Colonial Globality, Postcolonial Subjectivities in the Middle East
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.
- BBC. 2013. BBC Documentary: Zaha Hadid: Who Dares Wins.Google Scholar
- BBC. 2016a. ‘Dame Zaha Hadid’, BBC Radio 4 Interview on Desert Island Discs.Google Scholar
- BBC. 2016b. Zaha Hadid—Dream Builder. BBC World Service Documentary.Google Scholar
- Amin, Samir. 1989. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Bilgin, Pinar. 2016a. Beyond the “Billiard Ball” Model of the International. European Political Science 15 (1): 117–119.Google Scholar
- Bilgin, Pinar. 2016c. The International in Security, Security in the International. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gregory, Derek. 2004. The Colonial Present. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Halperin, Sandra. 1997. In the Mirror of the Third World: Capitalist Development in Modern Europe. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Hitchens, Christopher. 2007. The Woman Who Made Iraq. The Atlantic, June.Google Scholar
- Hobson, John, George Lawson, and Justin Rosenberg. 2010. Historical Sociology. In The International Studies Encyclopaedia, ed. R.A. Denmark. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Jabri, Vivienne. 2013. The Postcolonial Subject: Claiming Politics/Governing Others in Late Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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
- Lacoste, Yves. 1998. Cografya Savasmak Icindir. Istanbul: Ozne.Google Scholar
- Lewis, Martin W., and Kären Wigen. 1997. The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Loomba, Ania. 2005. Colonialism/Postcolonialism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- Mitchell, Timothy. 1988. Colonising Egypt. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Muppidi, Himadeep. 2004. The Politics of the Global. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Said, Edward W. 1993. Culture and Imperialism. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1997. Eurocentrism and Its Avatars: The Dilemmas of Social Science. New Left Review 1 (226): 93–108.Google Scholar
- Wolf, Eric R. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar