iteswhere these worksmove, t is notsurprisingo findthatdissident cholarshave made theirfair hareof clumsy tepsand maladroit tate-ments.With he benefitfhindsight, e must oncedethat omeofour own contri-bution an be singled ut as vivid vidence f howeasy t s,despite ne's best fforts,to misreada situation nd misfire.We do wantto suggest,however, hat thesemistakes ave notbeen exemptfrom riticism-orfromdiscipline,fyouwill-in

terms fthestrategic, ractical,nd ethical onsiderations e have beenraising.For dissident cholars, heremaybe no correct ine. But there s a fairlywelldevelopedsensethat t s incorrectoclose one'sears tocriticismnterms fethicalquestions uch as these:Mightthisor thatmoveor posturebe too impatient,ooparadigmaticallyroud,tooinsensitiveo thedifferencesfcircumstances-no essdifficultnd uncertain-inwhich therswork?Might ne'sposture rway fwritingthereby ave theeffectsfclosing ff ather hanopeningup thepossibilitiesfnewconnectionsnd oflimitingather hanexpanding hespaceswherein he abor oftestingimitations ight oon?Might notherway fspeaking ndconductingne'slaborsbe better?We think hat hework f dissident cholarsn nternationaltudies,viewed verthepastfewyears,has beenresponsive ocriticismosed nthese erms.

This can be seen,wethink,na shift femphasis hathasoccurredndissidentworksofthought.We shall peakoftwooverlapping phases," achcontainingraces ftheother.

The first hase ofdissident cholarshipn internationaltudies s predominantlyconcernedwith heperformancefwhatmight e calleda relayunction.isteningowhat shappening nthemultiplying arginal ites f a culture-from he relationsbetween he sexes in Beijingand relations etween East"and "West" n Europe,




through he activitiesfnew social movementsnvarious ocales, o controversiesnfeminist,ocial,and literary heory-dissidentworks fthought ring othe atten-tionofthe discipline sense of crisis hat s already live ntheseproliferatingites,that s alreadyproducing eriousperils, nd that, t the same time,s alreadygener-ating xciting xplorationsnthe thinkingnd doing of politics. aking theseperilsandexplorations eriously, issident cholars o not et thediscipline urn deaf eartosuch events, heirmplicationsorglobalpolitical ife, rtheirmplicationsor hestudy fpower, gency, olitical ractice,nd so on.They seektoshowhow and whysuch far-flungulturalhappenings,far fromproperly elonging o the shadowyperipheryfdisciplinarynterest,aisequestions hatmight rompttto think newits most centralunderstandings f the world and of its place in it. And in this,dissident cholars anbe heardto hold out a promise ffreedom: fmembers fthedisciplinewould only question those assumptions nd commitmentspon whichdisciplinaryoundariesdepend-commitments ostatism, ositivism,nd male-en-

genderedmodels of agency, onamea few-theywouldbe able to listen o, earnfrom,ndput ntopractice lltheunfolding ossibilities ithertoeniedthem.Theycouldescapethe imitations ithertonsnaring hem nd enhancetheir apacities ounderstand,ospeak nanswer,nd tothink nseriousways bouthowpeople mightrespond to the perils nd opportunities f modernglobal political ife.

There is, though, omething roubling,ven self-defeating,bout a promise oissued. First f all, whilethe performancefthisrelayfunctionakes s itspremisethetransgressabilityfdisciplinaryoundaries-whileitcredits hedisciplinewiththe ability o comprehendwhat is relayedto it frombeyondits boundaries-itneverthelessnnounces tself s a transgressionf thediscipline'soundariesfrombeyondhoseboundaries.In so doing, it impliesthat there s a discipline hat s

bounded,however rbitrarynd porous tsboundariesmight e showntobe.Second,there s morethan a hintof hubris nvolvedn theperformancef thisrelayfunction. he dissidents,tseemstosuggest, re in a privileged osition ela-tive o thediscipline. hey might ot claimtobe theheroic hampions f a counter-discipline, ut their erformanceftherelay unctiony tself eemstoassume thattheyhave thediscipline t something f a disadvantage: heyknowsomething rhave accessto a vocabulary rmethod hathas hitherto een beyond hediscipline'sreach.Atthe very east, he performance eemstoputthedissidentsna position fones who give a gift f freedomto thediscipline nd to whom,accordingly,hedisciplinemustbe indebted.

Third, the promiseoffreedom, o issued, s hollow-a promise fa freedom o

abstractlyheoreticals to seemhopelessly ut of touchwith hedifficultnd de-manding practical ituationsn whichscholarsof international elations ctuallywork.Forthispromise,ssued nthisway,does notempower cholarsn thesites ftheir abors. On the contrary,hisrelay function, ndertaken lone, exposes thearbitrarinessf a discipline's oundaries nd deprives ts scholars f a place to callhome; itembarrasses hemfortheir gnorance f or indifferenceo whattheprivi-leged dissidents lready know; tundermines ssumptionsnd commitmentshatthese cholars alue,notas truth utas cultural esources hat anbe putto work ntestingimitationsnd exploring ossibilities;nd,as iftocompensate or ll ofthis,itoffers hese cholars reedom o . . To do what?To join theprivileged anks fthedissidents? o performhis elay unctionnew?To participatenthe eemingly

pointlessexerciseof liberating disciplinary pace that has been shownto begrounded n assumptionss impoverishings they re false?

A good exampleof thisfirst hase of dissidence s sections1 and 2 ofAshley's"The PovertyfNeorealism"1984). Although ections , 4, and 5 ofthat ong pieceperformnotherfunction hatwe shall discuss n a moment, ections1 and 2 arelargely reoccupiedwith herelayfunction.Moreover,tis thesesections hat re




mostoftenremembered they re the only sections, part from he Introduction,fully eprinted nNeorealismnd tsCritics1986] edited by RobertKeohane). Whatdo these twosections o?

1. They come to a highly mbiguous and difficult o demarcate set of texts ndassertthe possibility f enclosing and knowing hem as a disciplinedactivitythatmightbe named. The texts but which texts xactly, nd whichparts ofthese texts?) re called neorealist.

2. They displaya hauteurthatsurpasses even that of Waltz'sTheory f nterna-tionalPolitics.This is not ust because theystrike a pose of one who hasthoroughlymastered the neorealist texts,understanding hem, theirwork-ings, nd their extual nheritance ven better han their uthors do. It is alsobecause thispose of mastery espeaks an impatiencewith he neorealist exts,as ifthey t once lag behind and impede theprogressof some paradigmaticwayofthinking nd speakingthatwe who read and understand The Povertyof Neorealism" alreadyshare.

3. Sustainingthismasterful nd impatient one, they concentrate n neoreal-ism'spositivist,tructuralist,tilitarian, nd statist ommitments. hey attendespecially o theway n which hese commitments,achdubiousin tself,worktogether o fend offcriticisms nd enclose neorealistdiscourse n an "orreryof errors"that excludes attention o important spects of practice,power,politics, nd history s process.

4. In doing these things, hese twosectionswould seem to leave readerswithchoice: On the one hand, one may embrace theseneorealist ommitments,nwhichcase one enters the enclosure and is deprived of the capacity o thinkand speak in answer to most of what s importantn world politics oday. Onthe otherhand, one mayrepudiate thesecommitments,n which case one isfree ofthe imitations n thought hat heneorealist nclosure wouldimpose.

In sum, these two sectionsof "The Poverty f Neorealism" ome to a highlyambiguous ituation hat eludes all dialectic nd, in a mannermoreHabermasianthanFoucaultian, hey mposeand enact a dialectic femancipation. hey issueapromise f an abstract reedom hat omestothosewhorepudiateneorealist om-mitments. ut morethan hat, hey nact mythfonewho,uponrepudiatinghesecommitments,ill merge o a higher tate fbeingwherehecanbe sure ofhimself,proudof what hedoes, and master fhis fate. But if thisbe mastery,ust what smastered? f thisbe freedom,ustwhatcan one freely o?

It is not difficulto understandwhy cholarswhoknowthemselves o be at one

with discipline o challengeddo not rushtoembrace promise f freedomssuedinthisfashion.Givenwhatwould seem tobe a profferedhoicebetween ettingnwiththeirworkas theyknow t and embracing promiseof freedom hatringshollow, he choice s easy: geton with he work.To be sure,there s always heriskthat hedisciplinaryesources ecurred o-the assumptionsnd commitmentsn-voked-can no longer go without aying.Time and effortwill now have to beexpended defending hese resources.What is worse,the defensesnow willseemembarrassinglyrbitrarynd thin, ftenreducible o mawkish onfessions fper-sonal beliefor commitment. nd in the face of thispersistent mbarrassment,scholarswillremember hedissident erformersfthisrelayfunctionna negativeway, s thieves fthenightwho havestolen hatmostprecious fthings: hepossibil-ity f nnocent aith.Yetthestruggleo test imitationsndopen up possibilitiesornewways fseeing nddoingmustgo on,a discipline'scholarsmightay.Therearerealand pressing angersthatneed to be addressed, nd in answer othese tdoesprecious ittle ood simplyo turn oose oftime-honoredommitments,mbrace heabstract romise, nd say,"We are free."

Byandlarge,dissident cholarswouldagreewith uchcomplaints.Whatever ne's




intentionsmight e, itis strategically,ractically,nd ethically rong o engage inpractices hat eave the work f thought nd the truggle orfreedom n such a bind.Boundaries nd dichotomous hoices re imposed nd reified, nd unnecessarilyo.Resourcesthatmight e put to work n the testing f limitationsre unnecessarilydiminished ather hanexpanded and again unnecessarily o. As JimGeorge andDavid Campbellnote ntheir rticle, trategemsf discourse sserting hat ne mustproceed "by recourseto either ne option or another"mighthave a "seductive p-peal,"butthey annotequip us "to deal with heenormous ssuesofpraxisthatweconfrontn global ife."

