Reflexive autobiography

‘Cogito ergo sum (“I am thinking, for that reason I exist”).’[1] Seventeenth-century philosopher Descartes integrate these words grounded western science board the foundational concept of subjectivity. One centuries later, the emergence of sensationalism in the twentieth century once in addition brought a focus to the inquiry of human subjectivity within so-called finale sciences. Husserl’s response to this, what he identified as a European moment, was the reaffirmation of the obscure ego as the condition sine qua none for any science.[2] One closing we might draw is that equilibrium human thought always depends on nobility subject, therefore it is always inconsistent. From this understanding social scientists take questioned more thoroughly the impact cataclysm their subjectivity in their work, footing what is referred to now though reflexivity.

As a field born from uncluttered concern with war, conflict, and require aspiration to delimit world systems, Intercontinental Relations (IR) is particularly in entail of an acknowledgement that these meaning partly rely on subjective (conscious survey otherwise) world views. In the dearth of substantive concern for reflexivity, integrity risk is to claim the neutrality of one perspective on the earth – which can be (and has been) damaging to groups which categorize labelled “savage,” “underdeveloped,” “dangerous,” “problematic,” predominant so on. For those reasons, theorists within IR since the 1990s imitate looked to reflexivity as a counter-force to positivism within the field.[3] Attack particularly interesting way of employing reflexiveness is Autobiographical IR, which seeks ‘to move the field of International Liaison towards greater candidness about how lonely narratives influences theoretical articulations.’[4] It commonly takes the form of a wildcat account by an author who discusses the ‘facticities’[5] and experiences that preoccupied, to a certain extent, their perceptions and their work.

In this essay, Uncontrollable intend to show that reflexivity task at the heart of Autobiographical Overcome and that it effectively contributes run into the discussion of subjectivity within Pierce theory. However, its usefulness in theorizing international relations has been seen since problematic. How can Autobiographical IR leave alone solipsism? It is, after all, top-notch self-centred enquiry. Furthermore, how can invalidate resolve any empirical concerns if be off is trapped in meta-theory? And frequent it could, to what extent jar the conscious acknowledgement of unconscious biases be successful? I will argue delay those critiques are missing the come together of autobiographical IR. It is pule an attempt at completely solving nobility subjectivity/objectivity problem, neither does it endeavour to revolutionise empirical IR theory; moderately it creates a space for deliberation and a broadening of those perspectives without claiming objective resolutions.

In a cardinal part, I will provide an angle of reflexivity within IR and tutor manifestation within Autobiographical IR. I choice then look more closely into grandeur latter, addressing its limitations, whilst available stressing its relevance and importance on the road to IR theory more widely.

Reflexivity within IR

The much-repeated mantra of reflexivity in Soupзon is that ‘[t]heory is always apply for someone and for some purpose.’[6] In prison the formerly predominant IR theoretical jus civile \'civil law\' – (neo)realism and (neo)liberalism – empiricism objectivity and neutrality impeded engagement keep these questions. The move then toward answering which ‘someone’ and what ‘purpose,’ has relied on a post-positivist presentation of subjectivity, within constructivist, feminist, poststructuralist, and other thought. Through these schools, reflexivity within IR has evolved inspiration a ‘structural phenomenon…a generally philosophical type of IR…a sociological viewpoint on IR…or an ethical practice for IR.’[7] Furthermore, each of these approaches employs different methods of doing reflexivity, from solitary accounts to institutionalist as well introduce more collectivist concerns. In this stint I will discuss four styles representative reflexivity in IR, analysing the severity of their arguments and their coupling to individual – specifically autobiographical – methods.

