The aim of this thesis is to problematize Amitav Acharya’s Global International Relations framework, demonstrate problems with IR’s reliance on the English language, as well as IR’s political...Show moreThe aim of this thesis is to problematize Amitav Acharya’s Global International Relations framework, demonstrate problems with IR’s reliance on the English language, as well as IR’s political economy, and show how these three factors may impede the development and incorporation of Global IR in modern IR overall. The first argument that this thesis presents is a problematization of the emphasis on English within IR, and it will do so over the first two chapters. The first chapter of the thesis tackles with the use of English in the contemporary international climate, where, as Bunce et al. and Kubota & Okuda demonstrate how English shapes and intervenes in international politics and developments. The second chapter, which will look at the state of the English language in IR theory, demonstrates that English is tied closely together with the legitimacy of IR as an academic discipline as well as in the imagining of globalisation, and how it has shaped the creation of the Us vs. Them dichotomy that encounters so much criticism within IR. The second argument, which will be approached in Chapter 3, will turn to the political economy of IR, and how this has helped in the creation of the homogenous academic field we work in today. By looking at the development of the university as an institution for research through Kamola’s argument, the presence of the publish or perish culture, and the problems that this, combined with the English-dominated Western IR, present for the globalising of IR - one of the mission statements of Global IR. This thesis will conclude by suggesting a potential alternative approach that Global IR can look into to tackle the issues that are presented throughout the thesis.Show less
