Recognising, and Realising, the Promise of The Aesthetic Turn
| Published date | 01 January 2017 |
| Author | Brent J. Steele |
| Date | 01 January 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829816684254 |
| Subject Matter | Forum: The Aesthetic Turn at 15 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816684254
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2017, Vol. 45(2) 206 –213
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829816684254
journals.sagepub.com/home/mil
Recognising, and Realising, the
Promise of The Aesthetic Turn
Brent J. Steele
University of Utah, USA
Keywords
aesthetics, power, security, micropolitics
Roland Bleiker’s iconic and courageous mapping of the aesthetic turn in international
political theory called attention to one very basic but up until then unstated maxim: that
the ‘inevitable difference between the represented and its representation is the very loca-
tion of politics’.1 Exactly. Thanks to this insight, the aesthetic turn revealed a kind of
vulnerability of states – and of great powers in particular – that had not previously been
seen. This ‘aesthetic vulnerability’ brought to light states’ concern with their own repre-
sentation and self-representation, with the way they ‘look’ in their own eyes and in the
eyes of others. This soft underbelly of power politics acquired particular urgency after
9/11, as the hyper-visuality of the event – and its violent aftermath – so evidently pointed
at that ‘representational gap’. The ‘aesthetic vulnerability’ of the United States called
attention to its representational practices and, simultaneously, opened political spaces to
challenge its policies. However, as the never-ending ‘War on Terror’ mutates into ‘global
Trumpism’, the limits of this near-exclusive focus on the United States and the West are
becoming more evident, demanding consultation of new perspectives and new terrains
for ‘aesthetic’ engagements in, and of, critical IR.
This essay begins with Roland Bleiker’s vitally important assertion and provides
three engagements of the aesthetic turn. First, I assess the turn’s utility and purchase in
especially the 2000s. I argue that the moves to aesthetics in IR theory were productive
Corresponding author:
Brent J. Steele, Department of Political Science, University of Utah, Building 73, Room 223, 332 South 1400
Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA.
Email: brent.steele@utah.edu
684254MIL0010.1177/0305829816684254Millennium: Journal of International StudiesSteele
research-article2016
Forum: The Aesthetic Turn at 15
1. Roland Bleiker, ‘The Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory’, Millennium: Journal
of International Studies 30, no. 3 (2001): 510, emphasis added.
To continue reading
Request your trial