Reframing the Language of International Relations: A Postcolonial and Discursive Reappraisal

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15852582

Abstract

This study explores the discursive construction of meaning and power in International Relations (IR), with a focus on how linguistic choices shape and reinforce dominant ideologies within the field. Situated within the interpretivist paradigm, the research adopts a qualitative, interpretive approach that foregrounds context, reflexivity, and meaning-making over positivist objectivity. Employing Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as its primary methodology, the study draws on Fairclough’s three-dimensional model—textual analysis, discursive practice, and social practice—while also integrating insights from postcolonial and decolonial theorists such as Hobson, Acharya, Foucault, and Said. The analytical corpus consists of three categories of texts: (i) foundational IR theory (Morgenthau, Waltz), (ii) canonical postcolonial critiques (Hobson, Acharya), and (iii) institutional discourse (UN Security Council resolutions, speeches, policy texts). Key IR terms such as sovereignty, anarchy, civilization, and developing world are examined to uncover how they function discursively to legitimize hegemonic perspectives and marginalize non-Western epistemologies. The findings reveal that mainstream IR discourse, particularly through figures like Morgenthau, uses modality, metaphor, and syntactic structures to naturalize realist assumptions prioritizing power and national interest over ethical or pluralistic considerations. In contrast, postcolonial critiques deconstruct this hegemony by exposing epistemic violence and advocating for epistemic pluralism through concepts such as Global IR. Institutional texts, including UN resolutions and diplomatic speeches, are shown to reproduce geopolitical hierarchies via ambiguous modality, rhetorical framing, and silences that obscure responsibility and exclude marginalized voices. This study is significant for its multi-layered investigation of how IR discourse functions not only as a reflection of global politics but as an active mechanism of power production and maintenance. It demonstrates that language in IR is not neutral; it is ideologically loaded and instrumental in shaping what counts as legitimate knowledge, actor, and action. The implementation of this study has implications for critical pedagogy, curriculum decolonization, and institutional reform in IR scholarship and policymaking. By revealing the linguistic underpinnings of power, the research contributes to broader efforts aimed at epistemic justice, encouraging the inclusion of diverse worldviews in global political thought.