ABSTRACT

The chapter focuses on disciplinary IRs and Critical IRs stall, inhibit, or prevent learning in and about international relations (IR). Paranoia enters the scene of Disciplinary IR theories and practices through four registers in which the question "What's the point of IR?" functions. These four registers are rhetoric; interpellation; performativity; and locatability. Disciplinary IR types tend to regard themselves as non-ideological agents altogether. The chapter suggests that if Disciplinary IR Theories understand themselves to be hegemonic norm of something called Disciplinary IRs, then Critical IR Theories often understand themselves to be counter-hegemonic and/or anti-normative forms of Critical IRs. Rhetorically, neurotically driven Critical IR scholars, like paranoia-driven Disciplinary IR scholars, have definite positions on how rhetoric does and should stage reasonable, passionate, and ethical debate. Disciplinary IRs and Critical IRs are led into battle against one another as normative IRs vs. antinormative IRs because they function as paranoid theories.