Advertisement

Colonial Globality, Postcolonial Subjectivities in the Middle East

  • Pinar BilginEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations book series (PSIR)

Abstract

The meaning of the ‘global’ is often taken for granted in the study of world politics. Studying globality is commonly understood as transcending state-focused analyses that characterise the study of the ‘international’. However, as with the study of the ‘international’, that has come under criticism for being less-than-sociological, the very meaning of the ‘global’ that we take for granted overlooks the experiences, contributions and contestations of those who also constitute the ‘global’ (and the ‘international’) while relying on particular historical narratives on (a presumably autonomously developed) Europe. In this chapter, I propose studying the postcolonial as the ‘constitutive outside’ of the ‘global’. In offering this response, I draw on the postcolonial studies insight that what is limiting is not the idea of having a ‘general standard’ but ‘our’ forgetting of the ways in which particular experiences have been solidified into method which, in turn, has allowed a particular ‘general standard’ to pass as ‘universal’. More specifically, the chapter suggests that he self-styled anti-global subjectivity of some regional actors is merely one instance of postcolonial subjectivity in the Middle East, and that adopting a notion of postcolonial globality reveals multiple and variegated postcolonial subjectivities. As such, the chapter proposes to study postcolonial subjectivities by considering both assumptions regarding the universal and the particular, the colonial and the postcolonial.

References

  1. BBC. 2013. BBC Documentary: Zaha Hadid: Who Dares Wins.Google Scholar
  2. BBC. 2016a. ‘Dame Zaha Hadid’, BBC Radio 4 Interview on Desert Island Discs.Google Scholar
  3. BBC. 2016b. Zaha Hadid—Dream Builder. BBC World Service Documentary.Google Scholar
  4. Ahluwalia, Pal. 2005. Out of Africa: Post-structuralism’s Colonial Roots. Postcolonial Studies 8 (2): 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amin, Samir. 1989. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bilgin, Pinar. 2000. Inventing Middle East? The Making of Regions Through Security Discourses. In The Middle East in Globalizing World, ed. Knut Vikør. Oslo: Nordic Society for Middle Eastern Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Bilgin, Pinar. 2004. Regional Security in the Middle East: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bilgin, Pinar. 2016a. Beyond the “Billiard Ball” Model of the International. European Political Science 15 (1): 117–119.Google Scholar
  9. Bilgin, Pinar. 2016b. How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge for the Global Transformation. International Theory 8 (3): 492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bilgin, Pinar. 2016c. The International in Security, Security in the International. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Bilgin, Pinar. 2016d. What Is the Point About Sykes-Picot? Global Affairs 2 (3): 355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blaney, David L., and Naeem Inayatullah. 2008. International Relations from Below. In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, ed. C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Buzan, Barry, and George Lawson. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chan, Stephen. 1993. Cultural and Linguistic Reductionisms and a New Historical Sociology for International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 22 (3): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dirlik, Arif. 1999. Is There History After Eurocentrism? Globalism, Postcolonialism, and the Disavowal of History. Cultural Critique 42: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Go, Julian. 2013. Decolonizing Bourdieu: Colonial and Postcolonial Theory in Pierre Bourdieu’s Early Work. Sociological Theory 31 (1): 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory, Derek. 2004. The Colonial Present. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Grovogui, Siba N. 2006. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gurtaudon, Virginie. 2012. Citizenship: Bourdieu, Migration and the International. In Bourdieu in International Relations: Rethinking Key Concepts in IR, ed. R. Adler-Nissen. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hall, Stuart. 1996. When Was ‘the Post-colonial’? Thinking at the Limit. In The Post-colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons, ed. I. Chambers and L. Curti. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Halperin, Sandra. 1997. In the Mirror of the Third World: Capitalist Development in Modern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Halperin, Sandra. 2006. International Relations Theory and the Hegemony of Western Conceptions of Modernity. In Decolonizing International Relations, ed. B.G. Jones. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. Hardt, Michael. 2001. The Eurocentrism of History. Postcolonial Studies 4 (2): 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. The Woman Who Made Iraq. The Atlantic, June.Google Scholar
  25. Hobson, John M. 2004. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hobson, John, George Lawson, and Justin Rosenberg. 2010. Historical Sociology. In The International Studies Encyclopaedia, ed. R.A. Denmark. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Jabri, Vivienne. 2013. The Postcolonial Subject: Claiming Politics/Governing Others in Late Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Kamel, Lorenzo. 2014. Artificial Nations? The Sykes-Picot and the Islamic State’s Narratives in a Historical Perspective. Harvard University Center for Middle Eastern Studies.Google Scholar
  29. Lacoste, Yves. 1998. Cografya Savasmak Icindir. Istanbul: Ozne.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, Martin W., and Kären Wigen. 1997. The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  31. Loomba, Ania. 2005. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Mamdani, Mahmood. 2001. Beyond Settler and Native as Political Identities: Overcoming the Political Legacy of Colonialism. Comparative Study of Society and History 43 (4): 651–664.Google Scholar
  33. Al-Marashi, Ibrahim. 2016. The Women Behind Sykes-Picot [Online]. Available: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2016/05/women-sykes-picot-160519112909032.html. Accessed 19 July 2016.
  34. Mignolo, Walter. 2002. The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference. The South Atlantic Quarterly 101 (1): 57–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mignolo, Walter. 2003. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitchell, Timothy. 1988. Colonising Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Muppidi, Himadeep. 2004. The Politics of the Global. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rifkind, Gabrielle, and Gianni Pico. 2014. The New Great Regional Game: Saudi Arabia and Iran. OpenDemocracy. https://www.opendemocracy.net/arab-awakening/gabrielle-rifkind-gianni-picco/new-great-regional-Game-Saudi-Arabia-and-Iran. Accessed 19 Apr 2017.
  39. Rosenberg, Justin. 2006. Why Is There No International Historical Sociology? European Journal of International Relations 12 (3): 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Said, Edward W. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  41. Scholte, Jan Aart. 2002. What Is Globalization? The Definitional Issue-Again. Working Papers, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation, University of Warwick, Coventry.Google Scholar
  42. Seth, Sanjay. 2013. Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations. In Postcolonial Theory and International Relations: A Critical Introduction, ed. S. Seth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Shohat, Ella. 1992. Notes on the “Post-colonial”. Social Text 31 (32): 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tinsley, Meghan. 2015. Whose Colonialism? The Contested Memory of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. POMEPS Blog [Online]. Available: http://pomeps.org/2015/03/06/whose-colonialism-the-contested-memory-of-the-sykes-picot-agreement/. Accessed 6 Mar 2016.
  45. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1997. Eurocentrism and Its Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science. New Left Review 1 (226): 93–108.Google Scholar
  46. Wolf, Eric R. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bilkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations