Chapter 9

P ostc ol onial H i stori e s

of Internat i ona l
Rel ati ons
Zeynep Gulsah Capan

Introduction

Postcolonial Studies encapsulates a wide range of positions and arguments. Even what
it means and refers to is contested as a consequence of how wide-​ranging its influence has
been across disciplines, from literature to History (Ashcroft, Griffiths, and Tiffin 2003;
McLeod 2007). Postcolonial theory has been contested since its ‘beginning’ especially with
respect to its naming and its development as a field of study (McClintock 1992; Shohat 1992).1
The first aspect that has been questioned by postcolonial scholars has been its name. For
example, Ella Shohat (1992, 103) observes that there is a spatial and temporal issue with
‘naming’ the postcolonial as such. Spatially, the question is ‘where is the postcolonial?’;
‘does the ‘post’ indicate the perspective and location of the ex-​colonized (Algerian), the ex-​
colonizer (French), the ex-​colonial-​settler (Pied Noir), or the displaced hybrid in First World
metropoles (Algerians in France)?’ and temporally the question is ‘when does the post-​
colonial begin? Which region is privileged in such a beginning? What are the relationships
between these diverse beginnings?’ (1992, 103). The second key aspect being questioned is
the very ‘story’ of its development. Edward Said (Said 1983, 1994) is usually identified as one
of the founders of the approach whereby ‘postcolonial studies have actually defined itself as
an academic discipline through the range of objections, reworkings and counter-​arguments
that have been marshalled in such a great variety against Said’s work’ (Young 2016, 383).
Two other representatives of colonial discourse analysis follow Said: Homi Bhabha (2012)
and Gayatri Spivak (1985, 1999). Young (2016) characterizes these three authors as the ‘Holy
Trinity’ of postcolonial studies. Julian Go (2016) speaks instead of two different waves and
argues that the ‘first wave’ of postcolonial thought included varied influences such as W. E.
B. Du Bois (1935) (sociologist and historian), Aimé Césaire (1972) (poet, playwright and pol-
itician), Frantz Fanon (1963) (psychiatrist and political philosopher), and Amilcar Cabral
(1974) (politician and theoretician)2 who provided the inspiration for the ‘second wave’
126   Zeynep Gulsah Capan

that included postcolonial theorists such as Edward Said (1979), Dipesh Chakrabarty (1992,
2009), and Gayatri Spivak (1988). Go (2016, 8) argues that the second wave was an extension
of the first and that it ‘picked up the mantle of epistemic decolonization, adopting the unfin-
ished task of decolonizing knowledge and culture’.
Discussions about ‘beginnings’ and ‘development’ aim to underline that any attempt to
bring in a clear-​cut definition of what postcolonial theory entails will end up overlooking a
myriad of other debates. In the broadest sense, postcolonial approaches interrogate the colo-
nial and imperial past and assess ‘its legacies for the present’ (Huggan 2013, 10). The present
chapter will not present a chronological discussion of debates that encapsulate postcolonial
history but underline some of the central issues that have been raised and how these issues
have been discussed within International Relations (IR). The first section will focus on the
way postcolonial history has addressed the questions of (i) how bodies of knowledge are
constructed in the study of History and of (ii) who the subject of history is. The second
section will look at these same two questions yet in IR.

Interrogating the Colonial Past

Fanon states that ‘the settler makes history and is conscious of making it. And because he
constantly refers to the history of his mother country, he clearly indicates that he himself
is the extension of that mother country’ (Fanon 1963, 40). As this quote reveals, the trans-
formation of the past into history centers on the experiences of the colonizer. In that sense,
interrogating history is an important part of postcolonial approaches. The section will there-
fore focus on two main questions that have been raised within postcolonial approaches
with respect to interrogating history: first, how the body of knowledge was constructed and
second, who the subject of history is.
Edward Said’s monograph Orientalism directly tackled the relationship between power
and knowledge. Said underlined how the ‘Orient’ was a ‘European invention’ and defined
Orientalism as ‘a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the
Orient’ (Said 1979, 3). He approached Orientalism as a discourse and body of knowledge that
‘was able to manage—​and even produce—​the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily,
ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-​Enlightenment period’ (Said
1979, 4). The knowledge of the Orient was constructed and reproduced through a variety
of texts-​travelogues in particular-​through the distinction between the familiar (Europe, the
West, ‘Us’) and the strange (the Orient, the East, ‘Them’) (Said 1979, 45). The study of the
Orient and these distinctions were not only subjective but also depended on a narrative of
the superiority of the West.
In the early 1980s, in parallel to the discussions about Orientalism, a collective called
Subaltern Studies was started by historian Ranajit Guha and eight other scholars based in
various institutions across India, the UK, and Australia. The collective questioned the various
historiographical traditions of writing about Indian independence.3 Guha argued that:

In all writings of this kind [i.e., elitist historiography] the parameters of Indian politics are
assumed to be or enunciated as those of the institutions introduced by the British for the
government of the country . . . . [Elitist historians] can do no more than equate politics with
 Postcolonial Histories of IR    127

the aggression of activities and ideas of those who were directly involved in operating these
institutions, that is, the colonial rulers and their eleves—​the dominant groups in native so-
ciety. (Guha 1984, 3–​4)

The Cambridge school of historiography of the British empire largely presented a positive
account of the British empire (Seal 1968, Gallagher, Gordon and Seal 1973). The Cambridge
school narrated British colonialism in a positive manner and credited colonialism ‘for
bringing to the subcontinent political unity, modern educational institutions, modern
industries, modern nationalism, a rule of law’ (Chakrabarty 2000:11). The narrative of the
Cambridge school crediting colonialism for modernity was however challenged by the
so-​called ‘nationalist narrative’ (Chandra 1979) which argued that modernity and polit-
ical unity ‘were not so much British gifts to India as fruits of struggles undertaken by the
Indians themselves’ (Chakrabarty 2000, 11–​12). The colonialist narratives told the story
of the independence through the perspective of ‘British colonial rulers, administrators,
policies, institutions and culture’, whereas the nationalist narratives credited the ‘Indian
elite personalities, institutions, activities and ideas’ (Guha 1982a, 1). Guha criticized both
these bodies of literatures for not acknowledging ‘the contributions made by the people
on their own, that is, independently of the elite to the making and development of this na-
tionalism’ (1982a, 3). He emphasized the ‘people’, and the subaltern classes in particular, as
an ‘autonomous domain’ which could ‘be traced back to pre-​colonial times, but it was by
no means archaic in the sense of being outmoded’ (Guha 1982a, 4). Subaltern politics was
differentiated through two features. Firstly, Guha claimed that mobilizations happened
vertically in elite politics and horizontally in subaltern politics. As such, subaltern politics
relied on ‘the traditional organization of kinship and territoriality or on class associations
depending on the level of the consciousness of the people involved’ (Guha 1982a, 4). The
second feature was the ‘exploitation to which the subaltern classes were subjected in
varying degrees’ (Guha 1982a, 5). The Subaltern series focused predominantly on peasant
consciousness throughout the different volumes and different authors of the collective
(Guha 1982b, 1983a, 1983b, 1984).
Guha’s work focused on addressing the relationship between knowledge and power and
how bodies of knowledge had been constructed to erase given subjects from the dominant
narrative. This was done through the introduction of the category of the subaltern as the
subject of history which extended the definition of the political. As Chakrabarty (2000,
16) points out, peasant revolts that ‘were organized along the axes of kinship, religion, cast’
were narrated as ‘backwards consciousness’. Guha explains this through contrasting how
peasant revolts were explained by Eric Hobsbawm (1978, 2) who characterized them as ‘pre-​
political’ and Anil Seal (1968, 1) who argued that peasant revolts had no ‘specific content’. In
contrast, Guha extended this definition of the political by approaching the peasant as ‘real
contemporary of colonialism and a fundamental part of that modernity that colonial rule
gave rise to in India’ (Chakrabarty 2000, 17).
As important as these contributions were with respect to how to include the subaltern
in the writing of history there was very little exploration into the constitution of the sub-
ject which was criticized specifically through discussions underlining the absence of women
from the analysis (Arnold 1984; Mani 1987; O’Hanlon 1988). Feminist historian Lata Mani
(1987, 153) analyses the abolition of sati (a historical practice during which the widow
sacrifices herself) in 18294 in India. She underlines that the debate about the abolition of
128   Zeynep Gulsah Capan

sati was for the British about the civilizing mission, and for the Indian elite actually about
the protection of their status. This meant that somehow, women as a subject of history dis-
appeared since their motivations, reasons and desires were ignored and/​or silenced in the
narrative of the abolition of the sati. As such, the abolition of sati was told not as a story about
women but rather became ‘the site on which tradition was debated and reformulated’ (Mani
1987, 153). Gayatri Spivak’s (1988, 102) discussion in her article ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’
further problematizes the subject position and underlines how ‘between patriarchy and im-
perialism, subject-​constitution and object-​formation, the figure of the woman disappears,
not into nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the
“third-​world woman” caught between tradition and modernization’. In that sense, it is not
access to further ‘archives’ that will necessarily ‘solve’ the issue of retrieving the subject since
within the colonial discourse the subaltern has no enunciatory position. This should not
be taken to mean that the subaltern cannot speak but more specifically that the subaltern
cannot speak within the available discursive constructs. The issue, then, is not the availability
of archives but rather how the notion of archives of knowledge has been constructed by a
Eurocentric system of knowledge.
This approach to problematizing colonial power started off what is generally termed as
‘colonial discourse analysis’. Colonial discourse analysis has focused on two streams. The
first stream looks at the ‘agency’ of the colonized and the retrieval of the subject. The second
stream consists of the critique of the discipline of History itself. These two streams have been
interrelated in the sense that it was the construction of the body of knowledge (in this case
the discipline of History) that defined the very limits of the discourse through which the
‘subject’ could not enunciate its own agency. As a consequence, several works have focused
on exploring ways to actually retrieve the subject (Bhabha 2012). Because the ‘objective of co-
lonial discourse is to construe the colonized as a population of degenerate types on the basis
of racial origins, in order to justify conquest and establish systems of administration and
instruction’, the colonized is constructed as a radical other (Bhabha 2012, 70). Despite such
a radical otherness, Homi K. Bhabha argues that the colonized subject is always ambivalent,
navigating between similarity and difference, and constructed not only as the radical other
but also as someone ought to be brought into Western understanding. As such, Bhabha sees
the ambivalence of being ‘almost the same but not quite’ as a threat to colonial power and
as part of anti-​colonial resistance precisely because it destabilized the binary between simi-
larity and difference (Bhabha 2012, 89). Bhabha’s exploration into ambivalence has opened
a path to the exploration of the agency of the subject. In parallel, other works have focused
on History as a discipline, attempting to work through how to write histories that are not
part of a singular unique History (Nandy 1995; Chakrabarty 2009). According to Dipesh
Chakrabarty (2009, 6–​7), historicism is defined as ‘the idea that to understand anything it
has to be seen both as a unity and in its historical development’ which ‘enabled European
domination of the world in the nineteenth century’ as it was ‘one important form that the
ideology of progress or “development” took from the nineteenth century on’. It was histori-
cism that made ‘modernity or capitalism look not simply global but rather as something that
became global over time, by originating in one place (Europe) and then spreading outside it’
and established historical time ‘as a measure of the cultural distance (at least in institutional
development) that was assumed to exist between the West and the non-​West’ (Chakrabarty
2009, 7). This understanding of historical appeared clearly in those accounts that revealed
‘completely internalist histories of Europe in which Europe was described as the site of first
 Postcolonial Histories of IR    129

occurrence of capitalism, modernity, or Enlightenment’ (Chakrabarty 2009, 7). Focuses on

history, Chakrabarty writes:

insofar as the academic discourse of history—​that is, “history” as a discourse produced at the
institutional site of the university—​is concerned, “Europe” remains the sovereign, theoretical
subject of all histories, including the ones we call “Indian”, “Chinese”, “Kenyan”, and so on.
There is a peculiar way in which all these other histories tend to become variations on a master
narrative that could be called “the history of Europe”. In this sense, “Indian” history itself is in
a position of subalternity; one can only articulate subaltern subject positions in the name of
history. (Chakrabarty 2009, 27)

Chakrabarty argues that only Europe is theoretically knowable (that is, at the level of the
fundamental categories that shape historical thinking); all other histories are then matters of
‘empirical research’ (Chakrabarty 2009, 29).
As this section has demonstrated, postcolonial approaches have interrogated two main
issues with respect to history and the colonial past. The first issue relates to the constitu-
tion of a body of knowledge-​History-​and how such a construction has worked to silence
and omit specific events, developments and subjects from dominant narratives. The second
aspect concerns who the subject of history is and how should history include colonial
subjects into its historical narratives. Following from this, the next section looks at how these
questions have been treated within IR.

Interrogating IR

This section will discuss the two main issues postcolonial approaches focus on and elaborate
upon how these have been discussed within the field of IR. The first issue relates the body of
knowledge constructed as the field of IR. The second relates to who the subject is within the
history of the international and what is the agency given to postcolonial subjects.
The first issue raised by postcolonial thought and history that will be discussed in this
section is the questioning of the body of knowledge constructed as IR. IR as an academic
field has for a long time been dominated by a Eurocentric system of knowledge which
postcolonial approaches have regularly called into question (Amin 1989; Wallerstein 1997;
Hobson 2012; Araújo and Maeso 2015; Çapan 2016). Eurocentrism is a system of knowledge
that works through the establishment and reproduction of spatio-​temporal hierarchies.
These hierarchies are premised upon a spatial division between ‘Europe’/​’West’ and ‘non-​
Europe’/​’non-​West’. This spatial division is reinforced through a temporal hierarchy that
puts Europe ahead of other spaces. As a consequence, any event and/​or development that
happens within the space separated as ‘Europe’ is considered to have happened firstly there
and then as being exported outwards. A series of binaries become further assigned through
these spatio-​temporal hierarchies such as modern/​non-​modern, developed/​underdevel-
oped, civilized/​uncivilized. These spatio-​temporal hierarchies work in narrating the making
of the international in a specific manner whereby one part of the binary is assigned to the
West (modern, civilized) and the other part of the binary is assigned to the non-​West (trad-
itional, uncivilized). Within this system of knowledge becoming modern means moving
from one side of the binary into the other (Çapan 2017a, 2017b).
130   Zeynep Gulsah Capan

