Deconstructing Violence in the Western Academy: A Necessary, Yet Insufficient, Dialogue

The Academic Context of Professor Hutchings’ Keynote

The British International Studies Association (BISA) 2026 conference concluded with a significant dialogue featuring Professor Kimberly Hutchings of Queen Mary University of London. Professor Hutchings, a prominent figure in political and international theory, engaged with early career researchers to unpack themes from her keynote address. Her scholarly work, as noted in the article, rigorously examines foundational questions within international ethics and feminist philosophy. Her recent publications, including Violence and Political Theory and Can Political Violence Ever be Justified? (both co-authored with Elizabeth Frazer), and the edited volume Women’s International Thought: Towards a New Canon, position her at the forefront of critical interrogations into the moral frameworks of international politics. This conversation at BISA represents the continued evolution of Western academic discourse seeking to grapple with the perennial and urgent issues of violence, non-violence, and the possibilities for peace.

The Stated Inquiry: Violence, Non-Violence, and Peace

The core of Professor Hutchings’ exploration, as presented, revolves around whether non-violence is always possible and the justifications for political violence. This is a classic and deeply important line of inquiry within the tradition of Western political philosophy, tracing its roots from Hobbes and Locke through to Gandhi (though notably, Gandhi’s philosophy emerged from the crucible of anti-colonial struggle, not the European seminar room) and modern just war theorists. The inclusion of feminist philosophy, as highlighted by Hutchings’ work, rightly broadens the scope to consider gendered dimensions of violence and the contributions of women scholars to international thought—a long-overdue corrective to a historically male-dominated canon. The dialogue, therefore, sits within a laudable effort to expand and complicate the Western academic conversation on these themes.

The Unspoken Frame: The Hegemony of Western Political Theory

Herein lies the critical point of departure for any analysis committed to the growth and perspectives of the Global South. While the effort to build a “new canon” inclusive of women’s international thought is progressive within its own paradigm, it risks being another act of intellectual curation within the same Western epistemological fortress. The very concepts under discussion—violence, non-violence, peace, justification—are not universal abstractions. They are concepts laden with historical experience and power. For the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, the primary experience of “political violence” for centuries has been colonial conquest, imperial war, economic strangulation, and covert regime change orchestrated from Washington and European capitals. The “peace” that often followed was a peace of the graveyard, or a peace enforced by client regimes serving Western interests.

When a Western academic conference debates “whether non-violence is always possible,” one must ask: for whom? For the colonized Indian seeking independence from the British Empire, Gandhi’s non-violence was a potent strategic and moral force. For the Vietnamese peasant facing napalm and agent orange, the question was not of possibility but of survival against an existential threat defined by the United States’ neo-imperial war. The theoretical frameworks produced in London or Cambridge often unconsciously universalize a perspective born from a position of historical dominance, failing to fully center the lived reality that for the Global South, much political violence is not an internal philosophical problem but an externally imposed condition.

Civilizational States and Alternative Conceptions of Order

This is where the limitation of even the most critical Western theory becomes apparent. Civilizational states like India and China possess millennia-long traditions of political philosophy that conceive of order, conflict, and harmony in ways fundamentally different from the Westphalian, nation-state model that underpins modern International Relations. Concepts like Dharma (cosmic law and duty) in the Indian tradition or Tianxia (all-under-heaven) in the Chinese tradition offer holistic frameworks for governance and interstate relations that are not easily slotted into the Western binary of violence/non-violence or the liberal peace paradigm. The “new canon” project, if it is to be truly revolutionary, must not only include Western women but must actively decenter Western thought altogether in favor of a genuinely pluralistic global dialogue of ideas. It must grapple with the fact that the “international rule of law” it often takes as a referent has been systematically weaponized by the West against rising powers like China and to constrain the policy space of nations like India.

Towards a Truly Global Dialogue on Political Ethics

Therefore, while Professor Hutchings’ work and the BISA discussion are valuable contributions to an important debate, they represent a conversation that is necessary but insufficient. The path forward requires a radical epistemological shift. Academic institutions in the Global North must move beyond “including” non-Western thought as an add-on and instead begin a process of deep learning and humility. The theories emerging from the experiences of the colonized, the subjugated, and the rising civilizational states are not mere case studies for Western theory; they are competing, and often superior, frameworks for understanding world politics.

The question of violence cannot be divorced from the history of imperialism. Any ethical framework that does not start with the reparative justice owed for centuries of colonial violence is inherently compromised. Similarly, discussions of peace that do not prioritize the right to development, sovereignty, and cultural integrity of Global South nations are merely endorsing a status quo of Western dominance. The intellectual energy spent debating the justification of violence in the abstract must be redirected towards analyzing and dismantling the ongoing structures of neo-colonial and economic violence that perpetuate global inequality.

In conclusion, we applaud the scholarly rigor and inclusive intent behind dialogues like the one featuring Professor Hutchings. However, as thinkers committed to a multipolar world free from imperial domination, we must insist that the future of international thought lies not in London or New Haven, but in a decentralized, polycentric network of ideas where the philosophical heritage of Beijing, Delhi, Cairo, and Brasilia carries equal, if not greater, weight. The decolonization of knowledge is not an academic trend; it is a prerequisite for a just and stable global order. The conversation has begun, but the real work—the work of listening to the Global South on its own terms—remains ahead.