Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract International Relations is a discipline that takes itself seriously. What functions does this posture of seriousness serve? What is at stake in its maintenance and reproduction? And what ways of knowing, understanding, and performing politics are marginalized as a result? This article addresses these questions, drawing on feminist theory in order to show how the discipline’s performances of seriousness have served to exclude particular ways of being and knowing. While some feminists have responded to these exclusions by demanding to be taken seriously, we draw on queer theorists including Lauren Berlant, Jack Halberstam, and Cynthia Weber in order to suggest that IR might profitably benefit from the exploration of other critical and analytical registers. Engaging in what Berlant calls a “counterpolitics of the silly object,” we outline three sites of ontological, epistemological, and methodological intervention that emerge from a counterpolitical embrace of silliness.
Baspehlivan et al. (Mon,) studied this question.