CFP, EISA 2015 Panel: Bringing Postcoloniality Home?

Bringing Postcoloniality ‘Home’? The Erasure of the Inside/Outside Boundary in the Construction of the Domestic Other 

9th Pan-European Conference on International Relations, Sicily, September 2015

Post-colonial approaches to the construction of identities in the discipline of International  Relations have  often  been  reluctant  to  import  their  findings  and methods  ‘home’.  In  doing  so,  they  have usually  reinforced  the  strict  division between  inside/outside  informing  IR,  creating  problematic assumptions  and associations between an inside civilisation (the ‘home’ of the citizen-subject) and an outside barbarity (the ‘shelter’ of the colonial other). But colonial logics also produced renderings of the uncivil, unfit and disordered  at ‘home’ (McClintock, 1995; Hall and Rose 2000) and had to account for and explain away the presence of  civility  in  ‘foreign’  lands. These interconnections show  how  metropolitan states were ordered in the same way as colonial territories were. Through these multifaceted acts of ‘othering’ and the reproduction of the ‘uncivilised’, ‘unfit’ and ‘dangerous’ the  inside/outside  boundary  is  blurred.  These  practices  also  help undermine the classic self/other binaries designed to silence ambiguities and re-establish a certain and linear identity. This panel will explore the circulation of these  knowledges,  practices  and  violent  decisions  involved  in constituting problematic  subjects,  both  inside  and  outside  the  state.  We  welcome  papers engaging with these topics across different historical time frames and in multiple empirical cases.
This panel will be submitted to Section 63 “Worlds of Colonial Violence”
We invite scholars interested in this panel to send an abstract of 200 words maximum to Dr. Joe Turner ( and Xavier Mathieu (x.mathieu@sheffield)

Call for Applications: Lecturer in International Politics, University of Leicester

Full time, permanent post

Lecturer Grade 8- £37,394 to £45,954

Senior Lecturer Grade 9- £48,743 to £54,841

You will be able to contribute to the further development of the Department’s teaching in International Relations and research in the area of Intelligence, Security and Strategic Studies, as well as to the further development of its PhD programme and research community. The post-holder will be expected to deliver a 2nd year undergraduate module in International Relations and offer specialist modules at undergraduate and postgraduate levels based on their research interests.

You will be expected to take a pro-active approach to developing research collaborations, submitting grant applications, attending and organising conferences and seminars, and enhancing the research profile of the Department, commensurate with your level of seniority. You will be responsible to the Head of the Department of Politics and International Relations and will undertake research, scholarship, teaching and administration and other activities supporting the work of the Department and developing and enhancing its reputation.

Closing date for applications is midnight Monday 19th January 2015.

Informal enquiries are welcome and should be made to Professor Mark Phythian on or 0116 252 2704.


Call for Applications: Swedish Institute for International Affairs

Contract type: Temporary (1-3 years)
Qualification: PhD Salary: SEK 36,080 (for 2015) Location: Stockholm, Swedish Institute of International Affairs Closing date: Monday 2 February 2015
The Swedish Institute of International Affairs (Utrikespolitiska institutet, or UI for short) is looking for Researchers, preferably at the postdoc level. Temporary positions are open for applications in the following two themes:
1. Great Power Relations
We will consider applications on all aspects of contemporary great power politics, for example relations between the United States, Russia, the European Union, and China, as well as other “rising”, “declining” or “perpetuating” powers. Specific themes of particular interest are global power shifts, the return of geopolitics and neo-imperialism, and how great powers manage the clash between forces of globalization and fragmentation. Critical studies of great power practices and discourses are also welcome.
2. The Middle East
We will consider applications on all aspects of contemporary Middle East politics and security, for example the Israel/Palestine conflict, relations among states in the Middle East and the rise of the Islamic State and other violent groups. Of interest are also the role of civil society, trade, development, human rights, and transnational relations. Regional dynamics are of particular interest, including relations between international and domestic actors.

Please see the attached file for further particulars.

