Dear Alex Wendt,
Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting IR theory work over the years! I have learned a lot from you. You are a terrific scholar, and extra-mensch-y for posting here. (Though borderline troubling that this may add legitimacy to this otherwise horrible pit of racism and unfunny penis jokes.)
Sincerely,
Female Assoc. Prof in IR
Does Wendt work with female PhD students?
-
-
OP's question about the number of my female advisees is a fair one, so let me make a few points.
First, unfortunately I don't think my numbers are that far off the mean. I did a quick count of all the graduated PhD students on whose committees I have served -- mostly as advisor, but some as the #2 -- and came up with 18 men and 10 women. Of the women, 1 is deceased, and 1 left the academy soon after getting her PhD; the rest, like the men, have had varying degrees of success in their careers (and at least 1 I think has been quite successful). I wish my numbers were more balanced, and I work hard not to be sexist in my advising, but I think the real issue here is the under-representation of women in the field overall.
Second, the main determinant of who I end up working with, especially as the primary advisor, is whether a student is interested in theory -- since for better or worse that's what I do. I agree with Oliver that there are probably more women constructivists than, say, realists, but many of these have primarily empirical interests and/or are interested in non-state actors, for whom I'm not likely to be a first choice as an advisor. My own sense is that in IR theory women are even more under-represented than in other areas of IR, and that this is true across the board of theoretical persuasions. If that's true then an interesting question is why, which I don't pretend to have an answer for.
Finally, I want to assure OP that if you are interested in theory (constructivist or not), then I would be happy to work with you, and in any event would encourage you to apply to Ohio State, and if you get in then you can see for yourself what it is like here.Not Wendt. Language does not match.
-
Modern sovereignty is anthropocentric, constituted and organized by reference to human beings alone. Although a metaphysical assumption, anthropocentrism is of immense practical import, enabling modern states to command loyalty and resources from their subjects in pursuit of political projects. It has limits, however, which are brought clearly into view by the authoritative taboo on taking UFOs seriously. UFOs have never been systematically investigated by science or the state, because it is assumed to be known that none are extraterrestrial. Yet in fact this is not known, which makes the UFO taboo puzzling given the ET possibility. Drawing on the work of Giorgio Agamben, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, the puzzle is explained by the functional imperatives of anthropocentric sovereignty, which cannot decide a UFO exception to anthropocentrism while preserving the ability to make such a decision.