ABSTRACT
My queer IR method is just one way to analyse how contemporary Western formations of power are constituted, mobilised and circulated through sex, gender and sexuality at all scales from the intimate to the international. This is, of course, not to suggest that sexed, gendered and sexualised formations of power have not been interrogated within the discipline before. As I argue in ‘Why is there no queer international theory?’, there has been a long trajectory of what IR scholars have come to call queer IR work, within and outside the discipline of IR (Weber, 2015). Therefore, ‘why there is no queer international theory?’ is the wrong question. The right question is ‘why does there appear to be no queer international theory?’ The response I offer in that article is that the presumed non-existence of queer international theory is an effect of how the discipline of IR combines homologisation, figuration and gentrification to code various types of theory as failures in order to manage the conduct of international theorising. I make this argument specifically about queer international theory, although I note that it applies more widely to a wide range of theories that challenge Disciplinary IR. 2