Yet dissident cholars, n reflecting pon suchconsiderations, ave persistentlyrefused o do whatmany nsist hey re obligedtodo if they re to get the disciplineout of the bind ntowhich ome think heyhave put t. Theyhave not offered newparadigm. Dissident cholarshavenotconducted heirworkn themanner f n "alternativeparadigm"thathas itsownsovereign enter,ts ownexemplaryeroes, tsownmemorialized

texts,nd

itsown

territorialround. ndeed,to read

almost any dissident text s to findnot only formal efusal r paradigmaticonceitbut also a seriesof textualmovesthatfunction odisrupt ny attemptoconduct memorializingeading nd turntext ntoa paradigmofanysort.

Whydo dissidentworks fthought efuse oprovide n "alternative"aradigm rframework? ne reason s practical.Amidst globalcrisis frepresentation,ara-digmaticonceitshave becomedownrightmpracticableor ny scholarly nterprisethatwouldexpectnotonly ospeaktosomethingalledglobalpolitics utalso to betaken eriouslynanything pproaching heglobal copetowhicht peaks.Anotherreason is theoretical. f internationalheory s to speak at all to the paradoxicalproblems fsovereigntynd resistance o sovereigntymerging verywhere oday,

then tcannotturn blindeyeto theparadoxesofspace,time, nd identity hoseirruptionsn site after itehave given proofto theinstabilityf onetime resolu-tions."And if internationalheory s not to be blind to theseparadoxes,then itcannotcomposeitselfn theformof a paradigmatic oice whoseownpretense fsovereign ertitude epends upon a supposition hat a "resolution" f ust theseparadoxes s alreadygivenbeyonddoubt.There is still notherreason,an ethicalreason. In terms f an ethicsof freedom, n "alternativearadigm" s in factnoalternativet all. As much as the tradition r discipline hat performancef therelayfunctionwould open up, anyeffectivettempt o errect "newparadigm"wouldresultnthe mpositionfunnecessaryimitationsponthework fthought.It wouldimpose imitationsven-and perhaps especially-in thoseshrinkingir-

cles where t is possibleto get awaywith the attempt. his would be a strategicmistake: hespace forpatient abors n thestruggle orfreedomwouldbe limited,notexpanded.For thisreason, t would also be ethically rong.

If dissident cholarshaverefused o offer nythingike newparadigm, owever,it houldnotbe thoughthat hey ave eft hedisciplinenthebindproducedbytherelayfunctionn the first hase of theirwork.These scholarshavecriticized heirown and one another's aborsin theverytermswe have been using. They havelearned fromthe criticismsheyhear. And theyhave long since moved on to asecondphase in which herelayfunctions no longergivenprideofplace.

This secondphase,exemplifiedn the rticles fthis ssue, nvolves orepudiationoftherelay unction. his functions still erformed,s these rticles how.Butnow

it s evident hathumility eplaceshubris.As inGeorgeandCampbell's ontributiontothis ssue,there sno hint hat heperformancef thisfunctionestows specialadvantageupon thosewhoperform t, giving hem right obe impatientwithdisciplinehitherto eglectfulf what s relayed.Nor is there nysense that n per-forminghisfunction issidentsmpose upon thediscipline dialectic femancipa-tion n which cholarsmustchoose between defenseof a disciplinarynclosure




whoseresources re negated, n theone hand,and a promise f an abstract reedomthatdoes notempower, n the other.This is so because dissident cholars,n thissecondphase, give special emphasisto anotherfunctionhat s consistent ith nethicsof freedom.Listeningpatiently o the worksof thought lreadyunderwaywithinny maginable isciplinary oundaries, hey erform function hat nablesscholars o do what they re alreadydisposed to do in the sitesof their abors: toexpand the space and resources y which imitations ight e testednthe struggleforfreedom.We call this countermemoryunction.

Performing hisfunction nvolves countermemorializing ode ofreading andanalysisof the sort contrasted arlier with the mode of memorializing eading.Dissident cholars'performances f this ountermemoryunction,owever, re notrestrictedn their ocus o thetextualnheritance hat disciplinemight laim s itsown. As undertaken y dissident cholars n the second phase, thisfunction an beperformedwith espect o (1) thedomain ofhumanconduct hat hediscipline as

traditionallyegarded as its referent eality r object of study, 2) the domain ofcontemporaryheoretical iscourse nthe discipline tself,nd/or3) the domain oftheclassic exts hatmight e said to recordand constitutehe discipline's emem-bered history. ut acrossall threedomains, he attitude fa countermemorializinganalysiss the same.Respecting hetextualityf all threedomains nd the ntertex-tuality f the several, t departs sharplyfromthat of a memorializing eading,modeofreading nd analysis hat cholars f nternationalelations ave ong prac-ticed.9

A memorializing eading, t will be recalled, dopts a religious ttitude nd isconducted n a register f desire.Responding o a crisis frepresentationhereintheproblem fsovereigntymerges,taspires o make a text, iscourse, r domain

ofpractice unction s a foundational eality apableof ustifyingnd limiting is-coursehere and now. t aspires herebyo"resolve" resent aradoxesofspaceandtime, ofix imitationsn what an be validly aid and done,and to constitute self-identical erspective hat s uniquely ble todecide what mbiguous nd uncertainevents fthepresentmustmean.Forexample, memorializingeadingmighttriveto constitute discipline'sreferenteality"s an objectively iven xternal omainthat s notonly ndependent f"our"knowing utalso capableofauthorizingndlimiting hat we"canvalidly hink nd say about"our" world.Likewise, memori-alizing reading might eek to constituteontemporaryheoretical iscourse s anactivityn whichall contributions,o be heard and valued,mustbe grounded ncertain oundationalconventions,"onsensuallyhared norms," r "commonsense

understandings."nd a memorializing eadingmight ry o constitute discipline'stextual nheritance s the "origins" f a tradition,he "sources"of thepowersof"insight"o which hoseofthetraditionwea perhapsunrequitable ebt, he exem-plars"ofthe imitationsn discourse hat we"whoare indebtedmusthonor.

Obviously,hesethreedomainsofmemorializingeadings re notreally eparate:what ounts s thediscipline's origins ftradition"r its external eality" ependsuponits conventions" f nterpretation,or xample, ust as these conventions" r"commonsense nderstandings" epend for theirfixityn theways n which anintrinsicallymbiguous "external eality" r a historical origin"might e activelyread. Just s obviously, one of these domains can reallyprovideanythingike apure, continuous, nd uniquely nterpretableoundationapableoffinallyimiting

the discourseof a discipline.Yet a memorializing eadingtriesto separatethesedomains ndmake themfunctionn ustthisway.And todo so, t mustproceed n a

9Adiscussionoftextualitynd intertextualityhat sespecially ensitive o thepolitical ssues s Said (1983). Withrespectto international elations, ee also thetheoretical iscussionsbyShapiro (1988)and Ashley 1988) as well asthe richarrayof intertextual nalyses n Der Derian and Shapiro (1988).




waythatmakes tpossibleto forget heparadoxesofspace, time, nd identity hatappear inany domain; thatwould disrupt nynotion hat domaincould providefoundational eality eyonddoubt; thatwould put boundaries etween he domainsin question; nd thatwould if taken eriously)nable the exploration f all sorts fcultural esources hat raverse heseboundaries.

In contrast o thisfamiliarmodeofmemorializingeading, countermemorializ-inganalysis roceeds n a celebratoryegister ffreedom. t examines hesedomainsas open, mutually nterpenetratingexts thatare always n the process of beingwritten,nd itseeks to enable encounterswith he unsettling lay ofparadox thatmemorializing eadings ry o forget utcan neverreally xclude. n thisway, heperformance f a countermemoryunction omplements heperformance f therelayfunction. or ifa countermemorializingeading tests imitations n discipli-narydiscoursethatmemorializing eadingswould impose-therebyexposing thearbitrarinessf these imitationsnd opening thediscipline o theperformancef

therelay unction-it alsoexposescultural esources hathavehitherto eenforgot-tenwithinhe discipline's wndiscourse. t exposescultural esources hat reintheambiguous shadowsof the "referent ealities" f worldpolitics hat a disciplinestudies, hat urk n theperipheries f a discipline's conventional"onversations,and that reburied nthefootnotes, refaces, nd incidental emarks fthe textual"origins" disciplinewouldhonor.

Once again,the contributionso this pecial ssue illustratehis econdphase ofdissidentcholarship. he latter artofthe rticle yGeorge ndCampbellmight esaid to concentrate rimarilyn theperformance f a relay function;t offersthoughtful eviewof dissident ontributionso internationalheory ver the lastdecade and considers he mplicationsfthese ontributionsor hediscourse fthe

discipline.But in the earlierpartsof the article, efore therelayfunction s per-formed,George and Campbell onduct countermemorializingnalysis fthedisci-pline'scultural nheritance. hey note that the discipline's greatdebates" overmattersmetatheoreticalave functionedargely o erect disciplinaryense of"tra-dition" hat eals tself fffrom a varietyfdissident oiceswhich . . havecalledto accountthegiven, xiomatic nd taken-for-grantedrealities' f . . . dominantdisciplinary iscourses."Performing counter-memoryunction,heyreopen theconversations losed by thesedebates. More thanthat, hey nablethediscipline oreopen tsown nterruptedonversations ith ontributorsoWestern houghtwhohave neverreally een alien to internationaltudies: ontributorso diverse s Des-cartes,Kant, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche,Weber,Wittgenstein, inch,

Kuhn, Horkheimer, dorno, Marcuse,Habermas,Derrida,and Foucault.In much the sameway,one can note theperformancef a relayfunction n thearticles yJamesDer Derian, BradleyKlein,MichaelShapiro,WilliamChaloupka,and CynthiaWeber. For example, Chaloupka draws attention o the thinking fBaudrillard and Foucault; Der Derian additionally alls attention o Virilio'sstrangely eglectedworkon thequestionofspeed and politics; nd CynthiaWeberrelays he implicationsf Nietzsche's nd Samuel Weber'sanalyses f institutions.Even as they perform hisfunction, owever, ll concentrate n the realities finternational olitics hatthediscipline raditionallytudies.Der Derian examines"forces" fsimulation,urveillance,nd speed; Klein focuses n NATO and strate-gic practices; hapiro concentratesn strategy,eopolitics,nd the formation f

security olicy; Chaloupka takesup the questionof local, personal,or "lifestyle"practices, specially s thesemight or might ot) provetobe effectivetrategiesfinterventionn thepartofantinuclearnd ecologymovements;nd Weber exam-inesquestionsof international ebtand therestructuringfdebtin Peru. In thecourse of analyzing heserealities,moreover, ll the contributorsre at pains tosituate heir nalyseswithrespectto morefamiliar ontributions.haloupka,for




instance, ocateshis analysis n relation o familiar liteforeign olicy ttitude tud-ies. Klein begins his analysis y recollecting onventional ccounts f NATO.

