Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Building upon Cynthia Enloe’s critique (2004) of the normative assumptions underlying orthodox International Relations (IR) theories, this article examines the epistemological and ontological foundations of these theories in the context of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) uprising following the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). By integrating critical theory perspectives, it investigates how the valuation of epistemologies within orthodox IR and the perceived immutability of central-peripheral dynamics contribute to political invisibility imposed on peripheral actors. The article contextualizes the relationship between NAFTA and Zapatismo, demonstrating how the neoliberal policies embodied in NAFTA exacerbated Indigenous marginalization, thereby catalyzing the EZLN uprising. Employing Enloe’s evaluation of the EZLN case study, alongside the works of adjacent critical theorists, it demonstrates how critical theory can challenge problem-solving theories’ ontological and epistemological assumptions. It concludes that these assumptions synthesize to impose political invisibility onto peripheral actors, which, if exploited properly, can paradoxically emancipate these actors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elliot Goodell Ugalde (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: