Conclusion: The State of IR in Southeast Asia-Heavily Western but Still Evolving (original) (raw)

A Routledge new series _ IR Theory and Practice in Asia

Asia’s rise in the late 20th and early 21st century has been rapid, as China, India and other Asian nations’ regional and global influence has dramatically increased. Established IR theory has been based on the Western tradition and has often been treated as a general explanatory framework which has spatial applicability across regions. Among the many implications of the rise of Asia, however, is the need to understand and explain an emergent international system which does not necessarily follow the pattern established by this existing IR framework. There has been much debate about the merits of attempting to theorize a non-Western-centric IR and what such a framework would look like. This series aims to illuminate and develop this debate, opening up new spaces for the study of Asian international relations and the discipline of IR. This series will publish philosophical, theoretical, methodological and empirical work by prominent scholars, as well as that of emerging scholars, concerned with IR theory and practice in the context of Asia. It will engage with a wide range of issues and questions ranging from meta-theoretical underpinnings of existing Western-oriented IR theories to ways of theorising Asian histories and cultures. What are we looking for? While we are open to any exciting ideas for edited, single or co-authored work, we are currently inviting book proposals which intend to address the following areas: • Global IR • Critical test and application of IR theory in Asian contexts • IR scholarship in Asia • Asian international politics • Critical pedagogy of international studies • Sociology of IR scholarship • Asian theory of international relations (Chinese IR; Japanese IR; Korean IR; and IR in ASEAN) • Multiple (or competing) discourses about non-Western IR theory • Asian histories of international relations • Theoretical pluralism and fragmentation in IR • Dialogues and engagement in a pluralist IR More specifically, the questions the series is interested in include (but are not limited to) the following: • What are the implications of the rise of Asia, and especially China, for IR as a discipline? • Through what mechanisms has Western IR theory dominated the discipline? • Why has IR, as a discipline, developed the way it has? • What are the distinctive features and teaching practices in Asian IR communities? • To what extent is Western IR theory useful in comprehending Asian international politics? • Do developments in contemporary Asia require new theoretical and methodological innovations? • Is the development of an Asian theory of IR desirable? If so, how might it be achieved? • Will efforts to develop Asian IR theory or schools lead IR to becoming a fragmented field of study? If you have an idea for a new book in IR Theory and Practice in Asia, please send a written proposal to the Series Editors: Yong-Soo Eun, Editor-in-Chief, ysir@hanyang.ac.kr Kosuke Shimizu, Editor, shimizu@world.ryukoku.ac.jp Ja Ian Chong, Editor, polcji@nus.edu.sg https://www.routledge.com/series/IRTPA Editorial Board Members: Peter J. Katzenstein, Cornell University, USA Takashi Inoguch, University of Niigata Prefecture, Japan Timothy M. Shaw, University of Massachusetts Boston, USA T.V. Paul, McGill University, Canada Tim Dunne, University of Queensland, Australia Colin Wight, University of Sydney, Australia Shaun Breslin, University of Warwick, UK Ian Hall, Griffith University, Australia Wookhee Shin, Seoul National University Chris Hughes, University of Warwick, UK Geun Lee, Seoul National University Mark Beeson, University of Western Australia Yongjin Zhang, Bristol University, UK Chaesung Chun, Seoul National University Cheng-Chwee Kuik, National University of Malaysia Yong-Wook Lee, Korea University Jong Kun Choi, Yonsei University, South Korea Inanna Hamati-Ataya, Aberystwyth University, UK Ching-Chang Chen, Ryukoku University, Japan Young Chul Cho, Chonbuk National University, South Korea Emilian Kavalski, Australian Catholic University, Australia L.H.M. Ling, The New School, USA Pinar Bilgin, Bilkent University, Turkey

Globalisation of Social Science Research on Southeast Asia

Globalisation of Social Science Research on Southeast Asia." Pp. 103-16 in Knowledge and Social Science in a Globalising World, edited by Wan Zawawi Ibrahim. Kuala Lumpur: Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia ( Malaysian Association of Social Sciences, 2012

Globalisation has improved the dissemination of knowledge. Information and knowledge on Southeast Asian countries is still mainlyu produced in other regions, mainly in Europe, Australia and the US. The paper traces the shift in knowledge production on Southeastasia and shows that internal knowledge productionis increasing, though at vastly different rates. Most publication on Singapore are now produced in Singapore itself. For Vietnam the situation is reverse, though publications in Vietnamese are largely excluded in this analysis.