But what is especiallynoteworthybout these analyses s the countermemoryfunction heyperform.As is to be expected n any countermemorializingnalysis,these studiesrefusethe expectation, haracteristicf memorializing eadings, hatrealitymustpresent tself s a constellationf alreadygiven ubjects nd objects hatmight rovide utonomous rigins f meaning, hatmight e unambiguously amedandrepresentedntheory,nd thatmightuthorize nd limitwhat anbe said aboutthe worldor done in theworld. The refusal s evident, orexample, n Shapiro'sinterpretationf commodified eaponsas texts hat an be read notfor heir ntrin-sicvalue but fortheparadoxicalrepresentationalracticesnvolvednprocesses fvaluingthem; n Der Derian's mentioningf an "array fnew technological rac-tices" hat re elusive, esistantoanalysis,nd thatpoststructuralistsight grasp"but never "hold;" and in Klein's eschewal f the notion hatone might apture he

politics f NATO in a "singlemasternarrative."Yet this efusal, or hese tudies, s nota negative utanenabling ct. n each, therefusalpermits nalysts o assumea distancefrom he supposition hat hey re athome and at one with some sovereign enter of interpretationhat functions odecide how paradoxes of space, time, nd identitymustbe resolved, hustofixforone and allthe modesofsubjectivity,bjectivity,ndconduct hatmust ount s realor valid to the exclusion f otherpossibilities.t enables them oaskquestions hatecho in themarginsof modernpolitical ife: How, by wayof whatpractices, yappeal towhatcultural esources, nd in thefaceofvariousdisconcerting appen-ings, re ambiguities amed,paradoxesmarginalized,nd limitationsffected o thata sovereign ubjectivitynd itscorresponding bjective erritoryf truth nd mean-

ing can be enacted and empoweredon the historical cene? How, under whatcir-cumstancesndbyway f whatpractices,might mbiguityndparadoxbe exploited,limitationse tested, nd a semblance fsovereign eingbe undone, thereby pen-ing up possibilitiesxcluded by t?AsChaloupka puts t nhisarticle,odo this istotake s crucial hatwhichhasbeenexcludedbydominant iscourses,ofindnthoseexclusionshints r keys o the characteristicsfpower."

What s theresult fanalyses o conducted?t sdistinctlyottospeak nanswer oa religiousdesire by holdingout the promiseof a determinate esolution o theproblem fsovereigntymergingn a cultural risis; uchanalysespersistentlym-barrassall such promisesby exposingtheirdependence on the arbitrary layofpower. But neither s the resultto disable a disciplineby negating he cultural

resources t claims as itsown. Justtheopposite, t is to discloseculturalresourcesalreadywithin hediscipline's wnambit-resourcesthat nable tsparticipationnthe truggleoexpandthe paceofcriticalabor nreply otheperils ndopportuni-tiesofa world ncrisis.Complementingherelayfunction, countermemorializinganalysismakes tpossible or disciplineo see that heparadoxes, ncertainties,ndcontestingnterpretationsmergingtthemargins fmodernglobalpoliticsnd thehumansciences oday re anythingutaliento itsexperience.Theyare intimatelyfamiliar. hey are alreadypartofthespace,thetime, he dentitytcalls ts own.

We thus have an explanation f theway n whichworks fdissidence, peakingfromthemargins, re able to accentuate sense of crisis n thediscipline.Ourexplanation tartswith onditions fpossibility,asses through hequestion fmar-

ginalitynd thedisposition o celebrate hetransgressabilityfdisciplinaryound-aries,and ends withan end-less ethicsof freedomthatdisciplines he labor ofdissidence, rientingttoexposeand expandtheresources ywhich difficultorkofthoughtmaybeconductedn nternationaltudies. he effectsdisciplinaryrisis,no doubt.Yet the senseof crisisproduced bydissidentworks fthoughtsnot onethatdeservesto be cast in a negative ight. t cannotbe understood n termsof




metaphors f "collapsedfoundations,"disintegratingholes,""dissolving ara-digms," r the openingof a "void." For if t s no longerpossible ffectivelyoenactmetaphorsf "foundation,"disciplinaryhole," nd "coherent aradigm," t snowquiteclear that hesehave neverbeenmorethanmetaphorsnacted o theexclusionof otherpossibilities.ndif,with hedisabling f thesemetaphors,ne can saythatspace is now opening up in thediscipline, ne cannot aythat hat pace is a void.

To read dissidentworks ikethosecollectedhere s to understand hat heyhavehelpedtoopen up a spacenow richerncultural esources, spacewhere criticallaboroftestingimitationsan be undertaken, spacewhere t s possible o do theethically isciplinedworkof listening, uestioning, nd expandingthe culturalspacesof freedomwhereust thisethically isciplinedworkcan go on. Can thosewho iveand work nthis pacenowopeningconduct hemselves n the model ofasovereign igurewhosegrounds recertain ndwhosegazefinallyaptures hetruthof theworld?No,and this snocauseforregret. an thosewho ive nd worknthis

space rigorously nalyzepractices f power and speak in a serious,critical, ndethically isciplinedway n replyto the problemof sovereigntynd resistance osovereigntys itemerges n a worlddeprived f certain erritorialrounds? es,andthis s an eventto celebrate-an eventtoo long postponed.For what has interna-tionalpolitics verbeen if nota marginal iteof modern ulturewhose realities reparadoxical nd recalcitrantnthefaceof allattemptso enclose ndrepresenthemfrom hetotalizing tandpoint f a single overeign?Whathas internationaloliticseverbeen if not a boundless,extraterritorialone of modern political ifewherereligious esiremeets ts imit,heplayofpower scapesa controlling ordoftruth,and conduct an proceed n a register f freedom?

Whata Strategy fReading Does

One likely riticismf our discussion f crisis s thatwe have belaboredpoints hat,formost people today,wouldnot be at all surprising. fter ll, fewpeople todayhave troublewith the idea thatthe Westernmindwill accept authoritynlybyseeking o find he authority ehindorunderlyingt, nd then o find he authoritybehindthat uthority,nd so on. Mostcanappreciate he dea,glimpsedn Weber's"disenchantment,"hatmodernthought nd conduct xplodesor displaces ll no-tionsof tradition, ultural imits, eligion, nd conventional eferences-even,asRichardRorty1979) shows, very pistemologicaloundation pon which nalytic

philosophymight ely.Most have at leastan inkling f what t meansto say that"deterritorialization"r "decentering"fmodern ife s occurring,r has occurred,and that thas undercut ll notions f a certain ourceof truth nd meaning hatmightbe represented n institutions f theoryor institutionsf state. In sum,whether r notpeople are inclined o cite Nietzsche n a regularbasis,fewtodaymissthe mplicationsfhisclaim: n the modernworld,God really oes die.

Yet wehope that t willbe understood hat ur discussion o farhas not consistedof so manyvariationsn the purelynegative heme f destroyed oundations.thasnotbeen our purposeto arguethat n the modernworldthegroundsof authorityhavecollapsed, hat he careerof sovereigntyas consequentlyeen having toughtime ately, nd thatdissident cholarshavebrought his othe attentionf a disci-

pline hitherto oo much in the thrallof its impoverished ractices nd limitingtraditionalexts o notice, hereby roddingthatdiscipline ut of a metaphysicalsleep.

In fact,we have at no pointargued that foundations ave collapsedor, as wewouldprefer oput t, hat crisis frepresentations unfolding; orus,thematerialrealityfthis risis s a premisenneed ofno argumentation,ust as it s the premiseof modernpoliticaldiscourse n general, ncluding ll thosegreat texts o which




internationalheorywould profess ndebtedness. imilarly, e have at no pointargued that heconstruct fsovereigntyas becomeroblematicals a result fa lackof securefoundations; s we have pointedout,sovereigntymerges s an intrinsi-callyproblematicalonstructreciselynresponse oa crisis frepresentation,nd itemergesnot as a conceptrepresentingomefoundationlready elf-evidentutasan active eply o a nomadicdesire o fill perceived oid, ompensate or felt ackoffoundations,mark ff territorialpace, ndeffect n institutionalrder nwhichparadoxes of space, time, nd identity an be resolvedbeyonddoubt.Finally,wehave at no pointargued thatthe discipline f internationaltudieshas lacked theability o respond seriously nd criticallyo thiscrisisor its implications orthequestionofsovereignty;n ourview,what bove all is inquestion,whatneedstobethought nd argued about, s howthoseengagedin internationaltudieshave ac-tively riented nd willorient hemselveso exploit he resources fthought vail-able tothem nreply othequestion fsovereigntynd theassociatedparadoxesofspace, time, nd politicaldentity.

