Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:00:49.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The other as past and present: beyond the logic of ‘temporal othering’ in IR theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2010

SERGEI PROZOROV
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article ventures a critique of the logic of ‘temporal othering’ in contemporary International Relations (IR) theory. Originally articulated in the field of European integration, this logic presupposes a possibility for a political community to constitute its identity without any spatial delimitation by means of casting as Other its own past, whose repetition in the future it seeks to avoid. While the image of contemporary Europe as ‘othering’ its own past has been subjected to empirical criticism, this article makes a conceptual argument for the indissociability of temporal and spatial aspects in any act of othering. Drawing on Alexandre Kojève's reading of Hegel, I argue that any historical action is necessarily spatiotemporal, combining the abstraction of temporal negation with the concrete actuality of a negated spatial being. Alternatives to the logic of sovereign territoriality are therefore not to be sought in the temporal aspect of othering, but rather by pursuing the possibility of self-constitution in the absence of any negating action whatsoever. The article concludes with an outline of such an alternative ethos, developed on the basis of Giorgio Agamben's reconstruction of the Hegelian-Kojèvian problematic of the end of history and his theory of the subject.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 1273 - 1293
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Thies, Cameron, ‘Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist-Realist Debate’, European Journal of International Relations, 8 (2002), pp. 147–185Google Scholar ; Guzzini, Stefano, ‘The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 10 (2004), pp. 533–568Google Scholar ; Walker, R. B. J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar .

2 Derrida, Jacques, Spectres of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International (London: Routledge, 1994), p. 82Google Scholar ; Campbell, David, National Deconstruction: Violence, Justice and Identity in Bosnia (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), pp. 80–81Google Scholar . See also Murphy, Alexander, ‘The Sovereign State System as a Political-Territorial Ideal: Historical and Contemporary Considerations’, in Biersteker, Thomas and Weber, Cynthia (eds), State Sovereignty as Social Construct (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 81–120Google Scholar .

3 Spatial othering is a more general term than ‘territorial’ or ‘geopolitical’ othering, which pertains specifically to the political context of Western modernity, in which political space is structured in terms of territorial exclusivity. Territorial othering on the basis of the principle of state sovereignty is an historically specific ontic manifestation of the ontological principle of spatial othering, which can also take other forms, from the hierarchical ordering of space in imperial systems to the ‘ghettoization’ of urban space in a contemporary megapolis. Thus, the argument in this article does not imply any claims about the immutability of the specifically territorial mode of othering, whose significance might well eventually decrease, but rather asserts the indissociability of spatial and temporal aspects of othering, which renders impossible any attempt to view them as alternative modes of the self-other interaction.

4 See Ruggie, John, Constructing the World Polity (London: Routledge, 1998), pp. 191–195Google Scholar ; Sörensen, Georg, ‘Sovereignty: Change and Continuity in a Fundamental Institution’, Political Studies, 47 (1999), pp. 590–604Google Scholar .

5 Wæver, Ole, ‘Insecurity, Security and Asecurity in the West European Non-war Community’, in Adler, Emmanuel and Barnett, Michael (eds), Security Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 90Google Scholar .

6 Ibid., p. 100.

7 Diez, Thomas, ‘Europe's Others and the Return of Geopolitics’, Review of International Studies, 17 (2004), p. 320Google Scholar .

8 Wendt, Alexander, ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations, 9 (2004), p. 527Google Scholar .

9 Heikki Patomäki, ‘Is a Global Identity Possible? The Relevance of Big History to Self-Other Relations’, paper presented at 6th Pan-European International Relations Conference, Turin (12–15 September 2007), p. 12.

10 Diez, ‘Europe's Others’, p. 328.

11 Browning, Christopher, ‘The Internal/External Security Paradox and the Reconstruction of Boundaries in the Baltic: The Case of Kaliningrad’, Alternatives, 28 (2003), pp. 545–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

12 Rumelili, Bahar, ‘Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding the EU’s Mode of Differentiation', Review of International Studies, 30 (2004), p. 46CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

13 Joenniemi, Pertti, ‘Re-Negotiating Europe's Identity: The European Neighbourhood Policy as a Form of Differentiation’, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 23:3 (2008), p. 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

14 Ibid., p. 89.

15 Ibid., p. 90.

16 Kojève, Alexandre, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel: Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969), p. 23Google Scholar .

17 Ibid., p. 160.

18 Ibid., p. 29.

19 Ibid., p. 98.

20 Ibid., p. 136, note 24. Emphasis in original.

21 Ibid., p. 136. Emphasis in original.

22 Ibid., p. 225.

23 Ibid., p. 137. Emphasis in original.

24 See Bartelson, Jens, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar ; Walker, , ‘State Sovereignty and the Articulation of the Political Space/Time’, Millennium, 20 (1991), pp. 445–462Google Scholar .

25 Kojeve, Introduction, p. 48. Emphasis in original.

26 Ibid., p. 225, note 22. Emphasis in original.

27 Ibid., p. 137. Emphasis in original.

28 Diez, ‘Europe's Others’, p. 326.

29 Ibid.

30 See Joenniemi, , ‘Kosovo and the End of War’, in Van Ham, Peter and Medvedev, Sergei (eds), Mapping European Security after Kosovo (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2002), pp. 48–65Google Scholar ; Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, ‘“War is Never Civilized”: Civilization, Civil Society and the Kosovo War’, in Van Ham and Medvedev (eds), Mapping European Security, pp. 162–78.

31 For a detailed study of the politics of memory in post-World War II Germany see Zehfuss, Maja, Wounds of Memory: The Politics of War in Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar . See more generally, Lebow, Richard Ned, Kansteiner, Wulf and Fogu, Claudio (eds), The Politics of Memory in Post-War Europe (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006)Google Scholar . See also Derrida, Spectres of Marx, pp. 95–124 for a reading of the politics of memory in terms of ‘hauntology’.

32 Diez, ‘Europe's Others’, pp. 320–1.

33 Rumelili, ‘Constructing Identity’, p. 33. See more generally Rumelili, , Constructing Regional Community and Order in Europe and Southeast Asia (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar , ch. 1.

34 See Said, Edward, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1979)Google Scholar ; Neumann, Iver, Uses of the Other: ‘The East’ in European Identity Formation (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998)Google Scholar ; Doty, Roxanne, Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North–South Relations (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996)Google Scholar .

35 Rumelili, ‘Constructing Identity’, pp. 37–9.

36 Fukuyama, Francis, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992)Google Scholar .

37 Wendt, ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, pp. 504–5.

38 Kojève, Introduction, pp. 67–70.

39 Ibid., pp. 158–9.

40 Ibid., p. 161.

41 Ibid., p. 162. See Derrida, Spectres of Marx, pp. 69–74 for a detailed reading of this note.

42 Nietzsche, Friedrich, Thus Spake Zarathustra (New York: J. M. Dent, 1961), p. 9Google Scholar .

43 Fukuyama, , ‘The End of History?’, The National Interest, 16 (1989), p. 18Google Scholar .

44 Agamben, Giorgio, Language and Death: The Place of Negativity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), pp. 49–53, 99–101Google Scholar .

45 See Agamben, , Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), pp. 60–62Google Scholar ; Means without End: Notes on Politics (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000), pp. 109–11; The Open: Man and Animal (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), pp. 6–12.

46 Agamben, Means without End, p. 111. Emphasis in original.

47 Ibid., p. 112.

48 Franchi, Stefano, ‘Passive Politics’, Contretemps, 5 (2004), pp. 30–41Google Scholar .

49 Agamben, The Open, p. 76.

50 Agamben, Means without End, pp. 141–2.

51 Agamben, , Idea of Prose (New York: SUNY Press, 1995), p. 87Google Scholar . Emphasis in original.

52 For a detailed interpretation of Agamben's conception of the end of history see Prozorov, Sergei, ‘Giorgio Agamben and the End of History: Inoperative Praxis and the Interruption of the Dialectic’, European Journal of Social Theory, 12 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

53 Wendt, ‘Why a World State is Inevitable’, pp. 507–16.

54 Agamben, Idea of Prose, p. 82.

55 Agamben, , The Coming Community (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993), pp. 1–4, 89–106Google Scholar . See also Edkins, Jenny, ‘Whatever Politics’, in Calarco, Matthew and DeCaroli, Stephen (eds), Giorgio Agamben: Sovereignty and Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), pp. 70–91Google Scholar .

56 Agamben, The Coming Community, p. 86.

57 Ibid., p. 85.

58 Ibid., p. 86.

59 Agamben, Means without End, p. 142.

60 In its emphasis on the survival of the past in a spectral form that ‘haunts’ our present, Agamben's approach resonates with Derrida's notion of hauntology that denotes the undecidable being of an event as simultaneously both present and absent, originary and repeated, real and unreal, etc. See Derrida, Spectres of Marx, pp. 10–2, 51.

61 See Agamben, , Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive (New York: Zone Books, 1999), pp. 20–24Google Scholar ; Means without End, pp. 128–36.

62 Agamben, Language and Death, p. 93.

63 Agamben, Remnants of Auschwitz, pp. 87–135. See also Agamben, Idea of Prose, pp. 95–7.

64 Ibid., p. 106.

65 Agamben, Means without End, p. 142.

66 Ibid.

67 See Mills, Catherine, The Philosophy of Agamben (Stocksfield: Acumen, 2008), pp. 102–105Google Scholar ; Mika Ojakangas, ‘Conscience, the Remnant and the Witness: Genealogical Remarks on Giorgio Agamben's Ethics’, Philosophy and Social Criticism, 36 (forthcoming).

68 See Ernesto Laclau, , ‘Bare Life or Social Indeterminacy’, in Calarco, Matthew and DeCaroli, Stephen (eds), Giorgio Agamben: Sovereignty and Life (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007), pp. 11–22Google Scholar . For a more detailed discussion of Agamben's politics that responds to this type of criticism see Prozorov, , ‘Generic Universalism in World Politics: Beyond International Anarchy and the World State’, International Theory, 2 (2009)Google Scholar .

69 Delillo, Don, The Falling Man (London: Picador, 2007), p. 116Google Scholar .