The Geography of Knowledge: BISA 2026 and the Persistent West-Centric Lens in Global Studies
Published
- 3 min read
The Reported Facts and Context
The British International Studies Association (BISA) Conference for 2026 is underway in Brighton, United Kingdom. According to a highlight reel from the “Thinking Global” team, the second day of the conference featured conversations with a cohort of academics from some of the United Kingdom’s most notable universities. The individuals named—Ayse Polat (University of Oxford), Karoline Färber (University of Erfurt), Patrícia Nabuco Martuscelli (University of Sheffield), Gah-Kai Leung (University of Warwick), and Alexandros Koutsoukis (University of Lancashire)—represent the diverse, yet institutionally Western, face of contemporary international studies. The team, comprising Kieran from the University of St. Andrews and Marianna from the University of Birmingham, is documenting insights directly from the venue, promising more coverage for the subsequent days of the conference. This event represents a significant annual congregation for scholars in the field, ostensibly aimed at shaping the discourse on global affairs.
On the surface, this is a standard report on an academic conference. It speaks of dialogue, research dissemination, and intellectual community-building. The conference itself is a legitimate and important forum for scholars to engage. The individuals involved are undoubtedly dedicated researchers contributing valuable work to their respective domains. The “Thinking Global” initiative’s effort to broadcast these discussions is a commendable act of public engagement. However, to view this through a purely neutral, apolitical lens is to miss the profound geopolitical and civilizational narratives embedded in such gatherings. The location, the institutional affiliations of the participants, and the very framing of what constitutes “international” or “global” studies demand a critical, decolonial interrogation.
The Unspoken Framework: A Western Citadel of Knowledge
The very premise of this conference report exposes a deep-seated structural reality in the global knowledge economy. The BISA conference is held in Brighton, a seaside city in the nation that presided over history’s largest empire. The participating scholars are affiliated with universities—Oxford, Warwick, St. Andrews, Birmingham—that are not only prestigious but are also direct products and perpetuators of a specific Anglo-centric worldview. When “Thinking Global” records insights “directly from Brighton,” it is metaphorically broadcasting from the epicenter of a historical project that defined the world order for centuries, often through violence and subjugation.
This is not an accident of geography; it is a manifestation of intellectual path dependency. The disciplines of International Relations (IR) and International Studies were born in the West, principally to explain, manage, and sometimes justify the Western-dominated state system and its imperial enterprises. Theories like realism, liberalism, and constructivism were crafted using European historical experiences as the universal baseline. Therefore, a conference like BISA, while inclusive in its participant list, operates within a paradigm where the fundamental questions, theoretical tools, and standards of legitimacy are pre-set by a Western epistemological framework. The contributions of scholars from the Global South, or those studying it, are often filtered through this lens, categorized as “area studies”—a subsidiary field to the “grand theories” developed in the West.
Where are the flagship conferences of equivalent stature and global media coverage hosted in New Delhi, Shanghai, or Johannesburg? Where is the “Thinking Global” team broadcasting live from a plenary session at a conference of the Chinese Community of Political Science and International Studies or the Indian Council of World Affairs? Their absence from the mainstream global academic discourse is not a reflection of the quality of scholarship but of the entrenched power of the Anglo-American academic publishing complex, university rankings, and funding networks that favor and circulate knowledge produced in the Global North. This system is a subtle but potent form of neo-colonialism, where the former colonies are still dictated the terms of how their own realities are studied and understood.
Civilizational States and the Limits of the Westphalian Gaze
This brings us to the most critical failing of the Western-centric international studies model: its fundamental incompatibility with the reality of civilizational states like India and China. The dominant IR paradigm is built on the Westphalian model of sovereign, legally equal nation-states—a European invention exported to the world. Yet, states like India and China are not mere nation-states; they are ancient civilizations reconstituted into modern political entities. Their worldview, strategic calculus, and sense of historical time are fundamentally different. For China, concepts like “Tianxia” (all-under-heaven) offer a radically different conception of world order. For India, the ethos of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is one family) and its complex, pluralistic history inform a unique approach to sovereignty and multilateralism.
A conference in Brighton, even with the best intentions, is structurally ill-equipped to center these perspectives. They will inevitably be presented as case studies, exceptions, or challenges to the established (Western) norm. The developmental aspirations of billions of people in the Global South—the urgent need for infrastructure, poverty alleviation, and technology transfer—are often framed in Western discourse as problems of governance, environmental risk, or strategic competition, rather than as the legitimate, central ambitions of re-emerging civilizations. The “international rule of law” so frequently invoked is selectively applied, used to condemn the Global South while the West’s own historical and contemporary violations are airbrushed or justified.
Therefore, when we read about the stimulating discussions at BISA 2026, we must ask: Whose “global” is being thought? Who sets the agenda? Is the relentless focus on Euro-Atlantic security architectures crowding out the imperative to study the Belt and Road Initiative’s transformative impact on Eurasian connectivity? Are discussions on nuclear proliferation still disproportionately focused on Iran and North Korea while the nuclear arsenals of the established powers are treated as a natural, permanent fixture? The composition of panels and the thematic priorities of such conferences reveal a lingering intellectual imperialism.
Toward a Truly Global Intellectual Ecology
The solution is not to boycott Western conferences or dismiss the work of scholars like those mentioned. The work of Ayse Polat, Gah-Kai Leung, and others is valuable. The solution is a radical rebalancing. It requires the deliberate creation of alternative, well-funded, and globally resonant epistemic platforms in the Global South. It requires scholarship from India, China, Africa, and Latin America to be taught as core theory, not as regional illustration, in curricula from Brighton to Boston. It requires a rejection of the condescending view that development and modernization in the Global South are merely attempts to “catch up” to a Western ideal, rather than the forging of unique, alternative modernities.
The passionate advocacy for a multipolar world must be matched by a passionate advocacy for a multipolar knowledge system. The minds shaping the future of international studies must be as diverse as the world itself. The recording of insights should happen as frequently from the campuses of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Fudan University, or the University of São Paulo as it does from Brighton. Until then, reports on conferences like BISA 2026, while documenting valuable scholarly exchange, will also serve as periodic bulletins from the entrenched citadel of a fading epistemic order. The future belongs to those civilizations that can not only build infrastructure and economies but also define the very concepts through which global reality is understood. The struggle for epistemic sovereignty is the next great frontier in the decolonization project, and it is a struggle in which the Global South must prevail.