Calling for “IR as Becoming-Rhizomatic”

Abstract

This article takes reflexive stock on the current state of the discipline of international relations (IR) in order to catalyze a robust debate on diversity in IR knowledge and knowledge production. IR has witnessed a theoretical explosion and proliferation since the 1980s, and pluralism is acknowledged as a legitimate position for producing IR knowledge and theory. As a result, we have now arrived at “a plural, and pluralist,” field, and several IR scholars have observed that the discipline is much healthier as a result. On closer inspection, however, what we find in IR is quantitative (i.e., representational) diversity and closed territoriality, as opposed to qualitative (i.e., ontological) diversity and open territoriality. By reviewing what defines the nature of diversity in artifacts, including the field of knowledge we know as IR, this article shows that territories and codes of knowledge production in IR remain narrowly confined within a few lines of articulation and strata. Furthermore, although IR is often regarded as a plural, and pluralist, field, the article demonstrates that this is true only in terms of actualized knowledge assemblages (e.g., approaches, theories, or research programs), and not the kinds and movement of territories and codes of knowledge production through which those assemblages are actualized. How can we ensure qualitative diversity and open territoriality in the production of IR knowledge? This article takes preliminary steps in addressing this question by calling for IR as “becoming-rhizomatic.”