What is missing from the debate about the “end of IR theory” or the rejection of the now infamous “isms”? Queer theory. Those who declare that IR theory is over and those who see it as making a comeback; those who reject the “isms” and those who champion them seem like they are on opposite sides of a very wide spectrum. This article argues, however, that all is not as it seems. Instead, the various “sides” of the debates about the futures of IR all take for granted a common set of understandings of what research is, what research success is, that research success is valuable, and how those things predict the futures of IR. Their only significant disagreement is about how they see the story unfolding. We disagree on the result as well, but the root of our disagreement is in the terms of the debates. We see IR as failing in two ways: failing to find a self-satisfactory grand narrative and failing to achieve its necessarily impossible goals. The current state-of-the-field literature fights the failing of IR theory—even those who see it as over memorialize its successes. We argue that failure is not to be fought but to be celebrated and actively participated in. Analyzing IR’s failures using queer methodology and queer analysis, we argue that recognizing IR’s failure can revive IR as an enterprise.

关于“投资者关系理论的终结”或拒绝现在臭名昭著的“主义”的辩论遗漏了什么？酷儿理论。那些宣称IR理论已经结束的人，以及那些认为IR理论卷土重来的人；那些拒绝“主义”的人和拥护“主义”的人似乎处于非常广泛的相对立场。但是，本文认为，事实并非如此。相反，关于投资者关系的未来的辩论的各个“方面”都理所当然地对研究是什么，研究成功是什么，研究成功是有价值的以及这些东西如何预测投资者关系的未来有了共同的理解。他们唯一的重大分歧在于他们如何看待故事的发展。我们也不同意结果，但我们分歧的根源在于辩论。我们认为IR有两种失败的方式：未能找到令人满意的宏大叙事，也未能实现其必然的目标。当前的领域文献与IR理论的失败作斗争-甚至那些认为IR理论过分纪念其成功的人也是如此。我们认为失败不是要战斗，而是值得庆祝和积极参与。我们使用酷儿方法和酷儿分析来分析IR的失败，我们认为认识到IR的失败可以使IR复兴为一个企业。