Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 2: Broad Historical Overview of IR (Theory)
2.3 Origins of IR
2.3.4 Recapitulating and making sense of it all thus far
101
102
the early modern era (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries) in Europe, when sovereign states based on adjacent territories were initially established. Ever since the eighteenth century, the relations between such independent states have been labeled ‘international relations” (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003:2).
It is the author’s observation that most scholars of IR, seem to concur with Jackson and Sorensen’s (2003) historical account of IR’s origin. The author notes with interest that validity of some of these presented observations, may indeed be debatable, nevertheless they provide an outline of the sought footprints, alluding to the foundations of IR. It remains the researcher’s contention, that given the nature of any investigation, relying on historical analysis, consensus on such findings, expectedly remains rare. This should not be surprising, as it is typical that data found in the Social Sciences remains open to interrogation. Findings forwarded as authentic or balanced, remain part of the ongoing project, which may form part of the founding ideals- yet to be achieved, in as far as the basis, specific to this study, of the formation of IR are concerned.
From the data found thus far, it is the view of the author of this study, that it may be adequate for the purposes sought in this study. Although the effort of reviewing IR’s origin, may to a certain extent, be read as helpful, especially for background purposes, this should nevertheless not necessarily, be read, as a foregone conclusion. This is stated because the above elaborate effort of securing, whatever may be read, as some form of sound background of IR- may possibly, just as well, not be read as being worthwhile.
Furthermore in as far, as the interest of this study is concerned- no indication of any contribution thus far, from Afrika, has yet been noted. Instead the further endorsement sought to continue employing, the concept of Afrika instead of Africa has been provided aptly, most notably by Mudimbe (1994) in this chapter. So having adopted Afrocentricity, the author of this study is convinced of being on the desired track, of self understanding which may later, enable one to graduate, to an enhanced grasp of self definition.
If anything, for the author of this study, the good that may emanate, from the attempt of rewinding the cassette, in an effort to recall where the discourse of IR begun, may at least
103
arguably provide, some much needed background, which may be utilized for further reference and point of departure purposes. Proceeding forward from such a premise, may at least be done, being aware of certain essential data, which may be useful, in this on-going and contentious enquiry, as pursued in this study. Such a historicist approach, may furthermore be argued to be useful, in the continuous challenge of identifying and seeking to address the gaps, as opposed to simply justifying the exclusively Eurocentric nature of IR, in its current guise, as merely another Eurocentrically driven academic field of enquiry.
If at all, one is to go by the overall views of the abovementioned scholars, as arguably flawed or debatable, as most of their views may possibly be, the insistent chorus indicated by the majority of these IR scholars, seem to be consistent with regards to their knowledge, of the roots and birthplace of IR. So based on their insight, IR as an academic field, is without a shadow of doubt, firstly to be located, in Britain and later America. The shift from what apparently was an Anglo- American, to currently a predominantly American discipline, (as should be visibly noted within the literature of IR to date), suggests that the might of the plethora of scholars (both American and non-American - who established their careers in USA) may be one of the chief reason d’être, for such a development. This may potentially shed some light, as to events, which led to such a biased Westerncentric shift, in what has to date been presented, as the scholarly body of IR.
This affirmation of an Anglo-American origin, understandably continues to raise questions regarding representivity and inclusivity, beyond the Eurocentric perspectives, as presented within the current discourse of IR. Having attempted upto this point, to get an overall clarity, of IR and the gist of its main contents, it should be noted that the exact historical origin of IR, may be contested or unknown however according to the recorded voices of IR scholars (as captured within this chapter) there seems to be consensus, that as a discipline IR originated in the UK and later spread to America. It is from such a basis wherein IR, has been exported to the rest of the globe. In short, it is the author’s argument (as informed by the above data) that scholars, who all along, assumed that IR as a discipline, originated in Europe and North America, appear not to have been far removed, from the truth.
104
It is the author’s realization, that even with all the inherent bias, as found in most of the abovementioned descriptions, alternatives or counter arguments of any other origin, of how IR came about, may not differ that much, from what has been presented here. In a case whereby a strong argument may be possibly presented, in opposition to the captured views thus far, well such contrary data may freely be taken up elsewhere, beyond this study. In as far as the author of this study is concerned, any data supporting contrary views pertaining to IR, to those registered upto so far within this study, should be read as nothing else but misleading. Sufficient or not, the limited space and time, should be the two factors, informing the halting point at this stage of this chapter, in as far as the broad historical background of IR is concerned.
105