What Is At Stake In Building Non Western International Relations Theory

International Relations (IR) as a discipline is often deemed to be “too Western” centric. It has been argued that much of mainstream IR theory is “simply an abstraction of Western history.” In this respect, many IR scholars have called for “broadening” the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over broadening the theoretical and practical horizons of IR, several critical questions remain unclear and under-explored. For example, does IR need to embrace pluralism? If so, how much? To what extent, and in what sense, is IR parochial? Should IR promote dialogue across theoretical and spatial divides? If so, how? Yong-Soo Eun addresses these questions. He undertakes a literature review and an empirical analysis of the extent to which the field has actually become diverse and pluralistic. This investigation considers diversity beyond the current limited focus on the geographical origins of theory. Yong-Soo also draws attention to the mechanisms and processes of knowledge production and transmission in IR. More importantly, he addresses what is probably the most acute issue associated with the “non-Western” IR theory-building enterprise; namely, fragmentation and dialogue. In conclusion, Yong-Soo notes that the role of unsettling the present hierarchical structure of the discipline falls to reflexive individual agents. He argues that in order for their agential power to be more fully harnessed in the opening up of IR, critical “self”-reflection and “collective” empathy and collaboration among marginalised scholars are all essential.

Introduces non-Western IR traditions to a Western IR audience, and challenges the dominance of Western theory. This book challenges criticisms that IR theory is Western-focused and therefore misrepresents much of world history by introducing the reader to non-Western traditions, literature and histories relevant to how IR is conceptualised.

Given that the world has moved well beyond the period of Western colonialism, and clearly into a durable period in which non-Western cultures have gained their political autonomy, it is long past time that non-Western voices had a higher profile in debates about international relations, not just as disciples of Western schools of thought, but as inventors of their own approaches. Western IR theory has had the advantage of being the first in the field, and has developed many valuable insights, but few would defend the position that it captures everything we need to know about world politics. In this book, Acharya and Buzan introduce non-Western IR traditions to a Western IR audience, and challenge the dominance of Western theory. An international team of experts reinforce existing criticisms that IR theory is Western-focused and therefore misrepresents and misunderstands much of world history by introducing the reader to non-Western traditions, literature and histories relevant to how IR is conceptualised. Including case studies on Chinese, Japanese, South Korean, Southeast Asian, Indian and Islamic IR this book redresses the imbalance and opens up a cross-cultural comparative perspective on how and why thinking about IR has developed in the way it has. As such, it will be invaluable reading for both Western and Asian audiences interested in international relations theory.

This book seeks to reposition international relations (IR) theory by providing insights into non-Western concepts and theories. By engaging with understandings of power, identity, the state and the individual from a range of states outside of the Western hemisphere, the contributors to this book introduce new methods for understanding aspects of IR in context considerate ways. Engagements with Western theories and cases highlight how we need to reposition traditional understandings to allow non-Western approaches to IR develop alongside and inform their Western counterparts. Moreover, the book reinforces the need to move beyond the traditionally used Western-centric lenses without removing them completely, instead it advocates a harmonisation between them to reduce generalisations across the local, state and regional levels.

This edited volume offers arguably the first systemic and critical assessment of the debates about and contestations to the construction of a putative Chinese School of IR as sociological realities in the context of China’s rapid rise to a global power status. Contributors to this volume scrutinize a particular approach to worlding beyond the West as a conscious effort to produce alternative knowledge in an increasingly globalized discipline of IR. Collectively, they grapple with the pitfalls and implications of such intellectual creativity drawing upon local traditions and concerns, knowledge claims, and indigenous sources for the global production of knowledge of IR. They also consider critically how such assertions of Chinese voices and articulation of their ambition for theoretical innovation from the disciplinary margins contribute to the emergence of a Global IR as a truly inclusive discipline that recognizes its multiple and diverse foundations. Reflecting the varied perspectives of both the active participants in the Chinese School of IR debates within China and the observers and critics outside China, this work will be of great interest to students and scholars of IR theory, Non-Western IR and Chinese Studies.

Current international relations (IR) theories and approaches, which are almost exclusively built in the West, are alien to the non-Western contexts that engender the most hard-pressing problems of the world and ultimately unhelpful in understanding or addressing the needs surrounding these issues. Our supposedly revolutionary new concepts and approaches remain largely insufficient in explaining what happens globally and in offering lessons for improvement. This deficiency can only be addressed by building more relevant theories. For theory to be relevant in accounting for contemporary international relations, we argue, it should not only apply to, but also emanate from different corners of the current political universe. In other words, diversity and dialogue can only come about when periphery scholars do not just "meta-theorize" but also "theorize." Aydinli and Biltekin propose a new form of theorizing through this collection of work, one that effectively blends peripheral outlooks with theory production. They call this form "homegrown theorizing," or original theorizing in the periphery about the periphery. Arguing that disciplinary culture is oblivious to the diversity that might be achieved by theorizing based on indigenous ideas and/or practices, this book intends to highlight that potential, showing diversity in the background of the authors, because wherever one looks at the world from, paints the picture that is being seen. Therefore, we bring together scholars from Eastern Europe to South Africa, from Iran to Japan to cover the extant diversity in ideas. This work will be essential reading for all students and scholars concerned with the future of international relations theory.

International Relations, as a discipline, tends to focus upon European and Western canons of modern social and political thought. Alternatively, this book explores the global imperial and colonial context within which knowledge of modernity has been developed. The chapters sketch out the historical depth and contemporary significance of non-Western thought on modernity, as well as the rich diversity of its individuals, groups, movements and traditions. The contributors theoretically and substantively engage with non-Western thought in ways that refuse to render it exotic to, superfluous to or derivative of the orthodox Western canon of social and political thought. Taken as a whole, the book provides deep insights into the contested nature of a global modernity shaped so fundamentally by Western colonialism and imperialism. Now, as ever, these insights are desperately needed for a discipline that is so closely implicated in Western foreign policy making and yet retains such a myopic horizon of inquiry. This work provides a significant contribution to the field and will be of great interest to all scholars of politics, political theory and international relations theory.

Critical Approaches to International Relations: Philosophical Foundations and Current Debates covers the most influential approaches within critical IR scholarship with a particular focus on historical heritage and philosophical roots they built upon and current directions of research they propose.