Where do we discover myths in International Relations (IR)? How can we identify, reiterate, translate, explain, and interpret them?

Which method­ological presuppositions do studies on myth pose? To do research on IR myths, our discipline has to resolve a number of methodological questions that arise both from the fuzzy nature of myths themselves and from some long-standing methodological neglects that have pervaded IR as a disci­pline and been largely resistant to change even in the face of IR’s different ‘great debates’¹ and ‘turns’.

When using ‘myth’ in the following, I do not refer to ‘false beliefs’ or wrong consciousness, as Roland Barthes has sometimes argued follow­ing a structuralist-Marxist worldview, as my intention is not driven by an enlightened ambition to ‘unveil’ myths. Rather, my perspective on myths is guided by an interest in International Political Sociology that follows the wish to reflect on IR’s history of ideas as well as a post-positivist/post- structuralist interest in uncovering discursive power and its nodal points within a particular discourse, in this case IR’s art of theorising and framing empirical cases. Myths are therefore not regarded as an epistemological

weakness, which would have to be overcome for the sake of ‘better’ IR theory but rather as an inevitable yet invisible component of any kind of research (cf. Weber 2010, 2-7). Foregrounding myths and outlining their discursive and sometimes narrative power, their reception, and their dif­ferent functions helps to clarify the researcher’s own role in myth produc­tion. Developing methodological guidelines for myths’ study can thus be understood as an expression of a more reflexive IR.

Departing from this understanding of myth, this chapter aims to address epistemological challenges that studies on myths should take into account. More specifically, it refers to post-positivist and poststructuralist debates that have influenced IR since the heydays of the ‘third debate’ (Lapid 1989).

I will argue here that when studying myths in IR the postulates of the post-positivist/poststructuralist tradition need to be reconsidered with regard to:

• Myth as a concept that pervades our own discipline, thereby creating certain narratives and monolithic dogmas (Which myths are told through acts of IR storytelling?); and

• Myth as an analytical and empirical focus within IR (What could be the role of the researcher both as a ‘mythographer’ and—inevita­bly—also as a myth producer? How do we aim to discover, translate, interpret, or unveil myths?).

Driven by these epistemological and (meta-)theoretical questions,² in the next section I showcase what I mean by saying that myths are an inevitable yet invisible component of any kind of IR research and that IR scholars are thus (wittingly or unwittingly) myth producers and re­producers. In the second step, I then discuss the role of the researcher as mythographer and the usefulness of auto-ethnography and reflexivity to remain critically conscious of IR’s own myth production. Finally, I discuss a number of qualitative methods that seem adequate and promising for empirical studies on myths with regard to their methodological potentials. These qualitative methods all allow shedding light on myths, yet do so from considerably different angles. I argue, however, that they all fit the broader aim of developing methodological perspectives for an IR research agenda on myths.