The absence of non-western IR theory in Asia reconsidered

This paper critically examines an ongoing debate in International Relations (IR) as to why there is apparently no non-Western IR theory in Asia and what should be done to 'mitigate' that situation. Its central contention is that simply calling for greater incorporation of ideas from the non-West and contributions by non-Western scholars from local 'vantage points' does not make IR more global or democratic, for that would do little to transform the discipline's Eurocentric epistemological foundations. Re-envisioning IR in Asia is not about discovering or producing as many 'indigenous' national schools of IR as possible, but about reorienting IR itself towards a post-Western era that does not reinforce the hegemony of the West within (and without) the discipline. Otherwise, even if local scholars could succeed in crafting a 'Chinese (or Indian, Japanese, Korean, etc.) School', it would be no more than constructing a 'derivative discourse' of Western modernist social science.

Towards an East Asian IR Community?

Journal of East Asian Studies, 2002

The methodologies and assumptions that guide our acquisition of knowledge and interpretation of data are context and time bound. Academic disciplines, sub-disciplines, methodological approaches and research agendas are to a large degree conditioned by the ‘real world,’ and none more so than International Relations. Accordingly, it is important to consider the possible sociological foundations of different epistemologies and paradigms of International Relations. Surely there is more than one way of looking at the world, unless one is steadfastly married to a positivist universal truth. Yet it is interesting that East Asian scholarship and teaching in IR has seemingly not developed strong ‘indigenous’ regional characteristics, perhaps with the exception of Japan with its large market, long tradition, political freedom and economic affluence. In fact IR has absorbed and closely followed Western and particularly North American social science. This introduction and the articles that foll...

IR and the Global South: Revisiting Obstacles to a Global Discipline

Global South Review, 2023

The IR discipline is marked by a strong center-periphery inequality that is perpetuated through theories, methodologies, and concepts produced in the Global North that do not adequately capture the diverse experiences of Global South states and societies. In tandem with growing critiques of Western-centrism and calls for global IR, the discipline has now become more heterogeneous and inclusive, and IR scholars are more attentive to the global IR debate than ever before. Yet, the discipline has not become truly global, as many Global South scholars are absent from the major debates in the field and there are still sharp geographic differences with respect to IR knowledge production. Even though Global South countries have enormous potential to enrich and globalize IR with their history, political thinkers, and religious and philosophical traditions, this potential remains largely untapped. While Global South scholars develop alternative perspectives and engage in theorizing practices, these efforts have not yet been embodied in the form of an IR theory that provides alternative explanations of world politics. Equally important, these perspectives are not echoed in much of the mainstream accounts in IR. This study contributes to the global IR debate by problematizing the dynamics behind the insufficient development and representation of Global South IR theories and perspectives in the discipline. After delving into entrenched Western-centrism and the asymmetries of knowledge production in the discipline, the present study puts into spotlight the intellectual and material barriers that feed off each other and perpetuate the inequalities in IR knowledge production.

Bridging the Disciplinary Divide: 50 Years of Research at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies

2019

This paper traces the birth of the Kyoto University Center for Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS) approach to Area Studies, explores how the institution evolved to consolidate and institutionalize its activities, and introduces its methodological responses and research initiatives that have evolved over the past 50 years. Since before the founding of CSEAS in 1963, Kyoto University researchers had been involved in multidisciplinary, field-based investigations of Southeast Asian society and nature. The origins of CSEAS’s philosophy and commitment to the region lie in the individual researchers at Kyoto University, their empirically-based studies, and shared interests in ever more integrated and multifaceted understandings of local society. The paper traces and offers an overview of the large-scale projects that framed and guided research to present fundamental approaches towards issues in the region. This is through a commitment to long-term field-based studies in and of local societies; empirical studies grounded in local languages; and multidisciplinary, team-based research that has bridged the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. This paper also shows how these approaches arose in response to changes and processes transforming social and environmental systems of Southeast Asians societies. This has informed the development of conceptual and theoretical work that has developed as a response to empirically grounded understandings emerging from those societies. https://japan-asean.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/en/tdwp/