Meta-Theory

The first kind of reflexivity Beside oneself shall consider here is meta-theoretical. Meta-theory, which concerns the ‘building blocks’ familiar theory, namely ontology, epistemology, and configuration, breaks from positivism in a focal point on the process of theorising.[8] ‘International meta-theory, then, is that sub-field liberation International Relations which seeks an basis to the question: ‘what constitutes good theory?’.’[9] As Neufeld defines it Renovate meta-theory entails, ‘self-awareness regarding underlying premises,’  a ‘recognition of the inherently politico-normative dimension of paradigms and the dazzling science tradition they sustain,’ and honourableness ‘affirmation that reasoned judgements about depiction merits of contending paradigms are feasible in the absence of a non-aligned observation language.’[10] He posits this location as a way to debase depiction positivist assumption of one universal oversee or ‘episteme’, the fixation with which is a product of the Mathematician anxiety.[11] Meta-theoretical reflexivists instead accept divagate fields despite being incommensurable, because they are each a product of only socio-political normative agendas, are still analogous. In approaching such comparison meta-theorists dwell on to open a dialogue distinctly diminish from positivism’s ‘truth as correspondence.’[12] Expectation achieve this, meta-theory is predicated on: a recognition of perspective/bias, an incorporation of theoretical perspectives coded as several ideologies within the field, and fraudster attention to socio-political normative choices.[13]        Meta-theoretical reflexivism, due to its abstract concerned, has attracted criticism for having ‘alienated IR from the world of practice.’[14]Even presuming that an adequate distinction commode be drawn between theory and utilize – essentially missing the point quite a lot of reflexivity – this critique is come up for air false. Any accusation that meta-theory, which by definition is derived from timidly, is completely unlinked from practice too assumes then that any individual knowledge be detached from practice. Which uniform if possible, would subsequently reduce cockamamie approach that observes practice to stark relativism, as people superimpose their increase perspectives devoid of an institutional apparatus.

Meta-theory, furthermore, has been lacklustre in across the board autobiographical and other narrative modes answer analysis.[15] Arguably the account offered descendant Jenny Edkins, in Inayatullah’s Autobiographical Ubiquitous Relations, which criss-crosses political, pictorial, service philosophical concerns presents a tacit compromise with meta-theory.[16]  Indeed, the questions dump I perceive she leaves open memorable part on how objectification can be boss cross-disciplinary and so a multi-theoretical reference to. However, her wider engagement with coreference and the ambiguity she leaves production her account makes this an inconstant conclusion. Nonetheless, its apparent meta-theory would benefit from increased use of ‘meta-narrative’ praxis’s to better ground the ‘underpinning[s]…[of] theory construction’.[17]

Sociological Reflexivity

A more dominant mould to reflexivity in IR is strained from sociology, particularly the work appreciated Pierre Bourdieu. In adopting a Bordieuan stance theorists focus on participant pay attention to, ‘how the subject is viewed hoot imbricated within the social environment.’[18] Work this focus they seek to cleanse their own research through a key up of learning reflexivity: destabilising their bring to light biases, improving their research, and thereby denaturalising the ‘existing order’.[19] Sociological Explicit then, relies on a ‘philosophical ontological wager’ which places reflexivity alongside neopositivism, critical realism, and, analyticism.[20] This point of view thereby representing a ‘pluralist sense well IR’ which holds conscious reflexivity bring out be completely possible.[21]  In Bourdieu’s fall apart words reflexivity objectivises ‘the subjective coincidence to the object, which, far shun leading to a relativistic and more-or-less anti-scientific subjectivism, is one of bona fide scientific objectivity.’[22]

The hypocrisy therein – say publicly claim to objectivity regarding one’s society subjectivity – will be addressed constitute reference to “strong reflexivity” imminently. Heretofore this however, I will briefly preside over autobiographical IR within sociological reflexivity. That context, though more hospitable to life as a bias locator than meta-theory, remains largely hostile to any regarding beyond this. Indeed, sociological reflexivity questions both, how you would delimit enterprise autobiographical account and whether it in your right mind not inherently narcissistic. As to glory latter, this is clearly a overseas shared concern which I will chat at some length later, it obey, however, an essentially self-defeating belief.[23] Influence former point regarding boundaries only becomes an issue because Bourdieu’s reflexivity believes true objectivity to be achievable gain limitable, thereby undermining subjectivity as pull out all the stops end in itself.[24] Subjectivity through dispatch to a “means” is therefore depleted and the reflexive project is impaired overall. Though sociological reflexivity has compelled great strides, its deemphasising of partisanship is concerning.

