What do you think?
Rate this book
Erased: A History of International Thought Without Men
How a field built on the intellectual labor and expertise of women erased them
The academic field of international relations presents its own history as largely a project of elite white men. And yet women played a prominent role in the creation of this new cross-disciplinary field. In Erased, Patricia Owens shows that, since its beginnings in the early twentieth century, international relations relied on the intellectual labour of women and their expertise on such subjects as empire and colonial administration, anticolonial organising, non-Western powers, and international organisations. Indeed, women were among the leading international thinkers of the era, shaping the development of the field as scholars, journalists and public intellectuals—and as heterosexual spouses and intimate same-sex partners.
Drawing on a wide range of archival sources, and weaving together personal, institutional and intellectual narratives, Owens documents key moments and locations in the effort to forge international relations as a separate academic discipline in Britain. She finds that women’s ideas and influence were first marginalised and later devalued, ignored and erased. Examining the roles played by some of the most important women thinkers in the field, including Margery Perham, Merze Tate, Eileen Power, Margaret Cleeve, Coral Bell and Susan Strange, Owens traces the intellectual and institutional legacies of misogyny and racism. She argues that the creation of international relations was a highly gendered and racialised project that failed to understand plurality on a worldwide scale. Acknowledging this intellectual failure, and recovering the history of women in the field, points to possible sources for its renewal.
The academic field of international relations presents its own history as largely a project of elite white men. And yet women played a prominent role in the creation of this new cross-disciplinary field. In Erased, Patricia Owens shows that, since its beginnings in the early twentieth century, international relations relied on the intellectual labour of women and their expertise on such subjects as empire and colonial administration, anticolonial organising, non-Western powers, and international organisations. Indeed, women were among the leading international thinkers of the era, shaping the development of the field as scholars, journalists and public intellectuals—and as heterosexual spouses and intimate same-sex partners.
Drawing on a wide range of archival sources, and weaving together personal, institutional and intellectual narratives, Owens documents key moments and locations in the effort to forge international relations as a separate academic discipline in Britain. She finds that women’s ideas and influence were first marginalised and later devalued, ignored and erased. Examining the roles played by some of the most important women thinkers in the field, including Margery Perham, Merze Tate, Eileen Power, Margaret Cleeve, Coral Bell and Susan Strange, Owens traces the intellectual and institutional legacies of misogyny and racism. She argues that the creation of international relations was a highly gendered and racialised project that failed to understand plurality on a worldwide scale. Acknowledging this intellectual failure, and recovering the history of women in the field, points to possible sources for its renewal.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published January 21, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 2, 2026
loved the book although sometimes I wonder if we spend too much time thinking that only the west was capable of having women who produced any knowledge
April 5, 2026
I went into Erased expecting the usual story. Women written out of history, their work ignored, their contributions dismissed. And yes, that is here. Women were sidelined, their intellectual labor treated like background work while men got to define what counted as “real” knowledge. But what actually stayed with me is something less comfortable.
These women were not just erased. They were also, in many ways, helping maintain the system that erased them. That is the tension this book keeps returning to.
On one hand, women are pushed into the margins. They are doing what the book calls the “housework” of international thought. Teaching, organizing knowledge, shaping how people understand politics. And yet, that work is labeled as educational, moral, secondary. Not theory. Not serious. Not authoritative.
On the other hand, when you look at what they were actually writing, you start to see that they were not outside the system. They were operating within it. And often reinforcing it. Especially when it comes to empire.
And it is also worth being clear about who these “women” are. This book is not talking about all women. It is largely about white women, often from specific social and educational backgrounds, who had access to these spaces in the first place. So even within a book about erasure, there is already a layer of selection. Some women are being recovered, while others were never included to begin with.
There is a pattern where they can recognize that something is wrong. Colonial violence, inequality, the limits of governance. But they stop just short of questioning the system itself. It becomes “mistakes were made,” not “this should not exist.”
And when colonized people resist, the framing shifts. Suddenly it is irrational. Emotional. A breakdown. Which is strange. Because if a group of people is being controlled, exploited, and denied autonomy, rebellion is not surprising. It is expected. It is probably the most logical outcome.
But the framework they are working within does not allow that conclusion. Because once you accept that resistance is justified, you also have to accept that the system producing it is illegitimate. And that line is rarely crossed.
Instead, empire gets rebranded to make it easier to accept. Same system. Better language. Better PR. Not domination, but responsibility. Not exploitation, but development. Not inequality, but difference in “stages.” You are not being held back. You are just behind. You will get there eventually. And that logic feels familiar. It is the same promise you see in other systems. If you follow the path, if you develop enough, if you wait, you will eventually be included.