Notthe ability fthediscipline ut thewill fthediscipline-this s the ssue.Atissue s whethernd to what xtent hoseengaged n internationaltudieswill xer-cise theirresources nd theirfreedom o test imitationsnd open up possibilities,thereby othexploitingnd expanding hespacesfor houghtnd action nreply othecontemporaryangers nd opportunitiesfglobalpoliticalife.This isthe ssue,we believe,because there s always hechance that cholarswillnotcelebrate hespacefor ritical aborsopeningup incrisis utwill nsteadrespond n a registerfdesire.Thereisalways hechancethat cholars, peaking ndwritingnthis egister,willeffectivelyxercise new thosestrategies ywhich, ime nd again,somesem-blanceof a resolution o theparadoxicalproblem fsovereigntysimposed, space

for hedisciplinedaborofthoughts closedoff, nd anopportunityo take eriouslythedeterritorializedealities fworldpoliticss deferred.And so we return o thestrategiesf readingdissident nd marginalworksof

thoughtwithwhichwebegan.We haveexplainedhowdissidentaborshave ncitedsenseofdisciplinaryrisis, romptingritical eadings hereby.We have madeplainthe trategicituationfthesereadings:with heunfoldingfdisciplinaryrisis midcultural risis, here mergesnotonly heparadoxical uestion fsovereigntyersebutalsothespecificuestion fthe overeign erritorialityfthediscipline.Now t stime oaskwhat, trategically,he esthetic racticestworknthese ritical eadingsdo. What are theyorientedto do? How do theydo it? Can theydo it in today'scircumstances?ur answer s partly essimistic-andpartlymuch essso.

A Pessimisticeply

Any ineofreply o thesequestions,whether essimisticr optimistic, ustbeginbynotinga crucialdifference etweenthe postures dopted by critical eadings ofdissident cholarship, n theone hand,and thesituations nd postures hatthesereadingspresupposeon thepartoftheir magined udience,on the other.Regard-ing theaudience,we maynote thatcritical eadingsof dissident exts re not ad-dressed oscholarswho are already nclined oproducethe amereadings.They areaddressed nstead o an audience ofscholarswhose ituations,dentities,nddisposi-tionsare renderedradicallyuncertainby the disciplinary nd cultural risisthat

dissidentworks fthought ccentuate.The members fthis udience are no doubthighly aried n manyrespects, utgiven hecircumstancesfcrisis n which hesereadings re offered, hismuchcanbe said ofeach member: Her" situations intrinsicallymbiguous. Her" positionknowsno necessary oundaries. Her" self-understandings verymuch n questionanddeeply nvolved n an indeterminaterocess fchange. "Her" attitudesowardevents fcrisis nd dissidence re ambivalent,onforming ully either o a celebra-




tory egister f freedomnor to a religious egister f desire.These events re within"her"as much as they re external o "her."While she" might ctively nd produc-tively ngage these events, she" does not compose "herself" s a speaking,writingsubjectwho would claim to decide forthe disciplinewhatthese eventsmustmean.This is a posture hat she" has so farrefused.Hence, anypronounreferringo thisaudience member s a subjectmustbe put nquotationmarks.Hence, too,any suchpronoun might e gendered according o thatgenderwhich n patriarchal ultureindicates n unrepresentable pace of an other-an otherwho is both a boundlesssiteof ndeterminatelyroliferatingossibilitiesatoncebeauteous nd dangerous)and a spacethatdesiremightmark ff, ill,nd domesticate s a sovereign's wn. Ofcourse,such an engendering f the audience is not correct n any necessary rbiological ense. But t s a wayof marking heaudiencepresupposed ndenactedbythe postureof critical eadingof interestous here.

For what s especially oteworthybout critical eadings f dissident cholarships

how veryhard theywork o effect ostures hat annotbe engendered woman."Aswenoted earlier, heydo not"read as a woman." nstead,theydrawupon variouscultural esources o effect he attitude f one who s sovereign: speaking,writingsubjectwho is called upon to represent proudly ertain dentity-a paradigm,discipline, community,r a culture-that is threatened y exigencies fthemo-ment.They adopt a juridicial posture, asting sovereign lance towarddissidentworks fthought, egarding hem s objectsof udgment, nd decidingwhattheymustmeanfor discipline r a culture. n doing so, thesecritical eadings eparatethemselves rom heiruncertain udience, effecting breakfrom t. In doing so,also, they urnbackupon and addresstheir udience,relatingo t n an ironicway.

Forthesereadings,members f the audienceare notalien objects, utneither re

they peaking,writing ubjects ompetent o decide for themselveswhatevents fcrisis nd dissidencemightmean. Paradoxically, hese readingsregardtheir udi-ence much as Machiavelli egardedhis feminizedortuna,10n both positive nd anegativeway:

On the one hand, the audience must function for these readings as a purepositivity,n originof truth nd power beyonddoubt. Itmust onstitute he vitalmaterial substance of the discipline,the tangiblereality f thediscipline's pro-ductivepowers,theoriginaland unquestionedpresencef thediscipline hatthereadings purport to representn the course of passing udgment on dissidentworks. It is crucial to the sovereign posture of the criticalreadings that theaudience functionnthisway, hat s,as a representable resencewhencepower

and truth riginate.Having separatedfrom he audience to become but a focusof decisive udgment, thepostureof sovereign ertitude ffected ythese read-ings cannot be claimed to embody any productive powers of its own, and it

10MachiavellibeginsChapter25 ofThePrince, How Much Fortune Can Do In Human Affairs nd How It MayBe Opposed," bynoting thatmany hold theopinion that n a timeof greatchange and chance, God and fortunemightgovern the eventsof men,depriving men of free will.Althoughconceding thathe was "partly nclined tosharethis pinion," Machiavelliobviouslywanted toencouragea moreassertive osture.After ll,thenextchapteris Machiavelli'sclosing "Exhortation to Liberate Italy fromthe Barbarians."He wrote 1940:91): "Nevertheless,thatour free-willmaynot be altogether xtinguished, think tmaybe truethatfortune s the rulerof half ouractions,but that he allows the otherhalf or thereabouts o be governedby us. I wouldcompare her to an impetousriver hat,whenturbulent,nundates the plains,casts down trees nd buildings, emoves arthfrom his ide andplaces it on the other . . . [A]nd yetthough it is of such a kind, stillwhen it is quiet,men can make provisionagainst tbydykes and banks, so thatwhen it rises t willeithergo intoa canal or itsrush will notbe so wildanddangerous. So it is withfortune,whichshows her power where no measureshave been takento resisther, anddirectsherfurywhere she knows thatno dykesor barriershave been made tohold her."Then, having given mensome space for freewill,Machiavelliconcluded with fewremarks n how to use it 1940:94): "I certainly hinkthat sbetter o be impetuousthancautious, forfortune s a woman, nd it snecessary,f you wishtomasterher, toconquer her byforce; and itcan be seen that she letsherselfbe overcome by the bold ratherthan bythose whoproceed coldly.And therefore,ikea woman,she is always friend o theyoung, because they re less cautious,fiercer,nd masterher withgreateraudacity." See especiallyPitkin 1984).




cannotbe claimed to be a source of truth n itself. f it s toproject truth nd apower-if it is reallyto determine the significance f events-then thiscan beonly because the word it speaks representsa prior wellspringof truth andpower: the material substance of the discipline, he audience.

On the other hand, owingto the audience's ambivalence withrespectto thecircumstances f crisis, he audience immediately ppears before critical ead-ings as a negativity, void. The uncertaintynd doubt that runs throughtheaudience under a conditionof crisis makes it appear not as a self-evident ndwell-boundedpresence,but as an indeterminate egionof pulsing, ntrinsicallyambiguous activity hat threatens o overflow veryconceivableboundary andundo every ttempt ofixwhat t means. The audience appears, inotherwords,as a reality hatcannotberepresented.or thisreason,the audience threatens odeprive critical eadingsof the self-evidentriginof truth nd power theyneedto represent.

For critical eadings, he paradox is unsettling: he unrepresentable eality f theaudience does notconformo the positive deal ofa representable omicile f disci-plinary eing fromwhich ruth nd power self-evidentlymanate, nd as this s so,the proudly ertainpostureof sovereignudgment whichpresupposes he deal isthreatened. o "resolve" hisparadoxin a waythat ffirmsheir overeign reten-sions, ritical eadingsmustrelate to theirunrepresentableudience,not ust as anegativity,ot ust as a void, but as a void thatmustbe filled, void that ummonsforth desire. hey must relateto theirunrepresentable udience as a void thatsummons the speaking,writing ubjectof the critical eadingto move into theboundless pace, mposeboundaries, omesticate he udience'smembers,ndmakethe audience function s a pureand indubitable resence hat an be represented y

a sovereign ubject. urely,fwe need a pronountomark hesovereign oice simu-lated bythisposture freading, henwe must rase anyquotationmarks hatwouldindicatedoubt, ust as thesecritical eadings abor to erase any hint f self-doubt.fwe need to engenderthisvoice,then we might gain follow he conventions fpatriarchalulture nd call itHis voice.

Can this male-marked oiceprevail?Can critical eadingsofdissidentworks fthought omesticate he audiencethey ddress?Can they uccessfullympose upontheir udience some sensethat toccupies definite erritoriallace-a discipline,culture-that is now imperiledby "alien," "dangerous," nd essentially negative"events fdissidence mergingn tsmidst? an these eadings licitntheir udiencea readiness o affirm nd echo thesovereign oiceof udgmenttheyworkto pro-

ject-a voice thatwouldstigmatizend excludeevery mpulse otake eriouslyhesedissidentworks nd to celebratethe culturalresources f thought nd spaces offreedom hey abor to open up? Can critical eadingsdo all of thisdespitethe factthat hecrisis hat ccasions hemdeprives hem ftheabilityorecur osome self-evident erritorialdentity,omefoundation,ome sourceof truth nd powerbe-yonddoubt?Can theydo all of this venthough ll theyhaveattheir isposal s aninsubstantial,owerless,nd itinerate esire o mposemale-markedovereign res-ence?

There is cause for n affirmativenswer, nd it s here thatpessimism reeps n.The cause forpessimismsto be found na strategyf critical eading hatworks oimposeuponan audience the tructuredituationfthedouble ind iscussed arlier.

In producingthe double bind,we recall,critical eadingsof worksof dissidenceimposeuponeach member ftheir udiencea definiteole.They mpose heroleofone who understands hat"she" has the freedom o make a choice,thathere andnow "she"musthoose,and thateven a failure o choose counts s a choice n thehazardous circumstances f the moment.Putting ach audience member n thestructured ituation f the double bind, they lso deprive"her"of everycertainground rstandard f choice.They therebyeave "her" tonceresponsible or her"




choice, xposedto udgmentregarding he choice "she" makes, nd quite uncertainas to how"she"andothersmightvaluate nd udge theway nwhich she" exercises"her" freedom o choose.

One immediate esults toproducefor ach audiencemember heroleofonewhoexperiences ear.Each membermust choose,but "she" can neverbe certain hat"her" hoice s correct. She" is therefore lways njeopardyofbeingfoundguilty ferror, finding hatwould imply hat n the exerciseof "her" freedom she" hasslipped over to the side of the dissidentswho are the objectsof udgment n thecritical eadingbefore her."There is,after ll, a He who udges, a He who s certainof His being. There is a He whose certainpresence s simulatedby the uridicalpostureofthe critical eading"she" reads.

A secondresults that ach member f the audience,uponexperiencing his ole,willbe giventoconduct herself" n a register fdesire. She"willbe given o knowthat she" can begin to alleviate her" anxieties nly f "she" s endlessly nd every-

wherepreoccupiedwith hequestion f what ountss truth,s effectivetandards,sworkableoundations f udgment.This is not to say that "she" willtakeup thequestionof truthper se or embarkon a searchforabsolute foundations. uch acourse s cutoffby the double bind. It is to saythatthe anxiousoccupantof thistextually roduced role will be especially ensitive o the artfulways n whichthecritical eadingat hand and other imilar exts ssemble, isperse, nd deploydis-paratecultural esources oproducethe verisimilarffectf a sovereign oicecapa-ble of authoritativelyeciding what s properly f the discipline r tradition ndwhat s external nd opposed to t-His voice. t istosaythat she"willbe givennotto analyze these arbitrary ulturalpractices ut to conform her" own conduct tothem. She" willbe disposedtomakeof"her" ife work f art nwhich her"own

voiceand thesovereign oiceofinterpretationnd udgment-the voice simulatedbythecritical eadingat hand-are one and the same.There is yet third esult.The member f theaudiencewho readsthe textof a

critical eading, xperiences heanxieties fthe doublebind,and resolves hem nthisway an no longerpermit herself" obe marked she." Making her" ife workof art conducted n a register fdesire, she"mustnowcomposea voicethatcannever be heard to quaver in the self-doubts hatresonate n "her" own uncertainsituationnd amongthedissidents s well. She" must ompose semblance fa selfthat sno longerperturbed y-that can indeed forget-theambiguities,ncertain-ties, nd contesting nterpretationshat traverse her" precarious ituation. She"must onduct herself" n theexemplarymanner fthesovereignwho udges, the

onewhoseemstohavesuccessfullyrasedall marks fdoubt othatHe can claim orepresent omeparadigmatic lace that He defends nd on whose behalf He canjudge. And in orderto beHim,"she"mustendlessly o whatmustbe done ifthismale-marked emblance fsovereign ertaintystobe sustained. She"mustndlesslyregeneratehis trategy f reading,making t "her"way of doingand being n reply o theambiguousnd uncertain ircumstancesshe" ncounters.n "her" own workand in thatofothermembers ftheaudience,"she" mustgreet achdisturbingnstance fpara-dox not as it is,not as an event thatopens up a possibilityor a labor ofthoughtworking n limitations,ut as one moretroubling ircumstanceo be graspedinterms f thedoublebind. "She" must hereby enew hemoment ffear nd desirethatcan be answeredonly by findingwithin heambiguitiesf thepresent hose

resources hatpermit her"oncemoreto stifle oubts nd makeof"her"placeand"her" selfone more simulation fthepure, ndubitableovereignHim.

The singular nstance f a critical eadingtherefore oes notopen up and thencometo a close,finishednd complete.Rather,t nstantiates mobile nd iterablestrategyf nterpretationhatworksnany nstance ogenerate ndfurtherirculatethe trategic ispositionnstantiated.hat is tosay, texemplifiesnd puts o work




strategic isposition hat an in principle e endlessly epeated,with ach iterationproducingdispositions o conduct till urtherterations nd with he several tera-tions haining ogethern a kindof discursive olitical conomywhoseprincipal oinis fearand whose principal roduct s desire.Such a discursive olitical conomy sproductive, o doubt. f it works, t producesmale-markedcholar-subjects,ach ofwhom s disposedto reiterate he trategies f His production, oconduct nd repre-sentHimself s a sovereign eing, oproduceandvalorize imulationsfreality hatfunctionodisplace mbiguitynd paradox and giveproof othetruthnd powerofthe overeign nower imulated,nd tocontributen theprocess o thecirculation fan abstract esire crosswhatever errain hese cholar-subjectsappentomove.Butifsuch a discursive olitical conomy s productive n this ense, t also produces ascarcityf theparadoxicaltimes, paces,and cultural esources orthecriticalaborof thoughtn replyto the veryreal hazards and possibilitiesf a discipline nd aculture n crisis.

Surely, hen, here s causeforpessimism.he scholars f a discipline overned yiterations fthis trategymight laimtobe seriously ngaged nthegreat ocialandpolitical truggles earing nquestions f freedom, ignity,ustice,welfare, cology,and peace. But in facttheywould be obsessedwith heperformancef an art ofscholarly elf-makinghat s conducted n a register fdesire,that s radically e-tachedfrom he material eality fa far-reachingrisis frepresentation,nd thatneither istens or speaks to the real problems fpeople whomust aborwith cantresources oquestion imitationsnd generatepossibilitiesntheparadoxical ocali-tiesof life.Here wouldbe a discipline: disciplinewhosescholars re preoccupiedwithan aesthetics f sovereign elf-makingn an intellectual lane and who, sopreoccupied, roduceand circulate umerous aradigms,models, nd otherhyper-

realsimulations" hatfunction rimarilyosubstituteortheparadoxical, mbigu-ous,and uncertain ealities hat hreatenodisconcertheir emblances fsovereigncertitude. ere would be the material ealityf crisis hatpeopleconfront: realityofdifficultaborstomake ife go on in uncertainocalitieswhereno semblance fsovereign eingcan be practicallynacted ndmany laimantsothe tatus fsover-eign being compete oimpose imitationsn whatone can say, hink,write,nd do.Herewouldbe theway nwhich cholars fthedisciplinewouldudge thematerialreality f people's labors:as failures o liveup to the aesthetic deal of sovereignbeing xemplifiednscholars' wnarts fself-making.ndherewouldbetheway nwhich eople caughtup inthe realities f crisiswouldreturn hefavor: addenedbythe withdrawal f intellectntoself-enclosingnd self-referentialircuits f fears,

desires, nd simulationsfpure sovereign eing, heywouldalso be gratefulhat ofewpeople outside these circuits an takeseriouslywhatscholars f internationalrelations ave to say.

An Optimistic eply

If there s somecause forpessimism, hough, here s also considerable easonforoptimism. here is reasontothink hat hestrategyfthe double bindexemplifiedbycritical eadings fdissidentcholarship implywillnotwork ny onger. ndeed,this trategys alreadyconspicuously ailing o generate nythingikea discursivepolitical conomyof fearsand desires that s capable of enclosingthe workof

thoughtn internationaltudies. n increasing umbers, cholars imply hrugoffthis trategy,s if theattempt t intimidationmplicitn thepretense f sovereignjudgmentwere ust so much officious oundand fury ssuing rom distant apitol

I On thenotionofhyperreal imulation n nternational elations, ee Der Derian's contribution othis ssueandLuke (1988). The notion s introduced n Baudrillard (1983).




farremovedfrom he mmediate ites f their abors.Hints s towhy his s so are tobe found by ooking t the critical eadings hemselves. ook, in particular,t theculturalresourcesthey try o deploy,themetaphors heyput intoplay, n theireffortso effect he postureof a sovereignvoicecapable of passinga judgment,eliciting fear fjudgment, ndproducing hereby desire o be at home and at onewith ome semblance f a sovereign oice that s itself mpowered o udge.

Evenata glance,what sremarkableshowvery hin hese esources re. Consideragain someof themetaphors eployed:

Firmevaluative tandardsversusrelativism.Ethical onductversus he abolition fethical odes.Commitmento a position r perspective ersus lack or concealment f a position

or perspective.Political ngagement ersus disintegrationf politicalwill.Reason versus rrationality.

Lucidity f languageand argument ersus mbiguous, mpenetrable peech.Modernity'sccomplishments ersus a recklessrepudiationof these accomplish-ments.

Disciplinary uthorityersusmarginal hallengers fdubious egitimacy.Serious scholarly abor versus ntellectual layfulness.Maturity nd wisdomversus he ntellectualravado ofyouth.

These metaphorsre thin n at leastthree enses.Theyarethin, irst fall, nthesenseof thin air. They call attention o themselves s words thatrefernotto thefamiliarfhighly mbiguousrealities ngaged byscholarsntheir oncretentellec-tual efforts, utto a circuit f abstractionsemovedfrom nd transcending hese

varied sites.They therebyupposethat peaker nd heareralreadyhaveor shouldhave effected break from situation f intimate nd immediate ngagement nspecific cholarlyabors nd that hey lready spireor shouldaspiretogather hemallwithin he panofsomesingular ptic.These metaphors re thin, econdly,nthesenseof depletedresources. ignifyingnlya will to convene discourseon an ab-stract lane thatwouldreflect pon a discipline r culture, hesemetaphors o notexemplifyways n whichscholars,workingn their pecific ettings nd on theirspecific roblems,might xploreparadoxes, estimitations,xpose ronies, eneratethe possibilityfnewmeanings, nd expandtheresources fthought. heydo notempower.Andfinally,hesemetaphorsrethin nthe senseoffailingo concealthestrategicituation. ight here n the surface hey nnouncethedesperate trategic

gambit eing undertaken. hey signal o theaudience that hecritical eadingthatmobilizes hesemetaphors s nothing ess,but also nothingmore,than a labor ofdesirethatwouldimposeupon an audience the structurefthe doublebind.

