Who can speak from the perspective of the Global South? In answering this question, Global International Relations (IR) finds itself in a cul de sac: rather than globalize IR, Global IR essentializes non-Western categories by associating difference and knowledge to place (countries, regions, and civilizations) which occludes de-territorialized forms of knowledge production. To reach out for these forms of knowledge, we develop the concept of “hybrid subjectivity,” and propose a shift from the macro to the micro. We propose autoethnography as a method to proceed with this move and present two case studies based on our experiences as hybrid IR scholars to illustrate it. In doing so, we demonstrate the relevance of our self-reflexive exercise in deconstructing reified categories and rendering visible new forms of knowledge in the Global IR debate. This article’s conceptualization of hybrid subjectivity enables the recasting of Global IR in a relational, hybrid, and truly global framework for analysis. The argument goes beyond the confines of Global IR and adds essential analytical value to critical, decolonial, and pluriversal critiques of wester-centrism in IR; in the sense of opening new theoretical and empirical possibilities, as an alternative to current intellectual efforts to recover non-colonial or pre-colonial forms of non-Western authenticity.

中文翻译：

---

混合国际关系学者的自民族志：全球国际关系争论的去疆域化

谁能从南半球的角度发言？在回答这个问题时，全球国际关系（IR）发现自己陷入了死胡同：全球国际关系不是将国际关系全球化，而是通过将差异和知识与地方（国家、地区和文明）联系起来，从而使非西方范畴变得本质化，从而阻碍了去中心化。知识生产的地域化形式。为了接触这些形式的知识，我们提出了“混合主观性”的概念，并提出从宏观到微观的转变。我们提出自我民族志作为推进这一举措的一种方法，并根据我们作为混合国际关系学者的经验提出了两个案例研究来说明这一点。在此过程中，我们展示了自我反思练习在解构具体化类别和在全球国际关系辩论中呈现可见的新知识形式方面的相关性。本文对混合主观性的概念化使得能够在关系性、混合性和真正的全球分析框架中重塑全球IR。这一论点超越了全球国际关系的范围，为国际关系中西方中心主义的批判性、非殖民性和多元化批评增添了重要的分析价值；在开辟新的理论和经验可能性的意义上，作为当前恢复非殖民或前殖民形式的非西方真实性的知识努力的替代方案。以及对国际关系中西方中心主义的多元批评；在开辟新的理论和经验可能性的意义上，作为当前恢复非殖民或前殖民形式的非西方真实性的知识努力的替代方案。以及对国际关系中西方中心主义的多元批评；在开辟新的理论和经验可能性的意义上，作为当前恢复非殖民或前殖民形式的非西方真实性的知识努力的替代方案。