1 Mark Laffey's article, which follows in this special section, is worth mentioning here because of how it has a foot in each of these categories and, in so doing, performs the very objections Ashley has to iconic readings (see Laffey, Mark, ‘Things Lost and Found: Richard Ashley and the silences of thinking space’, Review of International Studies, 36:4 (October 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Laffey's article simultaneously seems to regard some aspects of Ashley's work with uncritical devotion (the ‘Marxist’ bits) while it seems to be hell-bent upon destroying other aspects of Ashley's work (the ‘post-structuralist’ bits). What makes Laffey's article's seemingly contradictory position possible is its determination to exclude one of the most significant aspects of Ashley's work from Ashley's texts – the claim by Ashley that he is writing critically in relation to all structuralisms, including Marxism. So, while on the one hand, Laffey's article wants to credit Ashley's work because Marx, capital and especially labour were there all along, Laffey's article also insists that post-structuralist readings of Ashley's work are not based upon close textual readings but merely upon over-identifications with and sympathies for Ashley's intentions about his work. In other words, Laffey's article suggests that Laffey's analysis offers the hard materialist facts of the matter, while particularly my reading of Ashley's work in this article offers merely soft sentiment and sentimentality. This is why, from the perspective of Laffey's article, Laffey's reading of Ashley is counter-memorialising and therefore truly broadening of ‘thinking space’ while mine is memorialising, static, and constrictive of ‘thinking space’. There are several ironies here. I will mention just two.

First, it is ironic that what makes Laffey's reading possible is his article's analytical confusion between Ashley's textual engagement with structural Marxism (about which Laffey's article is correct – it was there all along) and Ashley's textual embracing of structural Marxism (which was not and is not the ‘material fact’ of Ashley's texts). This conflation of ‘engaging’ with ‘embracing’ depends upon a necessary exclusion employed by Laffey's article – one that forgets how the lessons of 1968 lead Marxist-influenced thinkers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida to take seriously the resilience of capitalism. This lead them to develop alternative understandings to Marxism that broke free of Marxism's determinist logics and laws of contradiction, with concepts like power/knowledge in Foucault's case and differentiation and différance in Derrida's case. It is only by erasing this intellectual history of the relationship between Marxism and post-structuralism – by effectively narrowing our ‘thinking space’ about how post-structuralism historically and intellectually grew out of what it perceived to be the failures of Marxist praxis and of how this spoils the wished-for Marxist-inflected continuity in dissident critique that Laffey's article so desperately desires – that Laffey's article can conflate Ashley's engagement with Marxism with an embracing of it. Yet this is precisely what Laffey's article does (although the ‘Postscript’ to Laffey's article claims otherwise; see, Laffey, ‘Things Lost and Found’). Not only that. Laffey's article evidences and sustains this confusion not only by deploying very simplistic and contentious, even demeaning, dichotomies (for example, hard, masculine, materialist textual facts on the part of his article vs. soft, feminine, immaterial intentions on the part of my article and of Ashley's self-readings, implying that my and Ashley's analyses are not textually based) that evidence a regrettable ‘intolerance of intellectual difference at the margins’ (also see the ‘Postscript’ to Laffey's article which dismisses my point-by-point analytical reply to Laffey's article in this footnote as ‘a little hysterical’, by which it does not mean funny; see Laffey, ‘Things Lost and Found’; and for the quote on intolerance, see Grayson, Kyle, ‘Disidence, Richard K. Ashley and the Politics of Silence’, Review of International Studies, 36:4 (October 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Laffey's article also reveals the very ‘protocol of reading’ upon which its entire argument is based – a silencing of its own sentimental attachment to Marx and Marxism as the originary, continuous, undifferentiated, and uninterruptable sources of dissident critique out of which all of Laffey's article's arguments and occlusions of history flow. This is what makes it possible for Laffey's article to come to two contradictory conclusions at the same time. On the one hand, Laffey's work concludes that ‘in thinking space the Marxist trace in the poststructuralist text is simply ignored’ (Laffey, ‘Things Lost and Found’) because my article does not mention Marxists enough. Yet, on the other hand, Laffey's article concludes that Ashley must be involved in disciplinary boundary-work against Marxists and Marxisms when he recalls Marx at all, like when Ashley asked of Laffey in response to Laffey's presentation of his draft article, ‘Don't you think Derrida read Marx?’ (Newcastle Conference, 17 April 2007).