Research Positions at UI 2015

CFP: EISA Section on Violence, Agency and Critique in a World of Complexity

9th Pan-European Conference on International Relations

23-26 September, Giardini Naxos, Sicily

Section chairs:
Delf Rothe
University of Hamburg
David Chandler
University of Westminster

The threat of ISIS fighters gaining ground in Iraq and Syria highlights a major problem for today’s decision-makers: in a world of complexity any political intervention in the international sphere can have unintended consequences which might worsen the problems at stake or produce novel, more serious ones. Complexity seems to question the long accepted axioms of international policy-making and the conceptions of violence, agency and critique within the fields of political and social theory. Scholars of IR have approached the phenomenon of complexity from different, partly opposing angles. Some have argued for the need to rethink the ontology of international politics, developing analytical models that account for surprise, non-linearity and feed-back loops and applied these to a wide range of material phenomena from climate change to conflict. Others understand complexity as a discourse or episteme which increasingly informs the ways global risks in fields including finance, civil protection, or counter-terrorism are being governed and are often critical of complexity as a governance paradigm due to its technocratic, de-politicising nature. This proposed section brings these different voices together to discuss the impact of complexity upon the international sphere in general and upon expressions of violence in this sphere in particular. We are interested in the way complexity affects agency which seemingly becomes more distributed, flatter, and unpredictable. We would also like to explore what the stakes of complexity are with regard to methods and possibilities of critique (both enabled and foreclosed) and the limits to both inductive and deductive research methodologies.

We welcome papers that relate to one of the following themes and questions:

1.    War and conflict in a world of complexity
·      How do forms of violence change in a world of complexity?
·      How does complexity discourse impact the Western way of war?
·      How do we account for post-human violence in our approaches to security and conflict?

2.    Uncertainty, anticipation and performative security
·      How do security practices deal with uncertainty and complexity?
·      How is anticipatory security performed by devices such as listings, algorithms, computer-models,

       catastrophe insurance bonds, etc?

3.    Peacebuilding, complexity and the local turn
·      How is complexity approached in recent practices of peacebuilding?
·      Is there a post-liberal paradigm of peacebuilding and if yes, how can it be described?

4.    Environmental terror: Complex climate change, disasters and resilience
·      How did resilience become the dominant approach of governing disasters and environmental risks?
·      How does non-linear climate change affect Western threat discourse and practices of

·      How is complexity being treated in popular representations of climate change and environmental risk?

5.    “Dingpolitik” and evidence-based policy making
·      What is the role of scientific evidence in governing complexity?
·      What could an approach of evidence-based policy advice look like?
·      Is there a shift from Realpolitik towards Dingpolitik, i.e. from political struggles over given objects

       towards political struggles over ontological questions and the very being of objects?

Paper proposals (max. 200 words) are to be submitted via the conference online application system:

Deadline for submissions is 15 January 2015!

If you’ve got any further questions don’t hesitate to contact us at:

CFP: EISA Section on Theory & Critique of Capitalism

9th Pan-European Conference on International Relations

Giardini Naxos, Siciliy, 23-26 September, 2015

Section Chairs:

Kai Koddenbrock

RWTH Aachen University

Wanda Vrasti

Humboldt University, Berlin

The word capitalism has become part of our common vocabulary again. The wide reception of Piketty’s Capital in the 21st century or Williams and Srnicek’s Accelerationist Manifesto indicate that discussions of capitalism are no longer the exclusive terrain of classical Marxists, although Marxist theory and political economy have also made a comeback. We are still to see IR and IPE scholars catch up with these developments – or perhaps they already have, but we’ve been scattered across the globe without a common forum for discussion until now.

In a world where all politics has become international politics and where that politics is shaped more than anything by global capital, one wonders what it means to have IR/IPE as a separate body of knowledge that continues to be rather silent about the workings of capitalism. Could a contemporary theory of capitalism (or the critique of it) perhaps be the international theory RBJ Walker did not find over a decade ago?

More specifically, we are interested in exploring questions such as the following:

  • How does capitalism persist despite its cyclical crises?
  • How does financial capital figure in the world of production, policy-making and the imagination?
  • How can financialised capitalism be opposed?
  • What links exist between political economic critiques of capitalism and feminist, anti-imperialist and environmental struggles?
  • How is capitalism related to current expressions of racism, nationalism and fascism, stretching from Ferguson to Fortress Europe and all the way to insurgency movements in the Middle East and Africa?
  • What methods do we have for studying capitalism?
  • How do competing epistemologies of knowledge, like post-structuralism, actor-network theory or new materialism, complicate or advance our understanding of capitalism?
  • How does capitalism figure in IR/IPE courses and classrooms?

We welcome panel, roundtable, paper and performance proposals (with abstracts of 200 words maximum) from scholars from all fields of international studies and beyond, as well as activists and artists.

