Abstract
This article argues that Ashley and Walker's ‘dissident exile’ and Mill's ‘genius’ are virtual mirror images of one another due to the fact that both subject formulations rely on the concept of individual autonomy. Postmodern iterations of subjectivity such as those found in the work of Ashley and Walker place a great deal of emphasis on alterity and ethical engagement, striving to move beyond the ethical limitations of Enlightenment liberalism that valorises the atomised, sovereign individual. But both Mill's genius, who can choose his or her own mode of existence or plan of life, and Ashley and Walker's dissident exile, who engages in self-making in a register of freedom, are inextricably bound up with and reliant upon one of liberalism's seminal concepts: autonomy. The implications of this in terms of theorising new forms of subjectivity in international relations are significant because replacing autonomy with heteronomy or recasting autonomy in relational terms fails to fully acknowledge how central autonomy is to the entire project of critique. The critical attitude that Ashley and Walker, as well as Mill, exhibit emanates from within Enlightenment liberalism; since the very act of critique rests on the exercise of individual autonomy, perhaps the most we can hope for in terms of new iterations of subjectivity may only be one that is more expansively ‘liberal’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In an effort to draw attention to critical theory's unfulfilled potential and promise, Jahn (1998: 614) eschews ‘critical theory’ as little more than a ‘reenactment of liberal idealism’ and ‘reminiscent of an “imperialistic project” ’. I am indebted to her for opening critical pathways for my own examination of postmodernism.
Blaney (1996: 473) provides such a nuanced reading of autonomy in his call for a more relational understanding of autonomy, which offers ‘a conception of national autonomy within social relationships, endorsing a vision of the pursuit of local ways of life and global projects by every people or state within an interdependent and more egalitarian global society’. The key is to retain the individual capacity of communities to be self-determining and self-realising, thus strengthening their ability to critique global patterns of economic inequality.
In a slightly different vein, Burke (2007: 19) draws upon both the ‘progressive discourses of emancipation and cosmopolitanism’ in order to reimagine human subjectivity disentangled from Foucauldian forms of social and governmental power which can be repositioned around an ‘ethics of responsibility and reciprocity’.
Mill detractors include Cowling (1963), Hamburger (1999), Himmelfarb (1974) and Jahn (2005). However, C.L. Ten (2002, 1980: 173) concludes, ‘it is as the passionate champion of individual liberty that he has been, and generally still is, attacked or admired’, which explains why Ten regards Mill as a great liberal. Also see Geuss (2002: 323), who identifies toleration, human freedom, individualism and limited power as the key components of classical liberalism associated with Mill, Constant and de Tocqueville.
This section is not an attempt to read Foucault back into Mill but merely serves as an analysis of the concerns expressed by Mill with regard to the exercise of individual liberty and how Mill's concerns can be read as a foreshadowing of problematisations much more fully developed by Foucault through his explorations of disciplinarity, governmentality and biopolitics. Foucault and Mill obviously part company over the concept of sovereignty because Foucault regards sovereignty as the key conceptual breakfront in limiting our efforts to imagine other forms of subjectivity.
Comprehensive formulations of liberalism provide ‘detailed theories of human nature and the human good that include controversial moral claims and commitments’ (Paul et al. 2007: viii.). Ryan associates Mill with this strand of liberal thought and thus he argues for an ‘autonomist’ view of liberalism. Such a view rests on the belief that individuals are self-creating, able to evaluate critically their beliefs, design the course of their life, and recognise these same abilities in others (Paul et al. 2007: viii).
See http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/autonomy-moral (accessed 12 June, 2011).
References
Apperley, Alan (2000) ‘Liberalism, Autonomy and Stability’, British Journal of Political Science 30 (2): 291–311.
Ashley, Richard K. (1989) ‘Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism, and War’, in James Der Derian and Michael J. Shapiro, eds, International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, 259–321, New York: Lexington.
Ashley, Richard K. and R.B.J. Walker (1990a) ‘Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly 34: 259–68.
Ashley, Richard K. and R.B.J. Walker (1990b) ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly 34: 367–416.
Blaney, David (1996) ‘Reconceptualizing Autonomy: The Difference Dependency Theory Makes’, Review of International Political Economy 3 (3): 459–97.
Blaney, David and Naeem Inayatullah (2000) ‘The Westphalian Deferral’, International Studies Review 2 (2): 29–64.
Blaney, David and Naeem Inayatullah (2004) International Relations and the Problem of Difference, London: Routledge.
Butler, Judith (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, NewYork: Routledge.
Burke, Anthony (2007) Beyond Security, Ethics and Violence, London: Routledge.
Campbell, David (1998) ‘Why Fight: Humanitarianism, Principles, and Post-structuralism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27 (3): 497–521.
Campbell, David (1993) Politics Without Principle: Sovereignty, Ethics and The Narratives of the Gulf War, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Campbell, David and Michael Shapiro, eds (1999) Moral Spaces, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cochran, Molly (1995) ‘Postmodernism, Ethics and International Political Theory’, Review of International Studies 21: 237–50.
Colburn, Ben (2010) Autonomy and Liberalism, New York: Routledge.
Connolly, William (1991) Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox, New York: Cornell University Press.
Connolly, William (1995) The Ethos of Pluralization, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cowling, Maurice (1963) Mill and Liberalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crowder, George (2007) ‘Two Concepts of Liberal Pluralism’, Political Theory 35 (2): 121–46.