A second irony of Laffey's article is that it tries to draw its readers into a debate about deciding who really is ‘the essential Ashley’ and about how Ashley's work essentially or properly or best opens up ‘thinking space’. Such a debate is neither counter-memorialising as it claims to be (for it is about arguing over which ‘essential Ashley’ – as if there were one – to memorialise; here I agree with Kyle Grayson that there are multiple and I would add indeterminable ‘Ashleys’, see Grayson, ‘Dissidence’) nor productive (don't we all have more important political projects to be getting on with than one that revolves around trying to determine which ‘iconic Ashley’ – and presumably the ‘Marxist one’ or really the one remixed with Laffey's brand of Marxism – is the proper representative of Ashley's textual opus?). Most importantly, though, such a debate detracts from what Ashley's texts themselves do in and for IR, which is they emphasise the undecidability of all ontologies and all grounds for making ontological claims – not only about mainstream and dissident/critical IR but also about IR theorists like Ashley himself or about his body of work, not to mention about political and economic theorists like Marx or about his body of work.

The merits of Laffey's intervention, then, lie not in the points his article invites us to debate (about which ‘iconic Ashley’ to ‘counter’-memorialise while, it should be stressed, always leaving relatively uncontested and un-remixed yet ever memorialised some desired-for sense of Marx and Marxism that provides continuity to dissident critiques by erasing the very critical differences in Ashley's work that give it its rich interruptive character, of IR generally and of Laffey's brand of undifferentiated dissident critique specifically). Rather, the merits of Laffey's article lie, first, in performing the very reasons why I suggest Ashley sees these debates as counter-productive and why I suggest Ashley therefore hates to be regarded as an iconic figure. Second, the merits of Laffey's article lie in reminding us of how limiting the presumed truly broader ‘thinking space’ of the specific brand of Marxism employed by Laffey's article can be when its persistent reply to interruptions by post-structuralists is to insistently forget the material historical conditions that made it necessary for post-structuralists – including Foucault, Derrida, and Ashley – to not only think with Marxists but also to think beyond the limits of Marxism.

2 As Ashley and Walker put it, ‘Words can no longer do justice because they no longer bear a promise of certain, liberal judgment on behalf of a social order, a community, a discipline, a culture. As a result, the very possibility of truth is put in doubt’. See Ashley, Richard K. and Walker, R. B. J., ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline: Crisis and the Question of Sovereignty in International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:3 (1990), p. 378CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

3 Webster's Dictionary.

4 Realism, neo-realism, and contemporary structurationisms function in Ashley's work as illustrations of modernist discourses. As Ashley explains, he could just as easily target other modernist discourses – like Marxism or Kantianism – for critique. His choice of realism, neo-realism, and contemporary structurationisms have to do with their hegemonic status in the discipline of North American IR.

5 Ashley, Richard K., ‘The Eye of Power: The Politics of World Modeling’, International Organization, 37:3 (1983), p. 521CrossRefGoogle Scholar . While in this passage Ashley is speaking specifically about world modelling projects, he could just as easily be speaking about realism.

6 Ashley, Richard K., ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization, 38:2 (1984), p. 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

7 Ashley, ‘The Eye of Power’ and Ashley, Richard K., ‘Three Modes of Economism’, International Studies Quarterly, 27:4 (1983), pp. 463–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

8 Ashley, ‘The Eye of Power’.

9 Ibid., ‘Three Modes’.

10 Ibid., ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’.

11 Ashley, Richard K., ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics’, Alternatives, 12 (1987) pp. 403–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

12 Ashley, Richard K., ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique’, Millennium, 17:2 (1988), pp. 227–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

13 Ashley, Richard K., ‘Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism, and War’, in Derian, James Der and Shapiro, Michael J. (eds), International/Intertextual Relations (Lexington MA: Lexington Press, 1989), pp. 259–321Google Scholar .

14 Ashley, ‘Living on Boderlines’; Richard K. Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political: Some Thoughts Too Long Retained’, paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, Los Angeles (2000); Ashley, Richard. K. and Walker, R. B. J., ‘Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:3 (1990), pp. 259–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’.

15 The failure here is important because a failed interpreter is one ‘whose expectations are persistently disappointed’ by the object he interprets so much so that he ‘evidently has not become part of the world he would interpret’. See, Ashley, Richard K., ‘Political Realism and Human Interest’, International Studies Quarterly, 25:2 (1981), pp. 212CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

16 Ashley, ‘The Eye of Power’.

17 Ibid., ‘Three Modes’.

18 Ibid., ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space’.

19 Ibid., ‘Living on Border Lines’.

20 Ashley and Walker, ‘Speaking the Language of Exile’; Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’.

21 Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’.

22 Ibid., ‘Living on Border Lines’, p. 282.

23 Ibid., ‘Political Realism and Human Interest’, p. 217. See, Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1979)Google Scholar .

24 Ibid., ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, p. 8. See Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

25 Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’.

26 Ibid., ‘Political Realism and Human Interest’, pp. 227–8.

27 Ashley, Richard K., ‘The Powers of Anarchy: Theory, Sovereignty, and the Domestication of Global Life’, in Derian, James Der (ed.), Critical Investigations (London: MacMillian, 1988/1995), p. 87Google Scholar .

28 Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, p. 8 and Richard K. Ibid., ‘The Political, Statecraft, Sovereignty’, paper presented at the International Studies Association Annual Convention, Chicago (2001), pp. 7, 13.

29 Ibid., ‘Living on Border Lines’; Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’; Ashley and Walker, ‘Speaking the Language of Exile’; and Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’.

30 Ibid., ‘Untying the Sovereign State’, pp. 231, 238.

31 Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines’, p. 284.

32 Ibid., ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, p. 15.

33 Ibid., ‘Untying the Sovereign State’, p. 256.

34 Ibid., ‘Living on Border Lines’, p. 303.

35 Ashley, Richard K., ‘The Achievements of Postmodernism’, in Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve, and Zalewski, Marysia (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 240–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’.

36 Quoted in Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, p. 6.

37 Ashley, ‘Untying the Sovereign State’.

38 Ibid., ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, p. 11.

39 Ibid., ‘The Powers of Anarchy’, p. 119.

40 Ibid., ‘Untying the Sovereign State’, p. 255; Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’, p. 403.

41 As Ashley reminds us, ‘Theory and research, and their relations to practical knowledge, must themselves be regarded as proper objects of international relations theory and research’. See Ashley, ‘Three Modes’, p. 484.

42 Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines’, pp. 301–2.

43 Ibid., p. 304.

44 Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’, p. 368.

45 Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines’, p. 262.

46 Ibid., ‘The Powers of Anarchy’, p. 102.

47 Ibid., ‘Living on Border Lines’, p. 262.

48 Wendt, ‘Social Theory’.

49 Ashley, ‘The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space’, p. 405.

50 Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’, p. 402.

51 See Berman, Jacqueline, ‘(Un)Popular Strangers and Crises (Un)Bounded: Discourses of Sex-Trafficking, the European Political Community and the Panicked State of Modern States’, European Journal of International Affairs, 9:1 (2003), pp. 37–86Google Scholar ; Bleiker, Roland, ‘Forget IR Theory’, Alternatives, 22:1 (1997), pp. 57–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Campbell, David, Writing Security: US Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992)Google Scholar ; Campbell, David, National Deconstruction (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)Google Scholar ; Chaloupka, William, ‘Immodest Modesty: Antinuclear Discourse, Lifestyle Politics, and Intervention Strategies’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:3 (1990), pp. 341–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Constantinou, Costas M., On the Way to Diplomacy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar ; Debrix, Francois, Re-envisioning Peacekeeping (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)Google Scholar ; Derian, James Der, On Diplomacy (London: Basil Blackwell, 1987)Google Scholar ; Derian, James Der, ‘The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:3 (1990), pp. 295–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Derian, James Der (ed.), Critical Investigations (London: MacMillian, 1995)Google Scholar ; Derian, James Der and Shapiro, Michael J. (eds), International/Intertextual Relations (Lexington MA: Lexington Books, 1989)Google Scholar ; Devetak, Richard, ‘The Project of Modernity and International Relations Theory’, Millennium, 24:1 (1995), pp. 27–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Dillon, Michael, The Politics of Security (London: Routledge, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Doty, Roxanne Lynn, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar ; Doty, Roxanne Lynn, Statecraft's Desire and Anti-Immigration in Western Democracies (London: Routledge, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; George, Jim, Discourses of Global Politics (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; George, Jim and Campbell, David, ‘Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:3 (1990), pp. 269–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Grovogui, Siba, Sovereigns, Quasi-Sovereigns, and Africans: Race and Self-Determination in International Law (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar ; Mustapha, Tagma Halit, ‘A Disciplinary Discipline: The Anarchy Problematique and the Construction of the International Relations Discipline’, Thesis in the Department of Political Science (Arizona State University, in progress)Google Scholar ; Johnston, Deborah S., ‘Constructing the Periphery in Modern Global Politics’, in Murphy, Craig and Tooze, Roger (ed.), The New International Political Economy (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner, 1991)Google Scholar ; Klein, Bradley S., ‘How the West was One: Representational Politics of NATO’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:3 (1990), pp. 311–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Klein, Bradley S., Strategic Studies and World Order: The Global Politics of Deterrence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Lapid, Yosef, ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Postivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly, 33:3 (1989), pp. 235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Luke, Timothy W., ‘Discourses of Disintegration/Texts of Transformation: Re-Reading Realism in the New World Order’, Alternatives, 18:2 (1994), pp. 229–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Manzo, Kate, ‘Global Power and South African Politics’, Alternatives, 17:1 (1992), pp. 23–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Nelson, Scott G., ‘Sovereignty, Ethics, Community’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 30:7 (2004), pp. 816–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Peterson, V. Spike, Gendered States: Feminist (Re)Visions of International Relations Theory (Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner, 1992)Google Scholar ; Ruback, Timothy. J., ‘The Three I's of the Thucydides Industry’, Alternatives, (forthcoming)Google Scholar ; Shapiro, Michael. J., ‘Strategic Discourse/Discursive Strategy: The Representation of “Security Policy” in the Video Age’, International Studies Quarterly, 34:3 (1990), pp. 327–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Sogut, Nevzat, States and Strangers (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)Google Scholar ; Sylvester, Christine, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar ; Walker, R. B. J., One World, Many Worlds: Struggles for a Just World Peace (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1988)Google Scholar ; Walker, R. B. J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar ; Weber, Cynthia, Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State, and Symbolic Exchange (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Weber, Cynthia, ‘Good Girls, Little Girls, and Bad Girls: Male Paranoia in Robert Keohane's Critique of Feminist International Relations’, Millennium, 23:2 (1994), pp. 337–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Weber, Cynthia, Faking It: US Hegemony in a ‘Post-Phallic’ Era (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999)Google Scholar ; Weber, Cynthia, Imagining America at War (London: Routledge, 2005)Google Scholar .