Proposals are to be submitted via the conference online application system:, which will open on 8 December 2014. Deadline for submissions is 15 January 2015.

You can find the general conference website here:

Please do not hesitate to contact us at and, if you have any further questions – we are happy to help!

We look very much forward to receiving your proposals.

Best wishes,

Wanda and Kai

CFP: EISA Section on Critical Military Studies

9th EISA Pan European Conference

23-26 September 2015, Sicily


Section Chairs:

Victoria M. Basham

Sarah Bulmer

University of Exeter

Building on the success of the Critical Military Studies section for EISA in 2013, we will bring together scholars from IR and related disciplines at different stages of their careers to again contribute to a section at EISA in 2015 showcasing emergent and ongoing work in the field.

In the aftermath of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the enduring legacy of military intervention at both the geo-political and the personal bodily level has become increasingly apparent, demonstrating ways in which violence and war-making very literally compose and decompose the ‘world’, continually transforming experiences of the everyday and the ‘normal’.

Militaries are central to the production and dissemination of force globally. Whilst militaries enable and enact state violence materially, the ideological function of militaries and militarism is also integral to the legitimisation and normalisation of violence as an appropriate response to wider social and political problems. The profoundly gendered, racialized and socio-economically contingent ways in which the role militaries and military force come to be understood also produces different worlds of experience at the global, national, local and personal levels. In line with the conference theme of ‘worlds of violence’, we will thus invite and include papers exploring, through a range of critical methodologies, those ways in which militaries, militarism and militarisation assemble and disassemble worlds touched and shaped by violence in multiple ways.

The section will comprise of 10 panels. We strongly welcome submissions on any topic in keeping with the section though we envisage that the following themes are likely to be addressed:

  • Veterans and society
  • Bodies of violence
  • Violence and Criticality: methods and representation
  • Consuming militarism
  • Spatialities and temporalities of violence
  • Violence and the military experience
  • The Future of state violence – militaries in transition
  • Trauma and legacies of violence
  • Authoritarianism and the militarised everyday
  • Resisting violent worlds

We welcome individual paper proposals, and panel/roundtable proposals as well. Each 105-minute panel/roundtable should comprise five papers/presenters plus a discussant who will also act as panel/roundtable chair.

Proposals (with abstracts of 200 words maximum) must be submitted, starting 8 December 2014, via the online submission system:

Please note that there will be a **participation limit** of three contributions per participant — whether as paper giver, roundtable speaker, or discussant/chair (any of these roles counts as one contribution).

The closing date for paper, panel, and roundtable proposals is midnight (CET) on 15 January 2015

Please do contact us if you have any additional questions about the section:

Victoria M. Basham (, University of Exeter

Sarah Bulmer (, University of Exeter

For any questions on the conference, please contact the organisers at:

If you have any technical problems with the online submission system, please contact Elem Eyrice at:

CFP: EISA Section on Popular and Cultural Configurations of International Politics

CFP: EISA Section on
Popular and Cultural Configurations of International Politics:
Artefacts Beyond Mimesis

September 23-26, Giardini Naxos, Sicily

Section Chairs: 
Matt Davies
Newcastle University 

Simon Philpott
Newcastle University 

The surge of interest in popular culture in International Relations, such as 
Drezner’s encounters with Zombies, has yielded research that illustrates 
different problems of the international. Such scholarship treats popular 
culture as mimetic, as site where real concerns are copied and can be dealt 
with in a controlled, experimental way. Mimesis is very important, as 
Benjamin noted, as an element of interaction with the world and of learning. 
The reflection is not the same as the thing imitated: the creative agent 
alters it in reproduction. This mimetic transformation may be productive and 
violent. It is at the root of the aesthetic subject. This transformative 
potential of popular culture has not been engaged widely by International 
Relations. If this aesthetic dimension to the engagement of IR with popular 
culture has only been taken up at the margins of IR scholarship, 
consideration of its popular dimension has been even scarcer. “Popular” is a 
specifically political concept, an understanding of how people come together 
to become collective subjects. This coming together can also be productive, 
or it can be violent. This ambivalence lies behind the anxiety provoked by 
accusations of “populism” and the disposition that Rancière calls “hatred of 
democracy.” The notion of popular does not presuppose the political outcomes 
of this coming together nor does it exclude other forms of collectivity 
(nation, multitude). The specific difference of “popular” culture might have 
been the occasion for a wider engagement with how the political is imagined 
by IR but such an engagement is still lacking.