We need to talk about silence: Re-examining silence in International Relations theory
| Author | Sophia Dingli |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066114568033 |
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of
International Relations
2015, Vol. 21(4) 721 –742
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066114568033
ejt.sagepub.com
E
JR
I
We need to talk about silence:
Re-examining silence in
International Relations theory
Sophia Dingli
The University of Hull, UK
Abstract
The critique of silence in International Relations theory has been long-standing and
sustained. However, despite the lasting popularity of the term, little effort has been
made to unpack the implications of existing definitions and their uses, and of attempts to
rid the worlds of theory and practice of silences. This article seeks to fill this vacuum by
conducting a twofold exercise: a review and revision of the conceptualisation of silence
current in the literature; and a review of the implications of attempts to eliminate
silence from the worlds of theory and practice. Through the discussion, the article
suggests that we deepen and broaden our understanding of silence while simultaneously
accepting that a degree of silence will be a permanent feature of theory and practice in
international politics. Finally, the conclusion illustrates the possibilities for analysis and
theory opened by these arguments through an exploration of how they may be used to
interpret and address recent events in Yemen.
Keywords
Conflict, critical International Relations theory, feminism, post-colonialism, power,
silence
Introduction
One of the most enduring critiques of the field of International Relations (IR) theory in
the last 30 years has been that it is replete with silences. Silence, according to the critique
mounted by established theoretical and meta-theoretical paradigms in critical IR scholar-
ship, is associated with corporeal and epistemic violence. Groups identified as affected
by silence are women, post-colonial (racialised) actors and those disempowered as a
result of the current process of neoliberal globalisation. At the intersection of these
Corresponding author:
Sophia Dingli, The University of Hull, Cottingham Road, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK.
Email: sophia.dingli@gmail.com
568033EJT0010.1177/1354066114568033European Journal of International RelationsDingli
research-article2015
Article
722 European Journal of International Relations 21(4)
groups, one finds a final group: the (female) subaltern who, according to Gayatri Spivak
(1988: 83), ‘has no history and cannot speak … is even more deeply in shadow’.
In the discipline of IR, analyses of silence are a direct result of cross-disciplinary pol-
lination, which took place at an expectedly slow pace, for ours is the age of disciplinary
specialisation. Their roots can be found in the fields of literary theory, psychoanalysis,
sociology and history among the works of those scholars who either adopted the decon-
structive epistemology of postmodernism or the materialist critique of hegemony found
in the work of Antonio Gramsci, or both. Some of the most well-known works to emerge
as a result are: Michel Foucault’s (1967) study into the structured and eventual confine-
ment of the ‘insane’ to silence; Luce Irigaray’s (1985) investigation into what constitutes
a ‘woman’, where she concluded that ‘woman’ does not have a voice of her own due to
the work of patriarchy; and Edward Said’s (1995) study into the co-construction of the
‘Occidental Self’ and the ‘Oriental Other’.
These works have influenced critical IR scholars, whose dissenting voices, seeking
to reveal and undo silences, have not quietened down as time has passed. Instead, they
have been multiplying, with silence continuously invoked as a problem for the prac-
tice and understanding of international politics (Bhambra and Shilliam, 2009a; Booth,
2007; Enloe, 2004; Guillaume, 2013; Hansen, 2000). For example, in the 2014
International Studies Association’s (ISA’s) Annual Convention, there was a panel
entitled ‘Silence, (In)Security, and Agency in Feminist Research’ and there were no
less than 12 papers with ‘silence’ in the title. In the 2015 Annual Convention, there
was a panel entitled silence and 14 papers with ‘silence’ in the title. However, despite
the term’s popularity, little effort has been made to unpack the implications of exist-
ing definitions of silence. Furthermore, no effort has been made to evaluate the effects
of theorists’ efforts to rid the worlds of theory and practice of silences.
This article seeks to fill this vacuum by addressing these, so far, neglected aspects of
the existing literature. It is divided into three sections: the first two focus on the matter of
conceptualisation and the final one focuses on the amelioration of silence. The first sec-
tion examines the most widely accepted definition of silence, which equates silence with
violence and oppression. It suggests deepening this conceptualisation, integrating in it an
understanding of the aesthetic dimension of experience. The second section interrogates
the assumptions that underwrite the current discussion of silence in the discipline, argu-
ing that we should broaden our understanding of silence. The third section analyses the
implications of current attempts to ameliorate silence in theory and practice. In the case
of theory, it argues that due to the nature of social understanding, we should accept that
a degree of silence will exist in all interpretations of international politics. Similarly, it
argues that we must accept that all political orders necessarily include a degree of silence
that cannot be wished away. Even though these conclusions may appear to be anathema
to those of us concerned with silences in international politics, it is argued here that
accepting the permanence of a degree of silence serves to reawaken us to the burden and
possibilities of practical politics. Finally, the conclusion applies the arguments made in
the main body of the article to the situation in Yemen since the country’s unification to
illustrate how these arguments can help us interpret and address silence in this marginal-
ised state.
To continue reading
Request your trial