The questions raised by postcolonial historians and their critique of the Eurocentric
system of knowledge have been discussed within the field of IR in two main ways. Firstly, this
has happened through the focus on the sociological makeup of the discipline and how the
history of the discipline has been narrated. The second set of discussions has revolved around
questioning who the subject of history is and how to ‘provincialize Europe’ in narratives of
the making of the international. The first discussion has focused on ‘who’ has been included
in the discipline and whose voices have been heard, underlining that the ‘non-​West’ has been
absent from the constitution of IR (Waever 1998; Tickner and Wæver 2009; Tickner and
Blaney 2013). This means that the knowledge produced by the discipline and its sociological
makeup was and has been ethnocentric and Eurocentric (Bilgin 2016). These bodies of re-
search have taken multiple forms including discussions of the ‘non-​Western’and the ‘post-​
Western’ decentering and decolonizing of IR (Chen 2010; Shilliam 2010; Sabaratnam 2011;
Shimizu 2015; Çapan 2017a). They have also relevant research has also problematized who is
included and who is excluded in the field, who is published and cited and how syllabuses are
organized (Kristensen 2012, 2018; Hagmann and Biersteker 2014; Wemheuer-​Vogelaar, Bell,
Navarrete Morales, and Tierney 2016). These discussions have further focused on different
ways in which the body of knowledge constructed as IR can be challenged and become
more inclusive. The second aspect of the discussion with respect to the sociological makeup
of the discipline has focused on the history of the discipline furthering the works that had
challenged the validity of the so-​called ‘three debates’5 structure through which IR had been
narrated (Wilson 1998; Ashworth 2002; Thies 2002; Quirk and Vigneswaran 2005). The focus
has been on excavating ideas, concepts, and theories that had been silenced as the discip-
line developed (Vitalis 2000, 2010; Henderson 2013, 2017). For instance, Vitalis’ (2015) work
underlines how disciplinary histories silence discussions around race and empire that have
nonetheless been central to the making of the international . For instance, the Howard school
of IR (1920s-​1950s) included scholars such as Alain Locke, Ralph Bunche, and E. Franklin
Frazer and aimed at developing a critique of ‘the role racism played in sustaining imperi-
alism’ (Vitalis 2015, 12). An example of how race and empire were central to international
relations can be seen from how the journal Foreign Affairs used to be called Journal of Race/​
Development/​International Relations in the 1910s. However, ensuing disciplinary histories
have largely left out these discussions. Vitalis’ (2015) book then demonstrates how scholar-
ship has ignored, left out and made invisible a variety of archives of knowledge.
The second issue discussed by postcolonial authors in IR relates to who the subject is
within the History of the international. Efforts in interrogating the nature of history have not
only been influenced by postcolonial history but also by global history, connected histories,
and historical sociology (Subrahmanyam 1997, 2005; Bhambra 2007; Buzan and Lawson
2015; Osterhammel 2015; Conrad 2016; Go and Lawson 2017). As with postcolonial history,
the focus of the discussion has been on the notion of who the subject is within the history of
the international and the main way in which IR scholars have discussed the issue of agency
of the ‘non-​West’ is through works that focus on entangled histories and connectivities
(Buzan and Lawson 2015). Discussions about entangled histories interrogate the construc-
tion of ‘Europe’ as a separate space where events happened in isolation from and before other
spaces. As a consequence, the literature on entanglements and connectivities attempts to ex-
pand accounts spatially by underlining that events did not happen in isolation in Europe
but in connection with the other spaces (Bhambra 2007; Buzan and Lawson 2015). Who the
actors with agency are then becomes an important part of the discussion as with postcolonial
 Postcolonial Histories of IR    131

history, underlining different negotiations, resistances and connections. An example of

these discussions is present in Siba Grovogui’s (1996, 2001, 2002, 2006b, 2006a) and Robbie
Shilliam’s (2006, 2008, 2013, 2014, 2017) respective works. Both interrogate categories that
have been naturalized in IR such as sovereignty and the international system, demonstrating
the spatio-​temporal hierarchies inherent to these concepts.
Siba Grovogui interrogates who the subject is, by questioning narratives of inter-
national order that focus exclusively on the West as the agent through which sovereignty
and subjecthood were imagined. Grovogui underlines how IR is ‘founded upon incom-
plete archives and/​or dubious recollections of international events’ (2006a, 6). As such,
the West, remains the main subject of the story. It is Western actors’ interests, worries, fears
that become narrated as universal issues. Grovogui interrogates how the West remains
the main subject of history through a critique of historicism drawn from historian Dipesh
Chakrabarty’s thought. He argues that ‘the ideological device of time that Europe and then
the West elaborated a typology of a civilizational time according to which humanity and
human development were cast into a single continuum of time’ which assumed a ‘common
human beginning’ (Grovogui 2006a, 54). Grovogui underlines how ‘the colonized developed
plausible doctrines and visions of state sovereignty and global interactions, of moral
agency and subjectivity, and of the collective good that differed greatly from Western ones’
(Grovogui 2006a, 63). The author does this by bringing forward the stories of évolués6 such
as Félix Eboué, Gabriel d’Arboussier, and Ouezzin Coulibaly. The stories of the évolués dem-
onstrate that their ‘doctrines and visions were constitutive of a distinct ‘language’ of inter-
national relations’ (Grovogui 2006a, 58). This account underlines the complicated nature of
the French empire which by the end of World War Two ‘included the métropole or French
state, its overseas departments and territories, protectorates, associated states, colonies
and communes’ that meant ‘concurrent hierarchies of subjectivity (identity), institutions
(values), and economies (interests)’ (Grovogui 2006a, 88). These discussions open the pos-
sibility to refocus the story of international order and underline that there were different
imaginings and ‘languages’ at play.
A second remarkable example comes from Robbie Shilliam’s book The Black Pacific which
directly engages with Spivak’s (1988) question ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’. In it, Shilliam
outlines the questions Spivak presents with respect to whether it was ‘possible to recover the
political consciousness of the subaltern as knowledge untainted by the exercise of power?’
(Shilliam 2015, 5). He underlines that one of the issues with the Subaltern Studies project is
its continued recentering of the colonial gaze whereby the narratives continue to refer back
to Europe and end up focusing not on decolonizing knowledge but become instead ‘an-
other faculty through which to deconstruct knowledge of the Western self ’ (Shilliam 2015,
6). Shilliam’s aim is to break through the colonial gaze and to ‘redeem the possibilities of
anti-​colonial solidarity between colonized and (post)colonized peoples on terms other than
those laid out by colonial science’ (Shilliam 2015, 11). He does this by building the notion of
‘deep relation’—​a ‘relationality that exists underneath the wounds of coloniality’ (Shilliam
2015, 13). What the colonial gaze does is to subordinate everyone to form a relation with
the colonial space. In this formulation the ‘colonized’ ‘could never relate to each other’ be-
cause ‘as non-​moderns, they do not possess the competency to interrelate; they are merely
‘unreflexive agents, practicing the old mystic arts of magic and trickery’. In order to be
accepted as being able to relate ‘they would have to look to a third force—​a modernizing
force of self-​reflexivity—​that could render the meaning of their actions on their behalf ’
132   Zeynep Gulsah Capan

(Shilliam 2015, 20). Thus, Shilliam argues that the answer to the question as to whether or
not the subaltern can speak is not to refer back to the colonial gaze but, instead, to underline
other knowledges that have not been categorized as such because of the way in which dom-
inant understandings have been constructed.

Conclusion

The concerns of postcolonial history are wide-​ranging, and it is hard to present a sum-
mary that can claim to be comprehensive. This chapter has therefore aimed to underline the
main issues raised by postcolonial history and has discussed how IR has addressed them.
The first section presented the way in which postcolonial history addressed two key issues.
The first one concerns how the construction of a body of knowledge (namely, History) has
worked to delineate, hierarchize and organize knowledge in ways that have silenced the co-
lonial past. The second relates to who the subject of history is and who is presented by schol-
arship as having relevant agency. The second section of the chapter then focused on how
the two issues brought up within postcolonial history have been treated in IR. In IR, extant
postcolonial scholarship has demonstrated that the archives of knowledge which initially
constituted the discipline did not draw from all the sources available equally, as discussed
through the examples of Grovogui’s and Shilliam’s works.
As this overview has demonstrated, there is a continuing discussion within the field of IR
that concentrates on how bodies of knowledge are constructed and who the subject of history
is. These discussions have also been important in interrogating the teleological narratives of
modernity that have been central to the social sciences in general and IR specifically. One
aspect of the postcolonial critique that does not receive sufficient attention is the problem-
atization of ‘history’ itself (Bell 2001; Vaughan-​Williams 2005; Çapan 2016, 2020). As IR has
engaged with the themes and issues raised by postcolonial history, it has in that process pre-
dominantly taken ‘History’ as an unproblematic discipline even though problematization of
history was one of the central aspects of the critique put forward by postcolonial approaches.
This, then, remains one of the avenues that within IR requires further engagement.

Notes
1. Postcolonial Studies encompasses a wide array of work, and the following discussion can
in no way claim to be an exhaustive consideration. For further details on postcolonial
studies see : Gandhi (1998); Go (2016); Young (2016).
2. For further details on the thoughts of these and other anti-​colonial theorists see Rabaka
(2009, 2015).
3. Even though the ‘origins’ of Subaltern Studies is traced back to discussions about Indian
historiography, Subaltern Studies did travel into different contexts such as Latin America
and Africa with varying degrees of success (Beverley (1994); Cooper (1994); Mallon
(1994); Saldívar-​Hull and Guha (2001); Lee (2005)).
4. For further discussions on the context of the events that led to the abolishing of Sati see
Mani (1987).
 Postcolonial Histories of IR    133

5. The debates are usually narrated as being: the realist-​utopian debate, the traditionalist-​
behaviouralist debate and the inter-​paradigm debate. In some narratives the third
debate is called the rationalist-​reflectivist debate. For more on these three debates
see: Waever (1996).
6. Évolués refers to individuals who were seen within specific territories by the French colo-
nial empire as supposedly assimilated. They were usually involved in the colonial admin-
istration in some capacity.

References
Amin, S. 1989. Eurocentrism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Araújo, M. and S. R. Maeso. 2015. Eurocentrism, Racism and Knowledge: Debates on History and
Power in Europe and the Americas. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Arnold, D. 1984. ‘Gramsci and Peasant Subalternity in India’. The Journal of Peasant Studies 11
(4): 155–​177.
Ashcroft, B., G. Griffiths, and H. Tiffin. 2003. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in
Post-​Colonial Literatures. London: Routledge.
Ashworth, L. M. 2002. ‘Did the Realist-​Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist
History of International Relations’. International Relations 16(1): 33–​51.
Bell, D. S. A. 2001. ‘International Relations: The Dawn of a Historiographical Turn?’ The British
Journal of Politics and International Relations 3(1): 115–​126.
Beverley, J. 1994. ‘Writing in Reverse: On the Project of the Latin American Subaltern Studies
Group’. Disposition 19(46): 271–​288.
Bhabha, H. K. 2012. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Bhambra, G. 2007. Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bilgin, P. 2016. The International in Security, Security in the International. London: Routledge.
Available at: https://​www.taylor​fran​cis.com/​books/​978131​7407​300. Accessed 12 March 2019.
Buzan, B. and G. Lawson. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and The Making
of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cabral, A. 1974. Return to the Source: Selected Writings. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Çapan, Z. G. 2016. Re-​Writing International Relations: History and Theory Beyond Eurocentrism
in Turkey. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Çapan, Z. G. 2017a. ‘Decolonising International Relations?’ Third World Quarterly 38(1): 1–​15.
Çapan, Z. G. 2017b. ‘Writing International Relations from the Invisible Side of the Abyssal
Line’. Review of International Studies 43(4): 602–​611.
Çapan, Z. G. 2020. ‘Beyond Visible Entanglements: Connected Histories of the International’.
International Studies Review 22(2): 289–​306.
Césaire, A. 1972. Discourse on Colonialism. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Chakrabarty, D. 1992. ‘Postcoloniality and the Artifice of History: Who Speaks for“ Indian”
Pasts?’ Representations 37 (Winter): 1–​26.
Chakrabarty, D. 2000. ‘Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography’. Nepantla: Views
from South 1(1): 9–​32.
Chakrabarty, D. 2009. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chandra, B. 1979. Nationalism And Colonialsm in Modern India. New Delhi: Orient Longman.