The geographies of exclusion and the politics of inclusion

Race-based exclusions in the teaching of international relations

Geeta Chowdhry, Shirin M. Rai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this essay, we argue that race has yet to be integrated as an analytical category shaping the study and teaching of international relations. We suggest that although the issues of race and gender are systematically coded into central concepts in the discipline, they are made invisible through a "series of ontological and epistemological maneuvers." Focusing on two concepts central to the discipline-sovereignty and the nation-state-we suggest that race can be better integrated into the teaching of international relations by focusing on the ways in which these maneuvers structure the geographies and politics of exclusion and inclusion in international relations. We conclude that raising questions about the ways in which race is taught in the academy is in itself critical-what we teach, how we teach, and who teaches are all questions that need repeated airing for achieving interpretative autonomy as well as a transformative politics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)84-91
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Studies Perspectives
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

international relations
teaching
politics
exclusion
inclusion
geography
Teaching
sovereignty
nation state
autonomy
academy
gender

Keywords

  • Exclusion
  • Inclusion
  • Nation-state
  • Race
  • Sovereignty
  • Teaching

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

@article{9c681b78b5fb4621bdd6f0ff61bd5c5c,
title = "The geographies of exclusion and the politics of inclusion: Race-based exclusions in the teaching of international relations",
abstract = "In this essay, we argue that race has yet to be integrated as an analytical category shaping the study and teaching of international relations. We suggest that although the issues of race and gender are systematically coded into central concepts in the discipline, they are made invisible through a {"}series of ontological and epistemological maneuvers.{"} Focusing on two concepts central to the discipline-sovereignty and the nation-state-we suggest that race can be better integrated into the teaching of international relations by focusing on the ways in which these maneuvers structure the geographies and politics of exclusion and inclusion in international relations. We conclude that raising questions about the ways in which race is taught in the academy is in itself critical-what we teach, how we teach, and who teaches are all questions that need repeated airing for achieving interpretative autonomy as well as a transformative politics.",
keywords = "Exclusion, Inclusion, Nation-state, Race, Sovereignty, Teaching",
author = "Geeta Chowdhry and Rai, {Shirin M.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00360.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "10",
pages = "84--91",
journal = "International Studies Perspectives",
issn = "1528-3577",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The geographies of exclusion and the politics of inclusion

T2 - Race-based exclusions in the teaching of international relations

AU - Chowdhry, Geeta

AU - Rai, Shirin M.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - In this essay, we argue that race has yet to be integrated as an analytical category shaping the study and teaching of international relations. We suggest that although the issues of race and gender are systematically coded into central concepts in the discipline, they are made invisible through a "series of ontological and epistemological maneuvers." Focusing on two concepts central to the discipline-sovereignty and the nation-state-we suggest that race can be better integrated into the teaching of international relations by focusing on the ways in which these maneuvers structure the geographies and politics of exclusion and inclusion in international relations. We conclude that raising questions about the ways in which race is taught in the academy is in itself critical-what we teach, how we teach, and who teaches are all questions that need repeated airing for achieving interpretative autonomy as well as a transformative politics.

AB - In this essay, we argue that race has yet to be integrated as an analytical category shaping the study and teaching of international relations. We suggest that although the issues of race and gender are systematically coded into central concepts in the discipline, they are made invisible through a "series of ontological and epistemological maneuvers." Focusing on two concepts central to the discipline-sovereignty and the nation-state-we suggest that race can be better integrated into the teaching of international relations by focusing on the ways in which these maneuvers structure the geographies and politics of exclusion and inclusion in international relations. We conclude that raising questions about the ways in which race is taught in the academy is in itself critical-what we teach, how we teach, and who teaches are all questions that need repeated airing for achieving interpretative autonomy as well as a transformative politics.

KW - Exclusion

KW - Inclusion

KW - Nation-state

KW - Race

KW - Sovereignty

KW - Teaching

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59549087468&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59549087468&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00360.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2008.00360.x

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 84

EP - 91

JO - International Studies Perspectives

JF - International Studies Perspectives

SN - 1528-3577

IS - 1

ER -