Ashley, Richard, and R. Walker. "Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies". International Studies Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3 (1990): 259-268.

Ashley, Richard, and R. Walker. "Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies". International Studies Quarterly, Vol.34, No.3 (1990): 259-268.

• The fact that people exist at the intersection of multiple overlapping identities -- each of which may generate different logics and modes of behavior and thought -- means that the assumptions applied to categories of humans are wrong and cannot be applied because they assume stable membership in a single category, whereas in reality people fit into multiple categories and change categories and identity based on circumstance (261-262).
• The borders between these different overlapping identities are sites of power, as people on the intersection of multiple identities are placed into single categories by those with the power to assign labels and generate knowledge. There is no usually a single person or institution exercising this power, but a general atmosphere of power that requires individuals to locate themselves into discrete categories (261).
• Because the situations in which multiple identities overlap defy categorization and subvert the artificial expectation of academics and others who construct knowledge, they are vilified and dismissed. Actors in these situations are seen as aberrant, irrational, insane, and otherwise chaotic. Despite the fact that these are normal people in normal everyday situations, these experiences are thought of as marginal (262).
• The authors support an examination of these marginal narratives, characterizing them as 'exiles' from the standard conceptions of accepted knowledge and universal narratives. Listening to these narratives allows us to better question and critique the assumptions that undergird claims to universal truth (262).
• Since these people are outside of the hegemonic modes of thought, identity, and assumptions, marginal narratives are less constrained in their assumptions. The authors believe that this allows for freer forms of thought as they are less constrained by hegemonic narratives and assumptions (263).
• 'Dissident thought', or being critical of the core concepts, methodology, and assumptions of a field, is more and more common in international relations theory. The author believe that these critical works are still marginalized within IR theory, which is disillusioned with realist and liberal IR theory but still does not want to accept a non-positivist theory (263-264).
• The authors respond to a critique by Robert Keohane, who says that as long as 'reflectivists' continue to critique without forward their own ideas about how the world works, they will remain marginal. The authors state their research demolishes the assumptions of other peoples' research, clearing the field for new theories built on better assumptions (266).