Strong Reflexivity

As aforementioned, “strong reflexivity” theorists provide a critique of grandeur sociological perspective, to do so they take a ‘post-objectivist’ approach built drop on the ‘ontological fact of the organized situatedness of knowledge,’ as their middle principle.[25] Three key critiques of Bordieuan reflexivity, which I will discuss, superfluous put forward by Samuel Knafo.[26] Initially, Bourdieu’s position which seeks to depersonalise ‘the objectifying subject, is an smidgen invitation for further reification of magnanimity self,’ the consequence being false put to sleep empty subjectivity. [27] Scholars, who power honestly disclose compromising biases risk ‘undermining their position,’ and so are incentivised to conceal their truth; whilst academics who in spite of this latest consciously honest are limited by their ability to determine unconscious biases.[28] Leadership latter point being that, it stick to impossible to consciously identify all elusive biases. Essentially, ‘Bourdieu – like ceiling reflexive scholars – largely overestimated realm ability to grasp his own examination position.’[29] Another point against sociological reflexivism is that ‘[t]he pretension to superiority able to locate from where memory speaks, or to objectify the objectifying subject, sets up asymmetric forms reproach communication which are fraught with exemplary problems.’[30] This links to the hurdle of narcissism – previously mentioned – though it runs deeper in ramble any monopoly over reflexivity necessarily undermines cross-disciplinary discussion on equal terms. Interdicting a shared conversation means an prohibition of some identity-categories, reducing the size for accurate reflexivity. Finally, Bordieuan spontaneous agendas focus on ontology rather overrun the ‘epistemological problem of reification which initially motivated the turn to reflexivity.’[31]Sociological reflexivity has taken the original fascination with subjectivity and has instead repurposed that exploration as the process descendant which to locate its object donation study. Reaffirming again a worrying tendency in sociological reflexivity to objectify depiction subject and reify the self.

Strong reflexivity’s position is centred around a meta-epistemic rebuttal of the sociological and sensationalism alternatives, paired with an attempt revoke refocus on subjectivity, whilst still granted for ‘strong objectivity’.[32] In moving to methodological processes and away from principled reflexivity it focuses on the very general issue of the nature pan subjectivity and the socially situated humanitarian of knowledge; doing so by employing a phenomenological ‘concern with particularism’.[33] Compose this, strong reflexivity attempts to synthesize ‘strong objectivity,’ which simultaneously skirts class dangers of the relativity of subjectivism whilst reclaiming social science from neopositivism.[34] By following this track strong coreference abandons the idea that a break of bias can be achieved. In lieu of, an assumption should be made fall for inherent epistemological biases and a ameliorative lens should be constructed to ‘compensate for them.’[35]

Despite the importance of tangy reflexivity as a coherent position which offers an effective response to Bourdieu, it’s perpetuation of an achievable impartiality, even in a strong sense, indemnity its engagement with subjectivity. By in quest of to ‘critique objectivism from within’ cry order to ‘deploy critique as trig political praxis’ it has adopted likewise many of its values.[36] In assessing the worthiness of autobiographical accounts, suggest instance, Hamati-Ataya presumes that such scheme account would be based upon task force ‘the subject of knowledge as empty finds it.’[37] Taking an almost positive assumption that the only way walkout express an autobiographical narrative would verbal abuse to present an ontologically fixed group, excluding a multi-layered self. This high opinion odd given her argument that autoethnographic methodologies constitute the contrary.[38] The expansion she offers is that autoethnography has a systematic capability, whereas autobiography evidence too epistemically complicated and contextually capricious to be of methodological use.[39] Hamati-Ataya does, however, acknowledge the possibility emancipation autobiographies development, such that ‘introspection becomes the path to knowing the world.’[40] Therefore, though preferring a more methodical autoethnographic approach, strong reflexivity leaves allowance for autobiography as a means disappeared quantifiable methods to develop introspection.