Di Stefano, Christine (1991) Configurations of Masculinity: A Feminist Perspective on Modern Political Theory, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Dumm, Thomas (1996) Michel Foucault and the Politics of Freedom, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Edkins, Jenny (1999) Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Edkins, Jenny (2003) ‘Humanitarianism, Humanity, Human’, Journal of Human Rights 2 (2): 253–58.
Edkins, Jenny and Veronique Pin-Fat (2005) ‘Through the Wire: Relations of Power and Relations of Violence’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 34 (1): 1–24.
Foucault, Michel (1995) Discipline and Punish, New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, Michel (1997) ‘On The Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress’, in Paul Rabinow, ed., Ethics Subjectivity and Truth, New York: The New Press.
Fuchs, Alan E. (2001) ‘Autonomy, Slavery, and Mill's Critique of Paternalism’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (3): 231–51.
Galston, William (2005) The Practice of Liberal Pluralism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
George, Jim (1994) Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Geuss, Raymond (2002) ‘Liberalism and Its Discontents’, Political Theory 30: 320–38.
Gilbert, Emily (2010) ‘Geographic Insights into Political Identity’, in Robert Denemark, ed., The International Studies Encyclopedia Vol. V, New York: Wiley Blackwell.
Gray, John (1989) Liberalisms: Essays in Political Thought, London: Routledge.
Gray, John (1991) ‘Mill's Conception of Happiness and the Theory of Individuality’, in John Gray and G.W. Smith, eds, J.S. Mill's ‘On Liberty’ in Focus, 190–211, London: Routledge.
Hamburger, Joseph (1999) John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude (1974) On Liberty and Liberalism, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Hobhouse, L.T. (1942) Liberalism, London: Oxford University Press.
Hurka, Thomas (1987) ‘Why Value Autonomy?’ Social Theory and Practice 13: 361–80.
Hurka, Thomas (1993) Perfectionism, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jabri, Vivienne (1998) ‘Restyling the Subject of Responsibility in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27 (3): 591–611.
Jahn, Beate (1998) ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27 (3): 613–41.
Jahn, Beate (2005) ‘Kant, Mill and Illiberal Legacies in International Affairs’, International Organization 59 (1): 177–207.
Lakoff, Sanford (1990) ‘Autonomy and Liberal Democracy’, The Review of Politics 52 (3): 378–96.
Mill, John Stuart (1956) On Liberty, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Neufeld, Mark (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orlie, Melissa (1999) ‘Beyond Identity and Difference’, Political Theory 27 (1): 140–49.
Odysseos, Louisa (2007) The Subject of Coexistence: Otherness in International Relations, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Paul, Ellen Frankel, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul, eds (2007) Liberalism: Old and New, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, John (1971) A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, John (1993) Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.
Raz, Joseph (1978) ‘Principles of Equality’, Mind 87: 321–42.
Raz, Joseph (1986) The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Raz, Joseph (1990) ‘Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 3–46.
Rosenau, Pauline (1992) Post-Modernism and the Social Sciences, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ryan, Alan (2007) ‘Newer Than What? Older Than What?’, in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul, eds, Liberalism: Old and New, 1–15, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, Michael (1991) ‘Sovereignty and Exchange in the Orders of Modernity’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 16: 447–77.
Shapiro, Michael (1999) ‘The Ethics of Encounter: Unreading, Unmapping the Imperium’, in David Campbell and Michael Shapiro, eds, Moral Spaces: Rethinking Ethics and World Politics, 57–91, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Shilliam, Robbie (2010) ‘Modernity and Modernization’, in Robert Denemark, ed., The International Studies Encyclopedia, 5214–32, Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Simons, Jon (1995) Foucault and the Political, New York: Routledge.
Spragens, Thomas A. (2007) ‘Populist Perfectionism: The Other American Liberalism’, in Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller and Jeffrey Paul, eds, Liberalism: Old and New, 141–63, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, Robert (2005) ‘Kantian Personal Autonomy’, Political Theory 33 (5): 602–28.
Ten, C.L. (1980) Mill on Liberty, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ten, C.L. (2002) ‘Was Mill a Liberal?’ Politics, Philosophy & Economics 1 (3): 355–70.
Walker, R.B.J. (1988) One World, Many Worlds: Struggles for a Just World Peace, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Walker, R.B.J. (1992) ‘Gender and Critique in the Theory of International Relations’, in V. Spike Peterson, ed., Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory, 179–202, Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Wall, Steven (1998) Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wall, Steven (2001) ‘Neutrality and Responsibility’, The Journal of Philosophy 98: 389–410.
Wall, Steven (2003) ‘Freedom as a Political Ideal’, Social Philosophy and Policy 20 (2): 307–31.
Weber, Cynthia (2010) ‘After Liberalism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 38 (3): 553–60.
Acknowledgements
I would especially like to thank Jens Bartelson for his thorough review and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article, and acknowledge the supportive and critical suggestions from Iver Neumann. A huge debt of gratitude goes to Beate Jahn for her encouragement and friendship, but especially for the chance to work with her as a co-sponsor of the ISA Workshop that has culminated in this special issue. Thank you to Patrick T. Jackson for all of his help and detailed reviews of this article, and finally to the anonymous reviewers whose probing and challenging questions and insights were invaluable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shinko, R. Geniuses, exiles and (liberal) postmodern subjectivities. J Int Relat Dev 15, 177–200 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2011.32
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2011.32