At some point, it starts to resemble a power dynamic where control is framed as care, almost to the point where domination is mistaken for guidance. What in the daddy kink chz lol
But what the book exposes is how convenient that narrative is. It turns structural inequality into something that looks temporary. It makes it seem like no one is being held down, just that some are still catching up. When in reality, part of why some are ahead is because others were made to be behind.
And this is where the feminism in the book becomes harder to sit with. These women are pushing for change. But often that change is about access. Education. Participation. Recognition. It is not about dismantling the system. It is about having a place within it. Which raises a question that is hard to ignore. If the system already excludes you, why fight for a seat at the table instead of questioning the table itself?
The book does not give a clean answer. But it shows the constraints. Credibility was not neutral. To be taken seriously, you had to work within the rules already set by the same structures you were trying to enter. So there is exclusion. There is also negotiation. And sometimes that negotiation starts to look like complicity.
By the end, Erased does something that I think matters more than just “recovering” forgotten women. It does not turn them into easy heroes. It shows them as they were. Complex, constrained, sometimes insightful, sometimes limited, and deeply shaped by the system they were part of. They were erased. But they were also participants.
And that is what makes the book uncomfortable in a way that actually feels honest. Because it refuses the simple narrative. It does not let you sit with “women were excluded” and leave it there. It asks you to deal with something harder. What does it mean when the people that are marginalized by a system still help sustain it?
These women were not just erased. They were also, in many ways, helping maintain the system that erased them. That is the tension this book keeps returning to.
On one hand, women are pushed into the margins. They are doing what the book calls the “housework” of international thought. Teaching, organizing knowledge, shaping how people understand politics. And yet, that work is labeled as educational, moral, secondary. Not theory. Not serious. Not authoritative.
On the other hand, when you look at what they were actually writing, you start to see that they were not outside the system. They were operating within it. And often reinforcing it. Especially when it comes to empire.
And it is also worth being clear about who these “women” are. This book is not talking about all women. It is largely about white women, often from specific social and educational backgrounds, who had access to these spaces in the first place. So even within a book about erasure, there is already a layer of selection. Some women are being recovered, while others were never included to begin with.
There is a pattern where they can recognize that something is wrong. Colonial violence, inequality, the limits of governance. But they stop just short of questioning the system itself. It becomes “mistakes were made,” not “this should not exist.”
And when colonized people resist, the framing shifts. Suddenly it is irrational. Emotional. A breakdown. Which is strange. Because if a group of people is being controlled, exploited, and denied autonomy, rebellion is not surprising. It is expected. It is probably the most logical outcome.
But the framework they are working within does not allow that conclusion. Because once you accept that resistance is justified, you also have to accept that the system producing it is illegitimate. And that line is rarely crossed.
Instead, empire gets rebranded to make it easier to accept. Same system. Better language. Better PR. Not domination, but responsibility. Not exploitation, but development. Not inequality, but difference in “stages.” You are not being held back. You are just behind. You will get there eventually. And that logic feels familiar. It is the same promise you see in other systems. If you follow the path, if you develop enough, if you wait, you will eventually be included.
At some point, it starts to resemble a power dynamic where control is framed as care, almost to the point where domination is mistaken for guidance. What in the daddy kink chz lol
But what the book exposes is how convenient that narrative is. It turns structural inequality into something that looks temporary. It makes it seem like no one is being held down, just that some are still catching up. When in reality, part of why some are ahead is because others were made to be behind.
And this is where the feminism in the book becomes harder to sit with. These women are pushing for change. But often that change is about access. Education. Participation. Recognition. It is not about dismantling the system. It is about having a place within it. Which raises a question that is hard to ignore. If the system already excludes you, why fight for a seat at the table instead of questioning the table itself?
The book does not give a clean answer. But it shows the constraints. Credibility was not neutral. To be taken seriously, you had to work within the rules already set by the same structures you were trying to enter. So there is exclusion. There is also negotiation. And sometimes that negotiation starts to look like complicity.
By the end, Erased does something that I think matters more than just “recovering” forgotten women. It does not turn them into easy heroes. It shows them as they were. Complex, constrained, sometimes insightful, sometimes limited, and deeply shaped by the system they were part of. They were erased. But they were also participants.
And that is what makes the book uncomfortable in a way that actually feels honest. Because it refuses the simple narrative. It does not let you sit with “women were excluded” and leave it there. It asks you to deal with something harder. What does it mean when the people that are marginalized by a system still help sustain it?
March 31, 2026
An interesting look at the early players behind International Relations as a scholarship, but not IR in itself.
Did Not Finish
May 9, 2026DNF only because it was an ebook and my eyes couldn’t handle it at the time - I want to come back to it
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews