It is an ordinary requirement of the scientific enterprise that scholars occasionally revisit the epistemological and ontological grounds of their disciplinary approaches. This is the spirit of the present project. It seeks to revisit the methods and assumptions of the discipline of international relations (or IR). It is based upon the understanding that science, philosophy, and narratives often lag in their appreciation of the world. To paraphrase Michel-Rolph Trouillot, theoretical and historical accounts of global events (or "what is said to have happened") seldom correspond with what actually happened.¹ All accounts of international relations must omit crucial dimensions of the object of inquiry. These gaps between "accounts' and "reality" and their effects and consequences provide the space for inquiry. This is why "normal science" requires occasional revisiting of "what is said to have happened."