Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing (original) (raw)

The potential for non-western International Relations Theory

It has become increasingly apparent that modern IR theories are more Western oriented in their approach to the domain. This has motivated many critics to point out the limited ability of such theories in explaining many aspects of the field including IR dynamics in the non-western world. The question therefore becomes how can we tackle this problem and ensure the discipline becomes more inclusive? Although scholars vary in their arguments whether 'Western' and 'non-Western' are appropriate labels, others argue for particular national 'approaches' of IR. This paper on the other hand suggests that the potential for non-western IR theory lies primarily in distinguishing the problem field being addressed and by broadening the ontology and epistemology of IR theory adopted. Although theories of IR continue to be dominated by Western perspectives and contributions, it is possible to build alternative schools originating from non-Western contexts and experiences if the above two factors are considered.

Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West

Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 2011

Scholars of International Relations (IR) increasingly realise that their discipline, including its theories and methods, often neglects voices and experiences outside of the West. But how do we address this problem and move the discipline forward? While some question whether 'Western' and 'non-Western' (or 'post-Western') are useful labels, there are also other perspectives, including those who believe in the adequacy of existing theories and approaches, those who argue for particular national 'schools' of IR, and those who dismiss recent efforts to broaden IR theory as 'mimicry' in terms of their epistemological underpinnings. After reviewing these debates, this article identifies some avenues for further research with a view to bringing out the global heritage of IR. These include, among other things, paying greater attention to the genealogy of international systems, the diversity of regionalisms and regional worlds, the integration of area studies with IR, peoplecentric approaches to IR, security and development, and the agency role of non-Western ideas and actors in building global order. I also argue for broadening the epistemology of IR theory with the help of non-Western philosophies such as Buddhism. While the study of IR remains dominated by Western perspectives and contributions, it is possible to build different and alternative theories which originate from non-Western contexts and experiences.

Review of Non-Western International Relations Theory Perspectives on and Beyond Asia

Journal of International and Global Studies, 2012

This edited volume brings together six authors who evaluate the state of non-western oriented International Relations Theory in case study/country formats, incorporating studies of China, Japan, Korea, India, and Indonesia. Accompanying micro-level case study evaluation are meso-and macro-level inquiries from a Southeast Asian, Islamic, and World Historical view. The various authors come together in providing key insights into the fundamental question posed by this volume, namely: Why is there no non-western international relations theory—or, perhaps more pointedly—why is there a lack of appreciation for, exposure to, and dissemination of non-western oriented international relations theoretical scholarship? The nature of this volume is to offer readers a systematized purview of the nature of international relations theorizing, which stands in western academic circles as being the crux of scholastic achievement and stands apart from practitioner/policy analysis (which has as its core motive the solving of everyday issues and problems). The question posed by Acharya and Buzan's text has perhaps escaped academicians and laymen in general for the preceding half century of international relations scholarship. Nonetheless, the research trajectory set by the editors is both intriguing and prescient to the contemporary period, not least because the focus of power relations and international influence in the 21 st century is shifting and will continue to shift towards Asia, with its dynamic economies and rapidly modernizing social and political spaces. International relations (IR) is an interdisciplinary field of study, sometimes considered a branch of political science, with the primary goals of (1) understanding relationships between countries and (2) seeking to both analyze and formulate the foreign policy of states. Students of IR are keenly aware of the demand for rigorous study of the IR " classics " as well as the expectation that publishable work adhere to a theoretically sound and testable base, both of which are the essence of scholarship in the field of IR (and, indeed, in academia in general). However, in U.S. academic circles, the limited scope of theoretical inquiry into the field of IR itself (which has centered on few debates such as neorealist v. neoliberal, realist v. ideational, positivist v. reflexive) has led students and instructors of IR in U.S. universities down a dangerous path. This path is characterized by ever-increasing inflexibility and the need to " reheat " studies and approaches, using familiar paradigmatic expressions (inherently stemming from post-colonial studies) rather than looking towards the nature of international society or exploring the effects that globalization is bringing to the fore, including fracturedness, diversity, reimagination, and reconnection with lost traditions (i.e. the recapturing of local, regional, and subsystem coherence). The threat of reifying western IR Theory and the problem of its uneven fit to emerging regions of the world highlight the need for a fresh look and a diversified understanding of IR. The volume itself is readily accessible to students of international relations. This accessibility is a result of the authors' narrative styles, clearly structured work, and the absence of academic jargon. This text would appeal to a wide range of persons, including students of international relations, Asia experts, and those who simply find international relations interesting. The first chapter, written by Yaqing Qin, addresses the state of international relations theorization and the components which have led to a lack of IR theorization in contemporary Chinese scholarship. Qin begins by making distinctions regarding the different periods of Chinese international relations academic inquiry. The author finds that the state of Chinese IR is

Fantastic Theories and Where to Find Them: Rethinking Interlocutors in Global IR

Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2022

How can we appreciate non-Western agency in theorising world politics without reintroducing parochialism and exceptionalism, thus reproducing the very problem that motivated global international relations (IR) in the first place? In this article, I explore an alternative approach to engaging with non-Western IR theories, which I refer to as the embedded observer approach. First, taking the scholarship on Chinese IR as an example, I argue that the present predicament of global IR is in part attributable to the way scholars engage with non-Western political thought. Drawing from discussions in critical IR and Comparative Political Theory, I propose a methodological adjustment for the study of non-Western theories. Specifically, I argue that by shifting focus from isolated scholars and texts to critical dialogues among autochthonous intellectuals, the researcher has the chance to learn about and appreciate the clashes of ideas, analytical perspectives, and methodological tools that together constitute the living intellectual tradition in a non-Western society. As a demonstration, I analyse the People's Republic of China (PRC) scholars' critical reaction to Zhao Tingyang's Tianxia System through the lens of three key topics in the debate over the thesis. The discussion highlights the need to rethink interlocutors in global IR and the utility of an embedded observer approach for engaging with knowledge traditions beyond the West, both in IR and beyond.

Preface: Why is there no non-Western IR theory: reflections on and from Asia

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2007

The special issue brings together a selection of the papers that were originally presented at a workshop on 'Why is there No Non-Western IR Theory: Reflections on and from Asia', organized by the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (now S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies) in Singapore on 11-12 July 2005. The original idea for this project came out of a conversation between the editors, which started in the early 1990s. Acharya's work on Third World and Asian security led him to realize the striking lack of fit between his subject areas and international relations theory (IRT). Buzan's sporadic engagements with Asia left him with the impression that there was little if any indigenous development of IR theory there. In addition, his collaborative work with Richard Little underlined to him the dependence of much IRT on a specifically Western history. Taken together, these two insights generated in him the sense not just of a major gap in IRT, but also a major flaw, yet one that he was unable to address himself because of lack of the necessary language skills. The special issue is aimed both at the Western and Asian audiences interested in IRT. To the Western audience, its aim is to reinforce existing criticisms that IRT is Western-centric and therefore misrepresents and misunderstands most of world history. Its claims to universalism are rooted in a rather narrow

'The Other Side' - Response to a Symposium on Global IR in International Theory

International Theory , 2023

In the third and final response, Musab Younis draws on Edward Said’s critique of ‘counter-conversion’ to suggest how anticolonial and postcolonial thinkers sought to create oppositional forms of knowledge while remaining alert, in ways not always replicated in recent writing, to the dangers of nativism.

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.