TY - JOUR
T1 - Nomads and international relations: post-sedentarist dialogues
AU - Heiskanen, Jaakko
AU - MacKay, Joseph
AU - Neumann, Iver B.
AU - Wigen, Einar
AU - Eskild, Ingrid
AU - Hall, Martin
AU - Engelhard, Alice
AU - Owens, Hannah
AU - Levin, Jamie
AU - Kappes, Franca
AU - Owens, Hannah
N1 - © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives CC BY-NC-ND licence, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
PY - 2024/11/18
Y1 - 2024/11/18
N2 - The key concepts and reference points of International Relations (IR) are informed by a sedentarist worldview anchored on the territorial state. IR’s conception of its subject-matter is thus ‘static’ in both senses of the word: state-centric and immobile. One of the consequences of this sedentarist worldview has been a neglect of the world’s nomads. Defined by their spatial mobility, nomads have been either ignored or, less frequently, brought in as an exceptional ‘Other’ against which concepts such as statehood and territoriality can be defined. The interventions in this forum challenge IR’s sedentarism by recovering the world’s nomads as international political actors past and present, thus enriching the range of empirical cases upon which IR scholars may build their theories and challenging teleological narratives that view the history of the international system as the inevitable triumph of the territorial state. At the same time, the forum cautions against the reification of the nomad as the ‘Other’ of the state by disaggregating nomadism from mobility and problematising the sedentarism/nomadism binary. The goal of the forum is not to provide a blueprint for how IR scholars should study nomads, but to promote a critical reflexivity about IR’s sedentarist assumptions.
AB - The key concepts and reference points of International Relations (IR) are informed by a sedentarist worldview anchored on the territorial state. IR’s conception of its subject-matter is thus ‘static’ in both senses of the word: state-centric and immobile. One of the consequences of this sedentarist worldview has been a neglect of the world’s nomads. Defined by their spatial mobility, nomads have been either ignored or, less frequently, brought in as an exceptional ‘Other’ against which concepts such as statehood and territoriality can be defined. The interventions in this forum challenge IR’s sedentarism by recovering the world’s nomads as international political actors past and present, thus enriching the range of empirical cases upon which IR scholars may build their theories and challenging teleological narratives that view the history of the international system as the inevitable triumph of the territorial state. At the same time, the forum cautions against the reification of the nomad as the ‘Other’ of the state by disaggregating nomadism from mobility and problematising the sedentarism/nomadism binary. The goal of the forum is not to provide a blueprint for how IR scholars should study nomads, but to promote a critical reflexivity about IR’s sedentarist assumptions.
UR - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09557571.2024.2426782
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85209988200&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/09557571.2024.2426782
DO - 10.1080/09557571.2024.2426782
M3 - Article
SP - 1
EP - 35
JO - Cambridge Review of International Studies
JF - Cambridge Review of International Studies
M1 - 2426782
ER -