To theanonymousmembers f their udience,critical eadingsdeploying hesemetaphorsan be heardtosaynomorethan his:You have a dichotomous hoicetomake between overeigntynd itsabsence.On theone hand, you maychoose toratifyhe ideal of sovereignty,hat mostpaternally roperof paternally ropernames.Shouldyouchoosesovereignty,tshallbe possible oestablishuthorityn adiscipline r culture, o be on the side of reason,to have ethicaland evaluativestandards,o take stand nd concert politicalwill, o exercisematureudgment, oengage in serious,productiveworkthatbothpreserves nd advancesmodernity's

accomplishments,nd tospeakand understand ne another learly, alling hings ytheir nambiguous ropernames.All of this spossible ecausesovereigntyignifiesthecertaintyf all thesethings.t guarantees hatwithin omespaceand some timethe propermeanings ftruth, uthority,eason, tandards, oliticalwill,modernity,andsoon-indeed, all wordsofany mportance-willbefixed o theexclusion fallambiguity, oubt, and contesting nterpretations.n the otherhand, you may




choose the absence of sovereignty,nwhich ase . . . well, t s perhapsbest oquotefrom he "original":

In such condition, there is no place for Industry;because the fruit hereof s

uncertain; and consequentlyno Culture of the Earth; no Navigation,nor use ofthecommodities hat may be imported. . .; no commodious Building; no In-struments f moving, and removing, uch things as require much force; noKnowledge ofthe face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters;noSociety;and which s worstof all, continual feare.

And your ife s a knowing, peaking ubject f a discipline r a culture-it willbe"solitary, oore, nasty, rutish,nd short"Hobbes, 1968:186).

Unmistakably, threat s being ssued,butdoes it ntimidate?s it,morespecifi-cally, threat hatwill ouch a member fthe audience nthe sites f paradoxandambiguity here "she" undertakes her"research nd theoreticalabors?Can it inanyway affectwhat "she" actively oes, the way "she" thinksn responseto thequestions fpolitical gency,dignity, carcity, eace,democracy, ersonal nd cul-turalautonomy, nd so on, emerging n the specificocalities f "her"research?Slightly, es,butonly lightlyndonly ncertain ccasions.And it s easyto seewhy:The threat acks substance.The resources eployed ncritical eadings fdissidentscholarship re, again, as thin s can be.

Notexemplifying ays nwhich cholarsmight est imitations,xpandresources,and takeseriouslyhe eventsunfoldingnthe ocalities f theirwork, hesovereignvoices of judgment simulated n these criticalreadingscannot be regardedbyscholars s representationsftheproductive owers hat hey njoy nd value,andupon which heir bilities othink nd questiondepend. Forthat eason, hesover-

eignvoice simulated ycritical eadings annotbe offeredndreceived s a focus fa discipline's owers. t cannotbe offerednd received s a center fudgmentthatmightmobilize nd concentrate heresources f a discipline, ringinghesepowerstobearupon activitieshatmight e saidtotransgress ecessarynstitutionalimita-tions nd endanger heproductiveife f a discipline.tcannot ven be offeredndreceived s a voice really apable, in itself, f decidingwhatcountsas a necessaryinstitutionalimitation o be defendedor as an instance f transgressionobe ex-cluded. Rather, he simulation f a sovereign oiceappearsbefore tsaudience asthatmost bstractlyimitingf ahistoricalbstractions: n idealof sovereign, erri-torial eing.And this deal, n tself,spracticallyevoidofdeterminateontent. t isindifferentothe specific istorical orms overeignty ight akeand tothespecific

boundaries hatmight e imposed o longas somesovereignenteranycenter) ndsomeexclusionary oundaries anyboundaries) re imposed.The ideal is indeedforgivingf almostanykind of conduct that willpause now and then to gesturefavorablyo it, llowing s how an attempts beingmade to honor t.

What hecritical eadingsproject, hen, snothingmorethan desiretobring hisidealtohistoricalife nd make twork.They project desire hat waits hepracticesthatwould giveit substance nd meaningand make it effectiven the historicalscene of a discipline r culture n crisis.They project desirethat acks effectiveforce-thatawaitsempowerment. nd as ifto compensateforthis ack of power,thesereadings ry oproject proudly ertain oice thatwillnotonlyelicitn theiraudiencea fearof udgmentbutalso, nso doing, nseminatemongthe audience's

members reciprocal esireto mirror nd enactthesovereign oiceof udgment nall the uncertain ocalities f their abors.Yet thisdesperate ttempt o imposethedouble bindfails o touch ach member fthe audience where she"actively orks.Forthevoicethatwouldudge, it splaintosee, sbut parody f ts wn deal. It isavoiceofwould-be overeignpowerthatquakes in theknowledge hat t lacksthepower tdesires oprojectnto heparadoxical ites fresearch ndeavor.Thereit s,




this emblance fa cocksure oice of sovereignudgment ll full f tselfnd issuingthe empty hreat, here it s, thevoicethat remblesnself-doubt,railingff ntobarely udible plea, "Oh please, desire me."

This is an optimisticeply. t indicateswhy cholars re abletorespond oattemptsto imposethedoublebindupon their esearch ndeavorsnotby making baselesschoicefor overeigntyragainst utbyrespectingherealandparadoxicalproblemsof sovereignty nd resistance o sovereigntynfoldingn the specific egions ofhuman conduct they tudy.They can refusethedichotomy nd, with t, the pre-sumednecessityf choice. They can refuse o makea choice that s never alreadymade in the indeterminate egionsof paradox that they analyze, and with thisrefusal, hey an geton with hedisciplinedwork fthought. hey can take eriouslytheways nwhich n itinerate esire o mpose sovereign resence licits struggleforfreedom hat t can neverfinallyubdue.

This optimistic eply s in need of qualification,o be sure. There are, after ll,

thosehighly itualized ccasionsof scholarly iscourse hat pecificallyvoke someimaginary state of the discipline," alling upon all partiesto speak and conductthemselves s the discipline's itizens.Qualifying xaminations,he submission fjournal articlesfor anonymous review,the spectacular ummitryf "greatde-bates"-these are theofficialccasionsof nternationaltudies.These are occasionswhere he thinmetaphorswe have beendiscussingreaccorded distinctiveeight,each regarded as but one moregestureto the religious deal of a well-boundeddiscipline nchored n a sovereignpresencewhenceauthority, eason, standards,and so on originate s one. These are occasionswhereone is expected oprovethemerits f one's every ontributiony howing ow tpromises oredeem hisdeal,tobring t to life, nd togive tdeterminateontent nd power, fonly n the form f

one or another hyperreal imulation f pure sovereign eing. These, in sum,areoccasionswhereone iscompelled ospeak,where peakingnthecelebratory egis-teroffreedoms bannedand speakingna registerfdesire srequired, ndwhere,accordingly,hecondition fentrys submissionothe tructure f thedoublebind.

Obviously,were scholars o privilege uch official ccasionsas the lociclassici fdiscourse in international tudies-were theyto regard such occasions as theuniquelyauthoritativemoments o which all questionsof truth nd meaning ninternationaltudiesmustbe referred-therewouldbe several orry onsequences.Submittinglways o the structuref thedoublebind, hecriticalaborofthoughtninternational tudieswould be fragmented,hort-circuited,nd professionallye-meaned.Retreatingnto tsownhyperrealimulationsfpure knowing nd being,

thediscipline's iscourse ould notseriouslynd criticallyngagetherealities f anunfolding risisof space, time, nd political dentity. his engagementwould beindefinitelyelayed.

Butweneedtoask f cholars eally o privilegehese fficialccasions s exciting,exemplarymoments fscholarly roductivityhat nchor their dentities,motivatetheirwork, nd establish heirhorizons f thought. o they elatetoofficial cca-sionsas theradiant,universalnorm ofscholarship, owhere o be questioned ndeverywhereo be honoredand enacted n thelaborsof internationaltudies?Wesuspectthatfor an increasingnumber of scholarsof international elations heanswerwouldbean emphatic o. Wesuspect,nfact, hat ormost cholars oday heproblemsno longer ne ofhowto maketheirwork iveup to the deals heraldedon

these fficial ccasions.Just hereverse, heproblemhasbecomeoneof how tokeepthese occasions-with theirthinresources, heirrecitationsf the strategyf thedoublebind, nd theirhyperreal imulationsfparadox-free orlds-fromdisrupt-ingand limitingcholars' ttempts o listen, peak,and be heardas they ngageintheir isciplined ffortsoexploitparadoxical pacesof freedom nd pushforwardthe critical aborofthought.




As evidence,we would point o threehappenings n the conversationsf nterna-tional tudiesover the past severalyears:

1. Alternative hannels of "unofficial ommunication"-edited volumes, xero-circuits,faxed communications, omputer mail networks, nd so on-areproliferating, nd the volume of communications hroughthese channels israpidly increasing. Scholars now eagerly partake of these "unofficial om-munications,"devotingan increasing proportionof their energies to them.They do so even thoughsuch participation an function rimarily o enableand disseminate the critical abors of thought,not to ratify rofessional c-complishment n the official ublic eye of the discipline.

2. Scholars increasingly cknowledgethatthey pproach thequestion of pub-lishingtheir work n official hannels not as a problem of translating heirwork nto thepublic language of thediscipline,but as a problemof parody-ing, ronizing, nd evensubverting heself-enclosing ircuit fplatitudes hatpasses for the official ode, thustoexpose paradoxes and open up spaces for

thought.3. Withgreaterand greater frequency, cholarsof international tudiestry ocreate and exploitnetworks f communication hatreachbeyond the tradi-tional imits fdisciplinary ffinity,hich t one timemighthave emphasizeddisciplines nd ournals ofpolitical cience, conomics, ociology, sychology,mathematics, tatistics,nd so on. Today scholars of international tudies aseagerlyconverse with nd throughthedisciplines nd ournals of literature,literary heory, ocial theory, inguistics, esthetics, hilosophy, nd more.

Putpositively,hesehappenings ndicate heopeningup of nternationaltudies ntoa boundlessspace of freedomwheredisciplinedabors of thought an proceedinreply othe hazardsand opportunitiesfa world ncrisis.n internationaltudies,

ironically, arginalitysfast ecoming he norm." ut negatively,hesehappeningsindicate hefailure fthe trategyf thedouble bindto command he ceneand, as aresult, he withdrawal fdisciplinaryovereigntyrom he far-flungegionswheretheproductivework f nternationaltudies eally oeson.No longer antheofficialoccasionbe understood oconstitute sovereignstate fthediscipline"hatpower-fully ontrols nd limitsdiscourse, hereby iving cholarsgood reasonto worryabouthowto advancewithin, eize,or topplethe"state."

This is not to deny that there are some scholarsof internationaltudies whocontinue o privilege fficial ccasionsas theproperaffairs f a stateof thedisci-pline-call them theprofession's niformednd uni-formingfficials.t is not todenythat heseofficialsdministerowers fexclusion yvirtue f structuralffini-

tiesbetweentheirown highlyformalized unctionsn the discipline, n the onehand,and the functionsfofficialsnother ulturalnstitutions,uch as universitiesand governments,n the other.And it s not todenythat here re many cholarswho canbecompelled osubmit othe tructuref thedoublebind mposedon suchoccasionsunder thethreat fprofessionalxclusion-call themmarginal.Wesimplymustnotdiminish he extrememportance f theseofficial ccasionsforthe livesand careers fstudents,unior faculty,cholars fcolor,feminists,nd other iscipli-narymarginalswho can be coerced nto submission nder the threat f some de-privalof status, enancy, r right o speak,be heard,and earna living mongtheranksof theprofession. rofessional icensesmustbe stamped.Citizenship apersmust be certified.Officialswho stamp and certifymustbe satisfied. Power,"

"threat," coerce," "compel," "impose," deprive," exclude,"and the imperative,"must," ive imes ecitedna singleparagraph-thesewords hout violence hat sopenlydisplayed nd very eal to thosewho are made toendure such occasions.

Yetto notetheresort oconspicuousdisplays fviolence n suchoccasions s notto stand n awe of a sovereign tateof thediscipline.On thecontrary, hen thedefenseofdisciplinaryovereigntys reducedto this, hegameis prettymuchup.




Forthereadiness o resort o threats nd coercion mbarrassesndundoes allclaimsof sovereign ertitude ymaking ll too visible he paradox of sovereignty. hesovereign tateof the discipline, fficialsmightpretend,projects truthwithoutdissent nd beyond doubt. But in acknowledgingheneed to resort o violence nordertoquietdissent nddispeldoubt, heofficialsely hepretense. he "truth" fthesovereign tate fthediscipline, hey oncede, snotreally rior oand capableof ustifying hedisplayofpoweron official ccasions.The real prioritys power.Andof coursethe mportancefthis oncessionsnot ostonthose cholarswho arecompelledto endure such official ccasions. n theireyes,the state officialsheyconfront, avingconceded theirdependenceon violence, an nowonlybespeakadesiregrownfrail.The officialsan but voicea desirethathas exhaustedthere-sourcesbywhich to constitutenything esembling livableterritoryf truth nwhichscholars ould be at home and at one and in defenseof which cholars ngeneralmightwanttoaligntheirpowers.And as this s so,the officials hoproject

thisdesirewill oonbe deprived ven of thepoweruponwhich heynowso visiblyrely.We return nce more,then,to an optimisticineofreply.For mostscholars f

internationaltudies oday, he overeignstate fthediscipline"ssomething hoseimagined enter sremote, ther-worldly,nsular, nd powerless-nothing uta siteofdensityn the circuits fdesire-and which ntrudes pon theproductiveifeofscholarship nly n themanner fsomany lag-drapedheck-pointshinlycatteredacross boundlessdisciplinaryandscape.Upon reaching nysuchcheck-point,nenods to theflag, cknowledges he uniformed fficial's ternudgmentalgaze, ex-changesa fewpleasantries,nd waitsfor thegateto open. If,beforeopeningthegate, heofficialnquires s to one's dentity,oint forigin, rdestination,netakes

note of thedoublebind, exploits heambiguitiesf thesituation,nd gives tokenanswer hatwill licit n approving mile.Butuponheadingoff cross n unmappa-ble,ambiguous errain,ne does notfeelboundbytheanswer negives.The imageoftheuniformed igure,o stifflyroudofhissupposedpower, uickly ecedes ntoa tiny peckover one's shoulder.And one knows hatwhereone willreallygo andwhat newillreally o arebeyond he control fthesovereigntate fthedisciplinerepresented ythe onelyoutpostof officialdomeftbehind.This,one knows, anonlybe determinedhrough atient, isciplined,nd neverfinishednvolvementsnthetesting flimitationso expand thespaces and resources fthoughtnreply otheparadoxicalhappenings fthe world.

Conclusion

Just onsider smatteringfthehappenings f nterest ostudents f nternationalrelations oday and touchedupon in the contributionso this ssue: surveillancesatellites; nternationalizedroduction; omputer-integratedapital markets; tarWars; migratingworkers; tatesas loci of simulated ontingencies;ransnationalhumanrights nd ecology movements; rivatized ublic wars; publicizedprivateenterprise;ilentmajorities;wilightonesof"public ecreteprivateknowledge" nterrorist egimes;drug wars; accelerating ommunications,cceleratingweaponsdelivery, nd diminishingesponse time;penetratingmedia; video and cinematic

representations; ocudrama; spin-doctors; anti-capitalist"nd "anti-democratic"forceswhofindnspirationnHayek,vonMises, nd theFederalistaperswhile pro-capitalist,"pro-democratic"orcesworry bout howto outlawthe desecration fflags; nd NSC documents hat locate" hechief hreat oAmerican nterests ot nsome definite erritoryut in the nameless terrors f a transient uncertainty"againstwhichflag-bearing orcesmust lwaysbe readyrapidly odeploy.




To say the least, happenings ike these threaten o disconcert ny attempt odescend from he heights fabstractmetaphor, ngage thematerial ircumstancesof human abor, nd all thewhile ustain conceit f sovereign ertitude n the partof a discipline.On the one hand, any attempt o invoke omefigure f a speaking,writing overeign ubjectmust stake ts claim to truth nd power on its ability orepresent he objective eality f a homogeneous erritoryf vital nd productivehuman abors. On the other hand, when happenings ikethese re the realities fglobal political ife,the boundariesthatwould markoffand fixthe exclusionaryterritorieso be represented y any sovereign ubjectare never simply nd self-evidently iven.Whether ne speaksof the"objective eality" fa domestic ocietythat "sovereign tate"might epresent r the "objective eality" fa humannaturethat "sovereignman" might epresent, heboundaries hatwoulddifferentiatendfix hese supposedly bjective ealities re alreadyvisiblyransgressedn the aborsofwomenand men today. These boundariesare alreadyvisiblyn theprocessof

being mposednd

resistedll at

once. Asaresult, hepretense

frepresentation,ocrucialto the empowerment f any sovereignvoice, simply annot be sustained.

Every maginedterritoryhat sovereign ubjectmight e claimedto represent salready n open regionofparadox, uncertainty,nd contestingnterpretationshatrenders adically nstable heattemptoenclose ndrepresenttfrom nywould-besovereign erspective.And every emblance fsovereign ubjectivitys exposed asbut a projection fdesire,groundless nd powerlessn itself.

Thisexplainswhatwe would callthe rarefactionf thestrategyfthedouble bindin internationaltudies-the resort o cultural esources hat re so thin, o insub-stantial,o lackingnproductive otentials. midan unfoldingrisis frepresenta-tionwhere vents ikethose ust mentioned ominate hescene, hese hin esources

maybe all thatdesirehas left. mportantly,t snotustintheacademicdiscipline finternationaltudies hat his s so.The retreat f discoursesof sovereigntyo a plane of abstractmetaphors hat

speakbut ittleo the mbiguitiesnd hazardsofpeople's abors.The emergencendproliferationfmarginalmovementshat o nottry oseizea state r advancewithinitbut nstead egard verymale-markedemblance fsovereign eing s a paradoxi-cal problem hat annotbe their wn.The transgressionfinstitutionalimitationsand thetransformationsf onetimedomains of sovereign eing ntodeterritorial-ized, decentered paces wherecriticalaborsofthought an go on, new modesofethical onduct an be explored, imitationsanbe tested, nd the resources fthestruggle orfreedom an be enriched.And, nreaction otheseunsettling evelop-

ments, heproliferationfdesperate ttemptsomobilize, oncentrate,nd conspic-uouslydisperseand displaymeansofviolence, o compel people to submit o thestructure fthe doublebind,and to instill fearofsovereignudgment-all in thenameofa desirethat acks placeto call home. These are themes hathaveemergedin our analysis fthe rarefaction nd failure f thestrategyfthe doublebind incritical eadingsof dissident cholarshipn internationaltudies.They are themesthattakeon colorations f perilas well as opportunity,ven as they re withoutnecessary rigin,direction, r end. Yet it is abundantly lear thatthese themescannotbe confinedwithin n academicdiscipline oday,ust as thecrisis f nterna-tional tudies annotbe separatedfrom crisis fpatriarchy,crisis fgovernability,a generalized risis frepresentationn modern ulture. hese themes, aradoxical

in themselves, epicttheparadoxicalrealities fglobal ifetoday.That iswhywe havethoughtt mportantorespondpainstakinglyndcriticallyo

critical eadings fdissidentcholarshipnd the trategyfthedouble bindthey rytodeploy. fthis trategyasanyeffecttall, tcannotbe to fix position, xemplifymature nd serious cholarship,onstituteperspective,onsecrateuthority,larifymeanings, upply tandards, roduce ethics, oncert nd mobilizehumanwill, n-




gageand solve ocialproblems,nd guarantee ndadvancemodernity'sccomplish-ments. he strategyan do none of these hings-notone.Atmost,t can do what thas always one: impede,disrupt, nd delayeffortsotake eriouslyheparadoxicalproblems fsovereigntynd resistance o sovereigntys they re encountered nallthe wideningmargins f a culture n crisis.

What, hen, s theappropriate eply oattemptso mposethis trategy?artof areply, s here, s to note the structurefthe double bind,observe ts poverty,ndconsider heexhaustion fthe cultural esources pon which t can rely.A secondandmore mportant art, xemplified ythe contributionsothis ssue, s simplyodeclinethestrategy's etty eductions, efuse nlistmentnself-absorbedircuits fdesire, nd get on with he difficultnd disciplined aborsofthoughtn thestruggleforfreedom.And whatof those who would insistentlyepeatthestrategyf thedoublebind?As individuals, hey reharmless nough. Theycansafely e left ositalone wonderingwhereto plant sovereignty'slag.

References

ALKER, H. R.,JR. (1989) The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides' Melian Dialogue. American oliticalScienceReview82(3):805-20.

ASHLEY, R. K. (1984) The Poverty f Neorealism. nternationalrganization8(2):225-86.ASHLEY, R. K. (1987) The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of

InternationalPolitics.Alternatives2:403-34.ASHLEY, R. K. (1988a) Livingon Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralismnd War. In International!

Intertextualelations: oundaries fKnowledgend PracticenWorld olitics, ditedbyJ. er Derianand M. Shapiro. Lexington, MA: LexingtonBooks.

ASHLEY, R. K. (1988b) Geopolitics, Supplementarity, riticism:A Reply to ProfessorsRoy andWalker. Alternatives3:88-112.

BAUDRILLARD, J. 1983) Simulations. ew York: Semiotext(e).BIERSTEKER, T. J. 1989) CriticalReflections n Post-Positivismn InternationalRelations. nterna-

tional tudiesQuarterly3(2):263-67.CHALOUPKA, W. AND R. M. CAWLEY (1988) Metanature and the Wildernessof Power. Draftmanu-

script presented at the Discourses of Power Conference,Arizona State University,October20-22.

CONNOLLY, W. E. (1987) Politics ndAmbiguity. adison: University fWisconsinPress.Cox, R. W. (1986) Social Forces,States and World Orders: Beyond InternationalRelationsTheory.

In Neorealismnd ItsCritics,dited byR. Keohane. New York: Columbia University ress.CULLER, J. (1982) OnDeconstruction:heorynd Criticismfter tructuralism.thaca: CornellUniversity

Press.DE MAN, P. (1979) AllegoriesfReading:FiguralLanguage nRousseau,Nietzsche,ilke, ndProust.New

Haven: Yale University ress.DER DERIAN, J. (1987) On Diplomacy: GenealogyfWesternstrangement.xford: Basil Blackwell.DER DERIAN, J. AND M. SHAPIRO, EDS. (1988) InternationallIntertextualelations: oundaries fKnowl-

edge nd Practice n World olitics. exington,MA: LexingtonBooks.DERRIDA, J. (1974) Le Parergon.Diagraphe2:212-34.DERRIDA,J. (1978) WritingndDifference,ranslated yA. Bass. Chicago: UniversityfChicagoPress.DERRIDA, J. (1981) Economimesis. Diacritics 1(2):3-25.DEWS, P. (1987) Logics ofDisintegration:ost-structuralisthought nd theClaimsofCriticalTheory.

London: Verso.DURKHEIM, E. (1964) TheRulesof ociological ethod,ditedbyG. E. G. Catlin.New York: Free Press.EISENSTEIN, H. AND A. JARDINE (1980) TheFuture fDifference.oston: G. K. Hall.FELMAN, S. (1975) Women and Madness: The CriticalPhallacy.Diacritics (4):420-34.FOUCAULT, M. (1977) Language,Counter-Memory,ractice. thaca: Cornell University ress.FOUCAULT, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge.ew York: Pantheon.FOUCAULT, M. (1984a) Politicsand Ethics:An Interview. n The FoucaultReader, dited by P. Ra-

binow. New York: Pantheon.




FOUCAULT,M. (1984b) What Is Enlightenment? n The FoucaultReader, dited by P. Rabinow. NewYork: Pantheon.

FOUCAULT,M. (1984c) Nietzsche,Genealogy, History. n TheFoucaultReader, dited byP. Rabinow.New York: Pantheon.

FOUCAULT, M. (1988) The Ethic of Care for the Self as a Practice of Freedom: An InterviewwithMichel Foucault. In The Final Foucault, dited byJ. ernauer and D. Rasmussen.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

FRASER,N. (1981) Foucault on Modern Power: Empirical nsights nd NormativeConfusions.PraxisInternational .

GARST, D. (1989) Thucydides and Neorealism. nternationaltudiesQuarterly3(1):3-27.GEORGE,J.1989) InternationalRelationsand theSearch forThinking Space: AnotherView of the

Third Debate. InternationaltudiesQuarterly3(2):269-79.GIDDENS, A. (1979) Central robems n Social Theory. ondon: Macmillan.

GILPIN, R. G. (1981) War and Change n World olitics.New York: Cambridge University ress.GILPIN, R. G. (1984) The Richness of the Tradition of PoliticalRealism. Internationalrganization

38:288-304.

HABERMAS,J.1987) ThePhilosophicaliscourse fModernity,ranslatedbyF. Lawrence.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

HEIDEGGER, M. (1971) On theWay oLanguage,translatedbyP. Hertz. New York: Harper and Row.HOBBES, T. (1968) Leviathan, dited and with an introductionby C. B. MacPherson. New York:

Penguin.Hoy, D. C. (1986) Foucault:A Critical eader.London: Basil Blackwell.IRIGARAY, L. (1985) This Sex Whichs Not One. Ithaca: Cornell University ress.JARDINE, A. (1985) Gynesis: onfigurationsfWoman ndModernity.thaca: Cornell University ress.KEOHANE,R. 0. (1983) Theoryof World Politics:StructuralRealism and Beyond. n Political cience:

The StateoftheDiscipline, dited by A. Finifter.Washington,DC: American PoliticalScienceAssociation.

KEOHANE, R. O., ED. (1986) NeorealismndIts Critics. ew York: Columbia University Press.

KRATOCHWILL, F. ANDJ. G. RUGGIE (1986) InternationalOrganization:A State of the Art on the Actof the State. nternationalrganization0(4):753-76.

KRISTEVA,J. (1975) The Subject in Signifying ractice.Semiotext(e)(3).KRISTEVA,J. (1980) Desire nLanguage:A Semiotic pproacho iteraturendArt, ditedbyL. S. Roudiez

and translated yT. Gora,A.Jardine, nd L. S. Roudiez. NewYork: Columbia University ress.KRISTEVA,J. (1986a) Women'sTime. In TheKristeva eader, ditedbyT. Moi. New York: Columbia

University ress.KRISTEVA,J. (1986b) RevolutionnPoeticLanguage,translatedbyM. Wallerwith n Introductionby

L. S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University ress.LAPID, Y. (1989) The Third Debate: On the Prospectsof InternationalTheory in a Post-Positivist

Era. InternationaltudiesQuarterly3(2):235-54.LuKE,T. (1988) "What'sWrongWith Deterrence?" A Semiotic nterpretation f National Security

Policy. In International/Intertextualelations: oundaries fKnowledgend Practice n World olitics,edited by J. Der Derian and M. Shapiro. Lexington,MA: LexingtonBooks.

LYOTARD, J-F. (1984) The Postmodern ondition: Report nKnowledge.Minneapolis: University fMinnesota Press.

MACHIAVELLI,N. (1940) The Prince,translatedbyL. Ricci.New York: Random House.MARKS, E. AND I. DE COURTIVRON, EDS. (1980) New French eminisms.righton:Harvester.MICHAELS, W. B. (1977) Walden'sFalse Bottoms.Glyph :132-49.MoI, T. (1986) SexuallTextual olitics: eministiterary heory. ew York: Methuen.

PITKIN, H. F. (1984) Fortunes a Woman: Gender nd Politics n theThought fNiccoloMachiavelli.Berkeley:University f CaliforniaPress.

RORTY,R. (1979) Philosophynd theMirror fNature.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity ress.SAID, E.

(1983)The Problemof

Textuality:Two

ExemplaryPositions. n The

World,he

Textnd

theCritic yE. Said. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University ress.SHAPIRO, M. (1988) Textualizing Global Politics. n International/Intertextualelations: oundaries f

KnowledgendPractice n World olitics, ditedbyJ.Der Derian and M. Shapiro.Lexington,MA:LexingtonBooks.

SHOWALTER,E. (1979) Towards a FeministPoetics. n WomenWritingndWritingboutWomen ditedbyM. Jacobus. London: Croom Helm.




SHOWALTER, E. ED. (1985) Feminist riticism: ssayson Women, iterature,nd Theory.New York:Pantheon.

SPIVAK, G. (1980) FindingFeministReadings: Dante-Yeats. SocialText :73-87.SPIVAK, G. (1983) Displacement and the Discourse of Woman. In Displacement: errida and After

edited by M. Krupnik. Bloomington: Indiana University ress.WALKER, R. B. J.1988a) The Prince nd "The Pauper": Tradition, Modernity, nd Practice n the

Theory of InternationalRelations. n International/Intertextualelations: oundaries fKnowledgeandPracticen World olitics, ditedbyJ. er Derian and M. Shapiro. Lexington,MA: LexingtonBooks.

WALKER, R. B. J. 1988b) Genealogy, Geopolitics, nd PoliticalCommunity:R. K. Ashleyand theCriticalSocial Theory of InternationalPolitics.Alternatives3:84-88.

WALTZ, K. N. (1979) Theory f nternationalolitics.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.WALZER, M. (1986) The Politicsof Michel Foucault. In Foucault:A Critical eader, dited byD. C.

Hoy. London: Basil Blackwell.

1990 conclusion： reading dissidence-writing the discipline： crisis and the question of...

Documents