Debating Uneven and Combined Development/Debating International Relations: A Forum
| Author | Kevin Gray,Felipe Antunes de Oliveira,Ayşe Zarakol,David Blagden,Kamran Matin,Olivia Rutazibwa,Luke Cooper,Justin Rosenberg,Olaf Corry |
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/03058298211064346 |
| Subject Matter | Solicited Article |
https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298211064346
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2022, Vol. 50(2) 291 –327
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/03058298211064346
journals.sagepub.com/home/mil
Debating Uneven and
Combined Development/
Debating International
Relations: A Forum
Justin Rosenberg
University of Sussex, UK
Ayşe Zarakol
University of Cambridge, UK
David Blagden
University of Exeter, UK
Olivia Rutazibwa
The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Kevin Gray
University of Sussex, UK
Olaf Corry
University of Leeds, UK
Kamran Matin
University of Sussex, UK
Felipe Antunes de Oliveira
Queen Mary University of London, UK
Luke Cooper
The London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Corresponding author:
Justin Rosenberg, Professor of International Relations, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN19RH, UK.
Email: j.p.rosenberg@sussex.ac.uk
1064346MIL0010.1177/03058298211064346Millennium – Journal of International StudiesRosenberg et al.
research-article2022
Solicited Article
292 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 50(2)
Abstract
This forum arises from an online event on the theory of uneven and combined development
(UCD). Following an introduction which proposes a ‘special affinity’ between UCD and
International Relations (IR), four presenters at that event discuss their ‘view from outside’
UCD, including perspectives from Global Historical Sociology, Realism, Decolonial theory and
Gramscian Marxism. Meanwhile four members of the audience add their views on UCD and
disciplinarity, the need for pluralism in UCD methodology, UCD and ‘whiteness’, and its potential
contribution to ecological theory and practice.
Keywords
uneven and combined development, international theory, disciplinarity
Débattre du développement inégal et combiné/Débattre des relations
internationales
Résumé
Ce forum est issu d’un événement en ligne sur la théorie du développement inégal et combiné
(DIC). Après une introduction qui suggère l’existence d’une « affinité particulière » entre le DIC
et les RI, quatre intervenants de l’événement présentent leur point de vue « extérieur » au DIC,
en adoptant notamment une perspective de sociologie historique globale, de réalisme, de théorie
décoloniale et de marxisme gramscien. En parallèle, quatre membres du public apportent leurs
points de vue : sur le DIC et la disciplinarité, le besoin de pluralisme dans la méthodologie du DIC,
le DIC et la « blanchité », et l’apport potentiel du DIC à la théorie et à la pratique écologiques.
Mots-clés
développement inégal et combiné, théorie internationale, disciplinarité
Debate sobre el desarrollo desigual y combinado/Debate sobre las
relaciones internacionales
Resumen
Este debate surge de un evento en línea sobre la teoría del desarrollo desigual y combinado
(DDC). Después de una introducción que presenta una «singular afinidad» entre el DDC y las
RRII, cuatro ponentes de este evento discuten su «visión desde fuera» del DDC, incluyendo
perspectivas de la sociología histórica global, el realismo, la teoría decolonial y el marxismo
gramsciano. Al mismo tiempo cuatro participantes del público aportan sus visiones sobre el DDC
y la disciplinariedad, sobre la necesidad de un pluralismo en la metodología del DDC, sobre el
DDC y la «blanquitud» y sobre su potencial contribución a la teoría y a la práctica ecológicas.
Palabras clave
desarrollo desigual y combinado, teoría internacional, disciplinariedad
Rosenberg et al. 293
Introduction
In March 2021, the Cambridge Review of International Affairs published a special issue
on ‘New Directions in Uneven and Combined Development’ (CRIA 2021). To mark the
occasion, CRIA and the European International Studies Association hosted two online
discussions.1 The second of these, held on 25 May, was entitled ‘UCD in International
Studies and Beyond’; and its purpose was to invite critical perspectives on the strengths
and weaknesses of UCD and its claims about the radical significance of ‘the interna-
tional’ for all the human disciplines. The pieces collected below comprise edited versions
of the five presentations given there, together with four additional contributions from
members of the audience.
In his opening comments, Justin Rosenberg suggests that UCD is able – perhaps uniquely
– to supply four key requirements of IR as an academic discipline: an ontological premise,
an empirical method, a theory of the international, and a voice of its own for IR in the inter-
disciplinary conversation of the social sciences and humanities. Next, Ayşe Zarakol argues
that UCD also points beyond the self-limiting Marx-Weber divide that has characterised
historical sociology in IR; and she underlines the need for UCD to retain its intellectual
distinctiveness while avoiding the dangers of essentialism that often accompany longue
durée modes of social explanation. From a Realist perspective, David Blagden argues that
UCD illustrates a longstanding overlap between Realism and Marxism; moreover, while
Realism’s ‘security dilemma’ helps in the theorising of UCD’s ‘whip of external necessity’,
UCD can assist Neoclassical Realism’s quest for a unified understanding of the internal and
external causes of state behaviour. Meanwhile, Olivia Rutazibwa invites UCD to reflect on
how it could benefit from embracing ‘epistemic Blackness’. Such a standpoint, she sug-
gests, would enable it to circumvent the ‘logics of Whiteness’ that distort our understanding
of both the human and natural worlds; and it would also enable UCD to participate in knowl-
edges that are no longer constrained by an underlying preoccupation with mastery and cap-
turing. Finally, Kevin Gray explores the relationship of UCD to the ideas of Antonio
Gramsci. Gramscian approaches, he suggests, have never produced an explicit theorisation
of the international of the kind provided by recent writings in UCD. However, the concept
of ‘passive revolution’ and Gramsci’s writings on ideology could help UCD to develop a
more agent-centred analysis of its own core object: combined development.
The live discussion which followed these presentations also stimulated four written
contributions from members of the audience. In the first of these, Olaf Corry argues that
a disciplinary identity for IR, of the kind offered by UCD, is actually an enabler of IR’s
interdisciplinary ambitions, rather than a retreat from them. Next, Kamran Matin responds
to Rutazibwa’s invitation to ‘epistemic Blackness’. He tests UCD against criteria advanced
by leading Decolonial writers in IR in order to answer the question ‘Is UCD White?’.
Meanwhile, Felipe Antunes de Oliveira argues that UCD can and must pluralise its own
methods for analysing the international. This proliferating, he argues, could produce ‘an
emerging UCD lingua franca – one which may even bridge the many fragmentations of
1. Recordings of these discussions may be viewed by EISA members at: https://eisa-net.org/
eisa-videos/
To continue reading
Request your trial