ABSTRACT
Introduction The work of Mikhal M. Bakhtin1 has become important in different forms of social understanding, but it is also elusive, so much so that it is hard to characterize any one approach as Bakhtinian. There are indeed several ways in which we might trace his influence in international relations in particular, without there being any one authentic ‘Bakhtinian approach’. At best what can be achieved is a sound, issue specific transposition of some of his ideas; this is the point of departure for this chapter. The chapter itself will focus on ways of applying Bakhtin’s work because it can be used to analyse self and other relations (Guillaume 2002a, 2006, 2007; Neumann 1996). Nonetheless, Bakhtin’s potential is not limited to the identity/alterity nexus, nor to the field of literary studies from which it emerged. Instead, as some writers have argued, his work can inform how, epistemologically, the field of international relations is shaped and how it works (Guillaume 2002b; Neumann 2003), and how it can engage both with world literature and poetics (Holden 2003; Moore 2009a). Indeed, as the many edited volumes dedicated to his work illustrate (Bell and Gardiner 1998; Hitchcock 1998; Mandelker 1995), Bakhtin has been a major influence and source for the development of new approaches in a range of disciplines. Unfortunately, like all thinkers deemed to transform a field of study, Bakhtin has also become something of an intellectual (and fashionable) icon – a cliché even – in the field of the humanities and the social sciences (Emerson 1997: 3). IR scholars, however, have largely neglected Bakhtinian scholarship or, with a few exceptions, have offered rather cursory treatments of his work (Holden 2003). This chapter will not be dedicated to an evaluation of IR scholarship and its (mis)appropriation of Bakhtin. Rather, it will highlight, translate and adapt elements of Bakhtin’s work into the field of International Relations. As we will see, identifying and adapting Bakhtin’s conception of transactions (Dewey and Bentley 1991 [1949]: 101-102), relations between identity and alterity, or what can be summarized as dialogism, helps us develop a processual account of the identity/alterity nexus. The word dialogism itself is problematic in Bakhtin’s work and a source of discussion among Bakhtin’s scholars. Indeed, the word scarcely appears in his work. Nonetheless I adopt the term here to enrich one
specific aspect of Bakhtin’s contribution, the problématique of the identity/alterity nexus. Following Mustafa Emirbayer,
the very terms or units involved in a transaction derive their meaning, significance, and identity from the (changing) functional roles they play within that transaction. The later, seen as a dynamic, unfolding process, becomes the primary unit of analysis rather than the constituent elements themselves.
