The dominant narratives most often used to study international issues and human rights are rooted in assumptions that must be named in order to equip ourselves with the necessary tools for the work. In her book, Race and the Making of American Political Science, Jessica Blatt names these narratives. She demonstrates the role that race and white supremacy have played in the development of the field of political science, as well as the impact this knowledge production has had on policy making.
Many of the dominant narratives that are discussed in this unit have historical connections to the late 19th and early 20th century when the United States applied the concept of Manifest Destiny to the world. Blatt demonstrates that global Manifest Destiny is rooted in white supremacy and racism, or a “Jim Crow theory of race relations.”2 For example, in the 1880s, the founders of the first two doctoral programs in politics in the United States, taught that Anglo-Saxons “created, and were fit to enjoy, democratic institutions.”3 Blatt addresses the dominant narrative that fails to recognize the role that race has played and offers the alternative “that race thinking shaped U.S. political science at its origins far more profoundly than has previously been recognized. From the late nineteenth century and well into the twentieth, scholars of politics defined and continually reoriented their intellectual work in response to changing scientific notions of race and to the political imperatives of the racial order at home and abroad.”4 This early scholarship set the tone for decades of academic work that claimed colorblindness was at its core. However, the implications of such scholarship have reverberated into the “political science mainstream” and have “failed to view racial oppression and hierarchy as problems that fell within its bailiwick.”5 In addition, “the explicit disciplinary racism...signaled a deeply racialized worldview that helped to give form and content to the practice of political science at its origins.”6 Blatt makes the divide between the dominant narrative and counter narrative clear by naming the racist influences on the study of political science since its inception.
The second dominant narrative transitions from the colorblindness of political science to the assumed impartiality of contemporary human rights discourse. Imperial powers like the United States, Great Britain, and France drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 1940s. Dominant narratives celebrate the post war accomplishments of these nations without taking into account inequalities of power, as well as these nations’ complicity and abuse of human rights. One of the problems with this dominant assumption is that the universal codification of human rights puts almost all of the onus on individuals to secure these rights rather than on the need for systems to change in order to realize the statement that “All human beings are born free and equal.”7 The counter narrative acknowledges the imperialist motivations of the nations who led the creation of the UDHR. In addition, the counter narrative questions the impact that colorblindness and impartiality have on the study of human rights, international issues, and the law.
Third, we should question the assumption that the boundaries, borders, and laws of contemporary nation-states are the foremost solution to issues related to democracy, migration, and trade. This unit will present a counter narrative that questions the reliance on the rules and tools of nation-states and rethink the white supremacy, violence, and racism associated with nationalistic attitudes and practices.
Fourth, we should question the dominant narrative that justifies militarization and war as useful tools to ensure the security of the United States and the rest of the world, as well as the use of militarization and war to protect the interests and profits of multinational corporations and the U.S. capitalist system. Blatt addresses this dominant narrative that connects imperialism and capitalism:
In its simplest form, conventional wisdom on the issue boiled down to the following propositions: (1) racial and economic forces compelled the great powers to seek new markets and new resources; (2) those resources and markets could be found among “backward” peoples; (3) backward peoples could not efficiently develop those resources or the market organization to consume the ever-increasing bounty of the modern economy; and, therefore, (4) the great powers had a responsibility to the world to develop its resources, and a responsibility to their own people to see that the benefits of doing so accrued to them and not to their rivals.8
Not only are war and imperialism used to protect the profits of multinational corporations, they are also the result of the racist dominant narrative that claims colonized people are incapable of developing resources themselves. This unit will draw attention to these intersections, investigate the white supremacist underpinnings of this narrative, and center peacemaking and socialist economic reforms as more relevant means to global security, improved human welfare, and increased democratic participation around the world.
|
Dominant Narrative
|
Counter Narrative
|
|
The study of international politics is colorblind, race neutral, and impartial
|
Race, race thinking, and white supremacy have influenced the study of international politics since its inception
|
|
Human rights are universal; individuals have the capacity to access these rights as defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
|
Imperialist nations with their own human rights violations drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; systems need to change before human rights are universal
|
|
Boundaries, borders, and nation states are tools to promote democracy, migration, and trade
|
Boundaries, borders, and nation states are tools to promote nationalism, white supremacy, and violence
|
|
Militarization, war, and capitalism are the most useful tools to ensure global security and protect the interests of multinational corporations
|
Peacemaking and socialist economic reforms are the most useful tools to protect human rights and democratic participation
|
|
Economic investment in war and the military is necessary to ensure global security; this investment should be prioritized over social programs
|
Divest from the military industrial complex and invest in social programs; there is enough money to meet people’s needs and protect human rights
|
|
Civilized nations determine how and when other nations are ready for self-government
|
The civilized/uncivilized dichotomy is rooted in white supremacy; self-determination is a human right; mutual cooperation over violent intervention
|
Also associated with this dominant narrative and counter narrative is the lack of understanding and transparency about how much public money is available to invest in social programs, peacemaking, and economic reforms. The dominant approach assumes that as much money as possible must be invested in the military in the name of patriotism and national security; and that there isn’t enough money to provide for the general welfare, namely education, healthcare, and housing. The counter narrative disrupts that assumption, reminding us of the wealth invested in the war machine and that the opportunity to meet people’s needs exists once the collective decision is made to prioritize it.
A final dominant narrative articulates that only some nations and races are capable or deserving of self-determination and democratic government. Blatt describes the “leading scholars active in the American Political Science Association” and their belief “that the ‘darker races,’ both at home and abroad, would most likely require a semipermanent subordinate status appropriate to each group’s degree of evolutionary progress.” While defenders of this narrative would argue that the United States is a selfless arbiter of democracy working to promote democracy in places that have not yet been exposed to Enlightenment ideals, the counter narrative addresses the white supremacist influences on
U.S. foreign policy. The dominant narrative is connected to white supremacist thinking that creates a civilized-noncivilized dichotomy where civilized nations deserve democracy and must teach noncivilized nations how to establish it (if and when they are ready).
Two men who led the development of the political science field operated with this narrative of the supremacy of the civilized. Henry Jones Ford, president of the APSA, justified imperialism on the grounds that it was the consequence of “supremacy” and that “the rise of empire appears to have the constancy of natural law.”9 This justification compels political and military leaders in the United States to use imperialist violence as the leading scholars give it their blessing. Blatt also quotes Bernard Moses, who founded the UCLA Political Science Department in 1903. Just as Ford used white supremacist thinking to justify colonization, Moses recommended the use of “physical force” because “to smite the barbarian with a heavy hand is sometimes the surest way to liberalize his mind.”10 This logic used to defend militaristic intervention is rooted in the dominant narrative that erases the agency of people of color. It also sets up the need for non-military colonialist interventions because of the racist assumption that indigenous people are not capable of governing themselves. Moses acknowledges Native American genocide, the consequence of colonialism and expansion in North America, when he recommends policy in other parts of the world. Blatt quotes him: “However, as even Moses acknowledged, whereas in the continental United States it had been ‘expected that the aboriginal inhabitants would disappear,’ in the Caribbean, Pacific, and African colonies, this ‘could not be presumed,’ and thus ‘they could not be ignored.’”11 The foundation for this racist and violent international policy is the racist and violent policies of the United States affecting, and disappearing, indigenous people and people of color in the Americas.
