The Queer Art of Failed IR?

Abstract

What is missing from the debate about the “end of IR theory” or the rejection of the now infamous “isms”? Queer theory. Those who declare that IR theory is over and those who see it as making a comeback; those who reject the “isms” and those who champion them seem like they are on opposite sides of a very wide spectrum. This article argues, however, that all is not as it seems. Instead, the various “sides” of the debates about the futures of IR all take for granted a common set of understandings of what research is, what research success is, that research success is valuable, and how those things predict the futures of IR. Their only significant disagreement is about how they see the story unfolding. We disagree on the result as well, but the root of our disagreement is in the terms of the debates. We see IR as failing in two ways: failing to find a self-satisfactory grand narrative and failing to achieve its necessarily impossible goals. The current state-of-the-field literature fights the failing of IR theory—even those who see it as over memorialize its successes. We argue that failure is not to be fought but to be celebrated and actively participated in. Analyzing IR’s failures using queer methodology and queer analysis, we argue that recognizing IR’s failure can revive IR as an enterprise.

Queer Experiences Within the Bounds of International Relations

“…The state of LGBTQ politics and queer IR is changing (Weber, 2014; Sjoberg, 2014; Wilcox, 2014; Barkin & Sjoberg, 2020). A 2010 survey on LGBT people and research in Politics and International Relations disciplines found that ‘LGBT issues are undeniably a part of the discipline’, with 27% of respondents reporting that they engaged with LGBT topics in their research to some extent (Novkov & Barclay, 2010: 100).…”