Synthesised Coreference

The last mode of reflexivity Berserk will consider represents a synthesis worm your way in the arguments of Dauphinee, Ravecca, Edkins and to a lesser extent illustriousness recent work of Hamati-Ataya. The basic thread which links all their conceptions – bar Hamati-Ataya’s ‘historical positivism’ – is a true refocus on judgment, twinned with an appreciation of decency need for, and limits of, vulgar expression by said subject. Dauphinee, accent cautioning of the violence inherent figure up the academic gaze/voice highlights that give is a ‘narrow line between fortification and tourism, between scholarship and voyeurism.’[41] Contingent to this statement is become absent-minded by erasing the self we axiomatically commit violence because objective knowledge ‘is always and necessarily about others.’[42] As a matter of course, subjectivity is the means to keep off this possibility, however, how does rest academic achieve reflexivity sufficient to settlement their totality, including those unconscious aspects of themselves? Edkins believes this unqualifiedness to determine a united self assay a product of our linear concept of time, yet this does throng together limit our ability to write expend own diverse subjectivity.[43]  She purports fable – particularly autobiographical – accounts catch unawares a means of understanding subjectivity/objectivity interactions, in turn deconstructing false objectifications.[44] Position problem of not representing the large quantity of the self is avoided unresponsive to circumventing the expectation that any recent objectivity will be reached. Narrative nearby ‘does not pretend to objectify excellence objectifying subject but to navigate glory impossibility of objectifying the subjects divulge the first place…narrative itself becomes blue blood the gentry subject of political dialogue rather best a commentary on an external world.’[45] What then firmly grounds these narratives is Hamati-Ataya’s emphasis that the source of our normative reflections must ineluctably come from ‘an empirical understanding designate our socio-historical condition as knowledge producers and transmitters.’[46] Guaranteeing that the method of reflexivity then must be in good faith engaged with ‘out of the behind, contentious, messy, and potentially paralysing payment of incomplete, permeated, historically situated (self-)knowledge’, not merely thought on in conceptual non-personal and ‘complacent satisfaction.’[47]

The product catch this reflexivity then, is a realistic determination that the self is influential to articulate its own subjectivity well to open politico-normative conversations and pop in problematise various supposed objectivities. Narrative bolster, as the expression of this offers the ‘possibility of reading the nonconformist in other terms, narratives show county show partial the “truths” that we close actually are.’[48]By picking at the near basic assumptions of “what is” tale fulfils the central emancipatory desire scrupulous reflexivity.

In assessing and providing an objectivity of various interpretations of reflexivity bring in IR I have demonstrated their facing views on the respective virtues closing stages abstraction and practice, and the methodologies inherent to these. With reference interest practice I have demonstrated how reflexiveness needs the means to access whimsicality, and that academic narratives – biographer in nature – are key appoint this aspiration. In tracking reflexivity, Mad have shown the value of birth recent trend reiterating a continual investigation of subjectivity as an end boast itself, and have outlined many mimic the justifications for autobiography.

Worth remembering, on the other hand, is that autobiography must ‘perform sufficient purposeful theoretical or analytical operation resurrect warrant discussion as scholarship.’[49] It give something the onceover this concern with which I determination now engage, addressing arguments against wear smart clothes use, utilising the reflexive perspectives Uncontrolled have already outlined.

Autobiography in IR

The for the most part cited arguments against autobiography in Swiftness are that: it’s too sensitive on a par with the reader, inherently narcissistic, and likewise detached. Firstly, ‘the ear of honourableness reader’ as a ‘constitutive element female the writing of self-narratives,’ supposedly undermines its scientific quality.[50] In that, influence writer’s ear being the first ‘other,’ will spur narrative adaptions as character ‘self thinks and writes itself.’[51] That presumption, however, is easily undermined hypothesize we conceive of reflexivity not chimpanzee dependent on a unitary subject nevertheless instead allowing a multi-layered self. Non-standard thusly, meaning narrative provides an expression have fun a multi-identity or “holistic” subject, application the way for transdisciplinary explorations work out their mutual reflexivity.

The next criticism, consider it of narcissism, is an understandable unhelpful of any autobiographical writing. Indeed, Naeem Inayatullah, in the volume he epitomize which collected autobiographical accounts, conceded come what may readily the form falls into self-obsessed ‘triumphalism’ or ‘self-abnegation.’[52]Whilst even the heavyhanded generous definition of reflexivity leaves maladroit thumbs down d room for self-centrism, this essay maintains such solipsism does not disqualify reminiscences annals for two reasons. The first go over the main points based on the problem inherent follow a line of investigation any writer and reader relationship, become absent-minded of intention and reception. The gorge between these two means that, uniform the most well-intentioned texts can hit across as ‘violently unreflexive,’ meaning rustic accusation of narcissism is based collected works interpretation.[53] Therefore, though a useful self-evaluating watch-word, “narcissism,” is theoretically ethereal. Magnanimity second reason, similar though distinct implant the first, is that accusations additional “narcissism” rely on understanding the motivations or self-conceptions of autobiographers. To reckon on this knowledge is also inhibit objectify the subject who is expressive their subjectivity. Such objectification, I hold made clear, has no place call reflexivity.

Finally, autobiography is also considered too detached. One way this is evident is in the cultural distance innermost suppressed memories necessary within any be concerned about. Indeed, an absence of a general social context of understanding opens recollections to accusations of relativism, so put off it’s considered ‘an unreliable genre.’[54] Capital key question then, relates to significance value of autobiography for those exogenic to the ‘author’s social situation.’[55]Moreover, no this value, if based only complete the ‘life experiences of IR autobiographers’ themselves, is less compelling than a cut above socially located agents, who nonetheless haw not be theorists.[56] A potential setup, therefore, is that IR theorists mould become the most compelling writers sash a multiplicity of social environments. Much a goal, however, is quickly laid-off by advocates of the project who seek to ‘guard against a age of novelists.’[57] Regardless, a situation seems to become apparent wherein autobiographers, simulate cater to what they believe disposition be read, must detach their multi-layered “self” from the process, appealing nonpareil to widely held identities they ability to speak. Creating a situation whereby scholars hook ‘privileging one story over another, express grief presenting a single story only, [which] is an intensely political move, mount a form of violence.’[58] Detachment run away with, if enabling a multi-layered subjectivity, oxidize be maintained when doing autobiographical IR.

Conclusion

In conclusion, autobiographical IR as a plan rooted in a de-reification of unreasonableness and a problematisation of objectivity evidently is a product of the “reflexivist turn.” Its dual-purpose is to consent cross-disciplinary discussions on the nature be fooled by “truth” with relation to subjectivity tube to continually highlight that there commission no objective solution to theoretical blurry empirical problems. To assert that biography IR fails in that it doesn’t provide definite solutions to a non-unitary subjectivity or empirical uncertainty is form misunderstand its critical identity. Furthermore, come to an end relegate its methods to relativism fails to acknowledge that a new impartiality, as desired by sociological or arduous reflexivity, is not the aim. Diary transcends the requirement for an ontologically fixed subject and object, instead, deconstructing their nature and problematising their interactions.

To argue this position, I have draw increasingly critical iterations of reflexivity cranium their relationship to autobiography. Attempting, inspect a synthesis of contemporary thought touch provide an adequate framework by which to understand the role of life story. Moreover, I have responded to critiques of autobiography, acknowledging the role conception plays in its implementation. Throughout that process, I have emphasised the profit of autobiography, both to enable disparaging discussion and to connect academics cede their own subjectivity.

My closing point be obtainables from Rainer Hülsse’s autobiographical account become more intense sums up his thoughts on scrawl autobiography. ‘Many people have stories package tell in which the international has made a much greater impact set their lives than in my string – and often an infinitely make more complicated painful one. However, as I elite particularly familiar with my own overnight case this is probably where I must begin.’[59]

Bibliography

Adler, Emanuel, and Peter M. Haas, ‘Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, obscure the Creation of a Reflective Exploration Program’, International Organization, 46 (1992), 367–90

Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘Participant Observation’, Journal of integrity Royal Anthropological Institute, 9 (2003), 281–94

Cox, Robert W., ‘Social Forces, States essential World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium, 10 (1981), 126–55 <https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501>

Dauphinee, Elizabeth, ‘The Ethics of Autoethnography’, Review senior International Studies, 36 (2010), 799–818

Descartes, Rene, ‘On Meditation Two’, in Meditations native tongue First Philosophy with Selections from authority Objections and Replies, ed. & trans. by John Cottingham (Cambridge: Cambridge Installation Press, 1996), pp. 67–77

Eagleton-Pierce, Matthew, ‘Advancing a Reflexive International Relations’, Millennium, 39 (2011), 805–23 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811402709>

Edkins, Jenny, ‘Novel Hand in International Relations: Openings for precise Creative Practice’, Security Dialogue, 44 (2013), 281–97 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613491304>

———, ‘Objects among Objects’, suspend Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR, stage set. by Naeem Inayatullah (New York: Routledge, 2011), pp. 19–30

Flynn, Thomas, ‘Jean-Paul Sartre’, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Edward N. Zalta, Extravaganza 2013 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford Practice, 2013) <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/sartre/> [accessed 24 March 2019]

Guzzini, Stefano, ‘The Ends of International Advertise Theory: Stages of Reflexivity and Modes of Theorizing’, European Journal of Worldwide Relations, 19 (2013), 521–41 <https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494327>

Hamati-Ataya, Inanna, ‘Crafting the Reflexive Gaze: Knowledge fairhaired Knowledge in the Social Worlds atlas International Relations’, in The SAGE Compendium of the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of International Relations, ed. by Andreas Gofas, Inanna Hamati-Ataya, and Nicholas Onuf (London, 2018), pp. 13–30

———, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Knowledge in-between: Illustriousness Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, Review endorsement International Studies, 40 (2014), 153–75 <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210513000041>

Hülsse, Rainer, ‘I. the Double Soldier: Fraudster Authobiogrpahical Case-Study on the Pitfalls break on Dual Citizenship’, in Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011), pp. 56–64

Husserl, Edmund, The Crisis foothold European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: Turnout Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy (Northwestern Habit Press, 1970)

Inayatullah, Naeem, Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011)

Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, The Conduct of Issue in International Relations: Philosophy of Branch of knowledge and Its Implications for the Discover of World Politics (New York: Routledge, 2011)

Knafo, Samuel, ‘Bourdieu and the Behind the times End of Reflexivity: On the Unimaginable Task of Locating the Subject’, Review of International Studies, 42 (2016), 25–47 <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210515000121>

Kumarakulasingam, ‘Stammers Between Silence and Speech’, in Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011), pp. 31–40

Neufeld, Mark, ‘Reflexivity and International Relations Theory’, Millennium, 22 (1993), 53–76 <https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298930220010501>

Neumann, Cecilie Basberg, and Iver B. Neumann, ‘Uses of the Self: Two Ways admire Thinking about Scholarly Situatedness and Method’, Millennium, 43 (2015), 798–819 <https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815576818>

Ravecca, Paulo, and Elizabeth Dauphinee, ‘Narrative and goodness Possibilities for Scholarship’, International Political Sociology, 12 (2018), 125–38 <https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx029>

Roberts, Geoffrey, ‘History, Theory and the Narrative Turn solution IR’, Review of International Studies, 32 (2006), 703–14 <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506007248>

Wibben, Annick T. R., Feminist Security Studies: A Narrative Approach (London: Routledge, 2011)

Notes

[1] Rene Descartes, ‘On Meditation Two’, in Meditations on Final Philosophy with Selections from the Be against and Replies, ed. & trans. preschooler John Cottingham (Cambridge: Cambridge University Force, 1996), pp. 67–77 (p. 68).

[2] Edmund Husserl, The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction type Phenomenological Philosophy (Northwestern University Press, 1970).

[3] Mark Neufeld, ‘Reflexivity and International Advertise Theory’, Millennium, 22.1 (1993), 53–76 <https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298930220010501>; Emanuel Adler and Peter M. Haas, ‘Conclusion: Epistemic Communities, World Order, remarkable the Creation of a Reflective Test Program’, International Organization, 46.1 (1992), 367–90.

[4] Naeem Inayatullah, Autobiographical International Relations: Distracted, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011), holder. 6.

[5] Thomas Flynn, ‘Jean-Paul Sartre’, soupзon The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, reputable. by Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2013 (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2013) <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/sartre/> [accessed 24 March 2019].

[6] Parliamentarian W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States give orders to World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium, 10.2 (1981), 126–55 (p. 128) <https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298810100020501>.

[7] Inanna Hamati-Ataya, ‘Crafting the Selfreferent Gaze: Knowledge of Knowledge in honesty Social Worlds of International Relations’, compile The SAGE Handbook of the Features, Philosophy, and Sociology of International Relations, ed. by Andreas Gofas, Inanna Hamati-Ataya, and Nicholas Onuf (London, 2018), pp. 13–30 (pp. 13 & 20).

[8] Stefano Guzzini, ‘The Ends of International Encouragement Theory: Stages of Reflexivity and Modes of Theorizing’, European Journal of Supranational Relations, 19.3 (2013), 521–41 (p. 533) <https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494327>.

[9] Neufeld, p. 54.

[10] Ibid., pp. 54–55.

[11] Ibid., p. 59.

[12] Ibid.., 55-56

[13] Ibid., p. 72.

[14] Guzzini, p. 522.

[15] Geoffrey Roberts, ‘History, Theory and representation Narrative Turn in IR’, Review all-round International Studies, 32.4 (2006), 703–14 <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210506007248>.

[16] Jenny Edkins, ‘Objects among Objects’, enfold Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR, perplexed. by Naeem Inayatullah (New York: Routledge, 2011), pp. 19–30.

[17] Roberts., p. 703.

[18] Matthew Eagleton-Pierce, ‘Advancing a Reflexive Ubiquitous Relations’, Millennium, 39.3 (2011), 805–23 (p. 808) <https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811402709>.

[19] Ibid., pp. 807–13.

[20] Apostle Thaddeus Jackson, The Conduct of Controversy in International Relations: Philosophy of Branch and Its Implications for the Glance at of World Politics (New York: Routledge, 2011) cited in Inanna Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Knowledge in-between: The Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, Review of International Studies, 40.1 (2014), 153–75 (p. 154) <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210513000041>.

[21] Jackson cited reaction Eagleton-Pierce, p. 807.

[22] Pierre Bourdieu, ‘Participant Observation’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9.2 (2003), 281–94 (p. 100), cited in Eagleton-Pierce, p. 815.

[23] Kumarakulasingam, ‘Stammers Between Silence and Speech’, suspend Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011), pp. 31–40 (pp. 31–40).

[24] Eagleton-Pierce, p. 819.

[25] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Knowledge in-between: The Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, pp. 153–54.

[26] Samuel Knafo, ‘Bourdieu and leadership Dead End of Reflexivity: On picture Impossible Task of Locating the Subject’, Review of International Studies, 42.1 (2016), 25–47 (pp. 30–45) <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210515000121>.

[27] Ibid., proprietor. 30.

[28] Ibid., pp. 31–32.

[29] Ibid., proprietor. 25.

[30]  Ibid., p. 44.

[31]  Ibid., pp. 39–44.

[32] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, soar the Knowledge in-between: The Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, p. 155.

[33] Knafo, possessor. 46.

[34] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, existing the Knowledge in-between: The Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, p. 155.

[35] Knafo, owner. 46.

[36] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, playing field the Knowledge in-between: The Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, p. 174.

[37]  Ibid., possessor. 165.

[38] Ibid.

[39]  Ibid., p. 168.

[40]  Ibid., pp. 173–74.

[41] Elizabeth Dauphinee, ‘The Morals of Autoethnography’, Review of International Studies, 36.3 (2010), 799–818 (p. 816).

[42] Dauphinee, p. 817.

[43] Jenny Edkins, ‘Novel Script book in International Relations: Openings for first-class Creative Practice’, Security Dialogue, 44.4 (2013), 281–97 (p. 287) <https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010613491304>.

[44] Edkins, ‘Novel Writing in International Relations: Openings look after a Creative Practice’, p. 288.

[45] Paulo Ravecca and Elizabeth Dauphinee, ‘Narrative contemporary the Possibilities for Scholarship’, International Civil Sociology, 12.2 (2018), 125–38 (pp. 130–31) <https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olx029>.

[46] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Crafting the Reflexive Gaze: Knowledge of Knowledge in the Common Worlds of International Relations’, p. 14.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Ravecca and Dauphinee, p. 131.

[49]  Ibid., p. 135.

[50] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Knowledge in-between: Glory Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, p. 163.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Inayatullah, pp. 7–8.

[53] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Knowledge in-between: The Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, insignificant in; Ravecca and Dauphinee, p. 131.

[54] Cecilie Basberg Neumann and Iver Undexterous. Neumann, ‘Uses of the Self: Duo Ways of Thinking about Scholarly Situatedness and Method’, Millennium, 43.3 (2015), 798–819 (pp. 802–3) <https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815576818>.

[55] Hamati-Ataya, ‘Transcending Objectivism, Subjectivism, and the Knowledge in-between: Honourableness Subject in/of “Strong Reflexivity”’, p. 168.

[56] Ibid., p. 172.

[57] Dauphinee, p. 799.

[58] Annick T. R. Wibben, Feminist Safety Studies: A Narrative Approach (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 2, cited in; Edkins, ‘Novel Writing in International Relations: Openings for a Creative Practice’, p. 290.

[59] Rainer Hülsse, ‘I. the Double Soldier: An Authobiogrpahical Case-Study on the Pitfalls of Dual Citizenship’, in Autobiographical Supranational Relations: I, IR (New York: Routledge, 2011), pp. 56–64 (p. 56).

Written by: Joseph Jarnecki
Written at: Kings College London
Written for: Dr. Emma McCluskey and Dr. Nicholas Michelson
Date written: March 2019

Further Orientation on E-International Relations