| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this article, I suggest ways in which feminist analysis would further enrich Hobson's text. Questioning Hobson's assumption that it is possible to create separate 'metanarratives' about Eurocentrism and patriarchy, I claim that patriarchy, imperialism and Eurocentrism were co-constituted through the practices of Western imperialism and the creation of modern Western knowledge. I then take up Hobson's question that asks whether one is, or is not, Eurocentric is a more important question than whether or not one is a positivist. I argue that both these questions are important and interrelated. Whereas positivism aspires to tell one universal story, post-positivism acknowledges that all theories are constructed in the interest of someone. Therefore it offers us the opportunity to be reflective about our epistemological standpoints - whether or not they are Eurocentric. I then describe some methodological sensitivities concerning these issues that IR feminists have brought to their research. I conclude by reviewing some feminist post-colonial literature that reflects these sensitivities, thereby offering us some tools to overcome the Eurocentric trap.
|