52 Ashley, ‘Three Modes’, p. 483.

53 Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’, p. 377.

54 Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines’, p. 283.

55 Ibid., ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, p. 33.

56 Ibid., ‘The Powers of Anarchy’, p. 123.

57 Ibid., ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’.

58 Ibid., ‘The Powers of Anarchy’, p. 94.

59 Ashley and Walker, ‘Speaking the Language of Exile’; Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’; Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’.

60 Richard K. Ashley, ‘Can the End of Power Politics Possibly be Part of the Concepts with which its Story is Told? A Post-Hoc Thematic’, paper presented at From Dissidence to Defiance: Resisting the Disciplines of Global Politics, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne (2007); Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’.

61 Ashley, ‘Three Modes’, p. 482; Onuf, Nicholas, World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations (Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1989)Google Scholar ; Wendt, ‘Social Theory’.

62 Ibid., ‘Three Modes’, p. 478; Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble (London: Routledge, 1990)Google Scholar .

63 Ibid., ‘The Powers of Anarchy’; Ashley, ‘Living on the Border Lines’; Ashley, ‘Can the End?’.

64 Since I was his student, I have teased Rick that he needs an editor. I worry as I write this article that I have finally become Rick's editor, narrativising Rick's opus into something short and punchy, into something Rick never would or could write, into something that too many scholars and students might read before or instead of reading Rick. If that is the effect of this article, then it has failed. For instead of offering an interruption of Rick's interruption, it would have replaced critique with symbolic patricide and rendered what cannot be stabilised into something stable. Reading Rick is annoying because he destabilises everything, including himself. All of this is why reading Rick is well worth the effort and why ‘substitutes’ like this one will never adequately capture who Ashley is or what Ashley's interruption does.

65 Ashley, ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, p. 285.

66 Ibid., p. 286.

67 Keohane, Robert O. (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)Google Scholar . See also, Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’.

68 Ashley, ‘The Achievements’, p. 240.

69 Ibid.

70 Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, p. 22.

71 Ibid., ‘Political Realism’, p. 225.

72 Ashley and Walker, ‘Reading Dissidence/Writing the Discipline’, p. 405.

73 Ibid., p. 402.

74 Keohane, Robert O., ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint’, Millennium, 18:2 (1989), pp. 245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Jones, Adam, ‘Does Gender Make the World Go Round? Feminist Critiques of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 22:4 (1996), pp. 405–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar . For responses see Weber, ‘Good Girls’; Carver, Terrell and Cochrane, Molly and Squires, Judith, ‘Gendering Jones: Feminisms, IRs, Masculinities’, Review of International Studies, 24:2 (1998), pp. 283–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

75 Ashley, ‘Sovereignty, Hauntology, and the Mirror of the World Political’, pp. 31–2.

76 Ibid., p. 36.

77 Ibid., p. 5.

78 Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (New York: Random House, 1973), p. 386Google Scholar quoted in Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines’, p. 313.