POS 230.

1 SPECIAL TOPICS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS:

EPISTEMOLOGICAL BASES OF GLOBAL POLITICS
Mondays 6:00 9:00 PM
SOM 105
Dr. Liberty Chee
lchee@ateneo.edu
Consultation Hours: Tuesdays Fridays, 4:00 5:00
Department of Political Science 3/F Leong Hall
(Please e-mail at least 24 hours prior, to set an appointment)
DESCRIPTION
This course is an inquiry into the production of knowledge about world politics. The first section aims
to put into context the discipline as a set of human practices and, as such, an endeavour fraught with
and shaped agendas, interests, history and politics. The second section takes a closer look at some of
the most common, taken-for-granted concepts in IR, to examine the ways in which they are contested.
The third section looks at some of the recent methodological turns in the discipline to familiarise
students with some of the latest developments in the field. Lastly, the course looks into normative
commitments in IR, to shine the light on some understudied issues.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
This course aims to equip students with tools to not only think about world politics, but to fully
appreciate how these tools are constituted by scholarship. At the end of the semester, students will
have a sense of the fields history and future trajectories. They are expected to learn to unpack ideas,
concepts and theories, and examine them critically. Practical skills include thinking and writing
analytically. The course also aims to kindle the creative imagination, and help students think of new
ways to understand the world.
REQUIREMENTS
Reading. You will be reading roughly 100 pages of what can be challenging, jargon-laden text per
week. Depending on your reading and comprehension skills, this means allocating at least 4 hours to
ingest and digest the content. The readings are listed in the order that you are supposed to read them.
For tips on how to read, I strongly suggest you take some time to read this. All readings will be
uploaded to my OneDrive account.
Writing. 80 percent of the evaluation will be through your written output. Ill be sending detailed
rubrics about what I expect to read from you. The general rule of thumb is that I need to hear your
voice when you write. This means I should be able to pick out your ideas versus the authors. One
technique is to write in the active voice (this also helps you take ownership of your ideas). Also, I
need you to take seriously what the readings have to say and know the arguments inside out so you
can form opinions about them. Do you agree? Disagree? And why?

Participation (10%). Each week, come to class prepared with two questions. Write them down on a
half-sheet of an A4 paper. These questions should reflect your general thoughts about the readings
for the week as a whole. Throughout the semester, you will be evaluated for the quality (not the
quantity!) of your contribution to class discussions. Not to say that thoughtful effort will go unnoticed.
Reaction Memos x 4 (20%). These will be 500-word think pieces on the readings covered. One
reaction memo will be hand-written in-class. Your RM should not summarise what was read. You
should instead evaluate the claims made by the authors and explaining why you agree, disagree, etc.
Your RM should identify what you think are important, overlooked or lacking.
Mid-term Analytical Essay (20%). An analytical essay means breaking down ideas, concepts and
arguments into parts, examining them, and seeing their intellectual integrity. Pick 4-6 readings from
Weeks 1 to 8 to analyse. 3,500 to 4,000 words, excluding citations, include word count (stick to the
word limits no more, no less). For tips on how to analyse, I strongly suggest you read this.
Research Paper (40%). Your research paper answers a question framed within the conversations we
have in the duration of the semester, with each other and with the authors we will be reading. It can
be 1) theoretically-driven, 2) empirically-driven or 3) puzzle-driven. In the first, this could mean
there is something you want to know about the theoretical frameworks or concepts we cover in the
course, or you want to critique or extend on their premises. An empirical paper is an investigation of
some aspect of a phenomenon using the frameworks or approaches we tackled. A puzzle-driven
paper starts from a puzzling, anomalous or confusing question or phenomenon that you want to
pursue in greater detail. I will be sending a detailed rubric near the second half of the semester. 4,500
to 5,000 words, excluding citations, include word count (stick to the word limits no more, no less).
Lead Discussion (10%). As lead discussant, you will identify three main ideas that you think are the
most important from the weekly readings. Your short presentation (10 minutes maximum) will
explain why you think these ideas are important. Prepare 3 well-thought-out questions to invite your
classmates for discussion.

PART I. DEBATES, ENDLESS DEBATES

Week 1. (Jan. 23). What We Think We Know about International Relations
This week puts into question received knowledge from the discipline of International Relations. It
asks, what do we know about what we think we know?
Carvalho B., Leira H. & Hobson J. (2011). "The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths that Your Teachers Still Tell
You About 1648 and 1919." Millenium: Journal of International Studies 39(3), pp. 735-758
Alker H. (1996). The Presumption of Anarchy in World Politics. Chapter 11 in Rediscoveries and
Reformulations: Humanistic Methodologies for International Studies, pp. 355-393.

Week 2. (Jan. 30). Nuts and Bolts and the Constitution of Knowledge
This week introduces us to a vocabulary for thinking about the processes of knowledge production.
Della Porta D. & Keating M. (2008). How many approaches in the social sciences? An epistemological
introduction. Chapter 2 in Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist
Perspective, pp. 19-39.
Bates S. & Jenkins L. (2007). Teaching and Learning Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science.
Politics 27(1), pp. 55-63.
Daly G. (2008). Ology Schmology: A Post-structuralist Approach. Politics 28(1), pp. 57-60.
Wight C. (2013). Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations. Chapter 2 in Handbook
of International Relations, pp. 29-56.
Due: Reaction Memo 1. (Coverage: Weeks 1 and 2)

Week 3. (Feb. 6) Holiday

Week 4: (Feb. 13). The Science Debates

Why is there a debate over the scientific value of scholarship in IR? What are the implications of the
science question?
Jackson P. (2011). Playing with Fire, Philosophical Wagers, and A Pluralist Science of IR.
Chapters 1, 2 and 3 in The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations, pp. 1-23, 24-40, 188-212.
Due: A 1-page description of your proposed research paper. And a 10-entry bibliography.

Week 5. (Feb. 20). The Human Practice of Doing IR

Books, articles and commentary about IR is produced by people in specific times and places. Who and
where are these people? Why and how do they write about the field?
Bueger C. (2012). From Epistemology to Practice: A Sociology of Science for International Relations.
Journal of International Relations and Development 15, pp. 97-109.
Cox W. & Nossal K. (2009). The Crimson World: The Anglo Core, the Post-Imperial Non-Core and
the Hegemony of American IR. Chapter 16 in International Relations Scholarship Around the World,
pp. 287-307.

Biersteker T. (2009). The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for American International

Relations. Chapter 17 in International Relations Scholarship Around the World, pp. 308-327.
Due: Reaction Memo 2. (Coverage: Weeks 4-5)

PART II. SOME CONTESTED CONCEPTS

Week 6. (Feb. 27). Security
From securing borders, to securing humans to securing identities. This week explores the changing
referents of security in IR.
Booth, Ken. (1991). Security and Emancipation, Review of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct.,
1991), pp. 313-326.
Campbell D. (1992). "Foreign Policy and Identity" and "Foreign Policy and Difference." Chapters 3
and 4 in Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, pp. 61-100
Truong T-D. (2009). "Feminist Knowledge and Human Security: Bridging Rifts Through the
Epistemology of Care." International Institute of Social Studies, Working Paper 481.
Nyman J. (2016). What is the value of security? Contextualising the negative/positive debate.
Review of International Studies, 42(5), pp. 821839.
Week 7. (Mar. 6). Power
After security, power is probably the most used term in the study of world politics. But what do we
mean when we talk about power?
Baldwin D. (1979). "Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old Tendencies." World
Politics, 31(2), pp. 161-194
Hayward C. (2000). De-facing Power. Chapter 2 in De-facing Power, pp. 11-39.
Berenskoetter F. (2007). "Thinking about Power." Chapter 1 in Power in World Politics, pp. 1-22
Eaton S. & Stubbs R. (2006). Is ASEAN Powerful? Neo-realist versus Constructivist Approaches to
Power in Southeast Asia. The Pacific Review 19(2), pp. 135-155.
Due: A 600-800 word revised description of your proposed research paper with a clearly formulated
research question and a hypothesis/argument.

Week 8. (Mar. 13). Hierarchy and Anarchy

The first thing we learn about the condition of world politics is that it is anarchical. Where did this
idea come from? Is hierarchy more reflective of actual conditions?
Milner H. (1991). The Assumption of Anarchy in International Relations Theory: A Critique. Review
of International Studies 17, pp. 67-85.
Hobson J. & Sharman JC. (2005). "The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the
Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change." European Journal of International Relations, 11(1),
pp. 63-98.
Manggala P. (2013). The Mandala Culture of Anarchy: the Pre-Colonial Southeast Asian International
Society. Journal of ASEAN Studies 1(1), pp. 1-13.
Shu M. (2011). "Balancing in a Hierarchical System: Pre-Colonial Southeast Asia and the Tribute
System." Waseda Global Forum 8, pp. 227-256.
Due: Reaction Memo 3. (Coverage: Weeks 6-8)

Week 9. (Mar. 20). Violence

IR was born out of the two world wars to prevent people killing people. How come hardly anyone
explicitly talks about violence? Why is the discussion of warfare sanitised?
Thomas C. (2010). "Why dont we talk about violence in International Relations?" Review of
International Studies, 37(4), pp. 1815-1836.
Cohn C. (1987). "Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals." Signs 12(4), pp. 687718.
Parsons K. (2007). "Structural Violence and Power." Peace Review 19(2), pp. 173-181.
Wilcox L. (2015). "Bodies, Subjects, and Violence in International Relations." Chapter 1 in Bodies of
Violence: Theorizing Embodied Subjects in International Relations, pp. 17-48.
Due: Analytical paper.

PART III. METHODOLOGICAL TURNS

Week 10. (Mar. 27). The Linguistic and Practice Turns
This week we explore some of the new methodologies introduced in IR, veering away from Cold War
economistic theorizing. If agents are not rational, what motivates their actions?

Bially-Mattern J. (2005). Why Soft Power Isnt So Soft: Representational Force and the
Sociolinguistic Construction of Attraction in World Politics. Millenium Journal of International
Studies, 33(3), pp. 583-612.
Hopf T. The Logic of Habit in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations
16(4), pp. 539-61.
Bueger C. & Gadinger F. (2014). "Introducing International Practice Theory" and "Situating Practice
Theory in Social Theory and International Relations." Chapters 1 and 2 in International Practice
Theory: New Perspectives, pp. 1-20.
Solomon T. & Steele B. (2016). "Micro-moves in International Relations Theory." European Journal of
International Relations
Week 11. (Apr. 3). An Anarchist Turn?
What does IR look like without states as the main referents?
Ashley R. (1988). "Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique."
Millenium Journal of International Studies 17(2), pp. 227-262
Ashely R. & Walker R. (1990). Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of
Sovereignty in International Studies. International Studies Quarterly 34(3), pp. 367-41.
OLoughlin A. (2014). Inside/Outside: Walker, Ashley and the Poststruturalist Critique of IR.
Chapter 1 in Overcoming Poststructrualism: Rawls, Kratochwil and the Structure of Normative
Reasoning in International Relations, pp. 15-39.
Taylor P. (1994). The State as Container: Territoriality in the Modern World System. Progress in
Human Geography 18(2), pp. 151-162.

Week 12. (Apr. 10). Holy Week Break

PART IV. NORMATIVE COMMITMENTS

Week 13. (Apr. 17). Where are the Women in IR?
Is the domain of world politics a mans world?
Enloe C. (2014). Conclusion: The Personal is International; the International is Personal. Bananas,
Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics, pp. 343 360.
Jones A. (1996). Does Gender Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International
Relations. Review of International Studies 22, pp. 405-429.

Carver T., Cochran M., & Squires J. (1998). Gendering Jones: Feminisms, IRs, Masculinities. Review
of International Studies 24, pp. 283-297.
J. Ann Tickner (2001). Troubled Encounters: Feminism Meets IR. Chapter 1 in Gendering World
Politics, pp. 9-35.
Due: Reaction Memo 4. (Coverage: Weeks 10-13)

Week 14. (Apr. 24). Ethics and Doing IR

What is the proper attitude to take when discussing war, hunger, famine, and other mass atrocities?
Should we keep our distance as scholars? Is this even possible? What ethical role do we play when
we seek to study these events?
Price R. (2008). Introduction. Chapter 1 in Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics, pp. 1-52
Smith S. (2004). Singing Our World Into Existence: International Relations Theory and September
11. International Studies Quarterly 48(3), pp. 499-515.
Hurrell A. & Macdonald T. (2013). Ethics and Norms in International Relations. Chapter 3 in
Handbook of International Relations, pp. 57-84.
Zalewski M. (1996). All These Theories Yet the Bodies Keep Piling Up: Theory, Theorists and
Theorising. Chapter 18 in International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, pp. 340-353.
Week 15. (May 1). Provincialising IR
This week we approach IR through post-colonial critique and underscore some of the limits of
knowledge production.
Inayattulah N. & Blaney D. (2004). IR and the Inner Life of Modernization Theory. Chapter 3 in
International Relations and the Problem of Difference, pp. 84-114.
See S.T. (2009). Southeast Asia: Theory and Praxis in International Relations. Chapter 7 in
International Relations Scholarship Around the World, pp. 120-133
Kang D. (2003). Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytic Frameworks. International Security
28(3), pp. 165-180.

Week 16. Wrapping Up (May 8).

We take stock of some of the general themes discussed in the semester and discuss the research
papers.
Due: Research Paper

GENERAL GUIDELINES
1. Pedagogy. The word for teaching in French is apprendre. It also means learning. In the
duration of the semester I am teaching/learning along with you. This means that we take
equal responsibility for what happens in class. I expect you to come fully prepared, and so
shall I. And although I probably have a decade or so of more life and scholarly experience
than you, I fully expect to learn from you as well. We will question, ponder and discover things
together. Being adults and professionals, I trust that I do not need to remind you of your
responsibilities as a young scholar. Knowing this, I understand that there may be some who
need more guidance than others, and my doors are always open.
2. Attendance. Per university rules, you cannot exceed three absences in the duration of the
semester. If you come 10 minutes after the bell has rung, you will be marked late. If you come
30 minutes after the bell has rung, you will be marked absent. Absences will not be recorded
if you can provide documentary evidence that you were sick, indisposed or off on an official
university activity.
3. Plagiarism. All written assignments shall be uploaded to Turnitin. Students who have
plagiarised any written work will be subject to disciplinary action as prescribed by the
university rules and the students magna carta. For tips on how not to commit plagiarism,
click here.
4. Referencing. I am used to the APA style, but you can use others as long as its consistent. For
various formatting guides, click here.
5. Oral Examination. I may require a short oral examination on the research paper.
6. Absences/Sickness/Other Issues. If you have health issues that you think may affect your
performance in class, please do not hesitate to approach me at the beginning of the semester
so we can make necessary adjustments.
7. Consultations. Please e-mail to set an appointment during the hours listed above. If you
cannot make it during those periods, we can arrange to have a virtual chat by Skype at a time
convenient to us both.
8. E-mail. These are great for short queries. I usually reply within 24-48 hours. If I do not
reply, please re-send your message.