Conceptual Cultivation and Homegrown Theorizing: The Case of/for the Concept of Influence (original) (raw)
Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholars, Theory
In recent years, the discipline of International Relations (IR) has entered another of its turns: the homegrown turn. This new turn focuses on possible contributions to IR theorizing using non-Western knowledge and/or scholarship. This article deconstructs the idea of homegrown theorizing by focusing on its constitutive part, dealing separately with the aspects of knowledge, scholar, and theory, questioning thereby the differing meanings of homegrownness. Such an approach provides an initial framework that accomplishes two things: First, the paper discusses today’s core Western IR community and its disciplinary sociology in terms of the main factors engendering present critiques of its scholarship. Second, it then becomes possible to pay attention to peripheral non-Western IR’s position at a time of gradual post-Westernization, both world politically and within the discipline. Engaging with the pitfalls of Western IR and elaborating on the reasons not only explains the emergence of IR’s homegrown turn, but also provides the basis for understanding how scholars engaging in homegrown theorizing can learn from the (past) mistakes of core scholarship. Dealing with the impact of globalization, Eurocentrism, presentism, and parochialism as the main problem areas of (Western) IR, the article concludes by providing a list of lessons to be taken into account when engaging in homegrown theorizing within the periphery.
Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing
All Azimuth, 2018
It is rare that a recognized voice from non-Western world makes an impression in International Relations theory. While a few studies have looked at the structural and institutional constraints that contribute to such lack of recognition, part of the problem stems from confusion around the definition of what theorizing out of the non-Western world actually is. Based on a review of studies that embody indigenous conceptualizations of international phenomena in the periphery, we first define such ‘homegrown’ theorizing as original theorizing in the periphery about the periphery. By elaborating on these conceptualizations’ specific methods in building theories, we then provide a typology of homegrown theories and assess each theory building method in terms of its potential for global acceptance and further development. We substantiate our arguments on global acceptance by drawing on a comparison of the citation counts of 18 homegrown theories. In doing so, we try to give voice to some of the most prominent scholarly and intellectual efforts stemming from the periphery, and provide a guide for Western scholars on how to engage with homegrown theorizing in a more intellectually stimulating manner. The article concludes by highlighting a number of critical factors in opening up space for different voices in the world of IR.
2024
Even the most positivist of scholars cannot deny that International Relations (IR) as a field has been severely affected by realism, whose impact is still evident today, and works to the field's detriment. In the post Westphalian international order, states play an integral part in the international community, being considered, to a grand extent even today, the only viable and valid international actors. International Relations are therefore state centered, to the point that they are instrumentalized by states for their existence, sovereignty, and status quo in the international system. In these dominant International Relations, as many scholars name them, one cannot but realize that there's a dominant essence of state (or even western state) hegemonism. The hegemonic state and its “hegemonologue”, -as a few scholars characterize the process of state maneuvering of the international narrative-, is based, according to renowned and prominent philosopher Hannah Arendt, to the institutionalization of survivalism in the international community, an outcome of the two world wars, and the cold war, one might add, as well. It is true that states are built and maintained through a process of “state-building” which bears striking resemblance to “mythmaking”, a myth that is selective and indifferent to the human condition and the human sentiment. States are therefore built mechanically, and they are mainly ahistorical, meaning that States, and the main epistemological field that studies the international community, International Relations, do not pay attention to the historical aspects of the human experience. It goes without saying, in other words, that International Relations is also, in fact, a hegemonic epistemological space. The hegemonologue in International Relations perpetuates states’ superiority and absolute power in the international community, as well as pushes other international entities, -which may or may not bear the same constitutive characteristics as states-, to their imposed marginality. This duality of the international community, as well as International Relations, could be considered a repercussion of chronic imperialism as well as a prominent aspect of colonialism and neocolonialism in the international community. While both imperialism and colonialism encourage a conversation regarding an imposed hierarchy between states, or a dichotomy between western states and non-western states, the current study is mainly interested in discovering how International Relations, as an epistemological field, was created in Western States, imposes a restraining international regime which adopts a very strict interpretation of sovereignty, resulting in silencing the plethora of parallel voices that exist in the international community in the name of hegemonic voices, namely the states’ narrative. While there are many international actors that are silenced and manipulated by the "colonizer's gaze", this present study would like to place an emphasis on indigeneity as an eminent characteristic that is being constantly and purposefully left out of the international analysis. Indigenous peoples are being constantly marginalized, considered a "relic of the past", downgraded to mere existences devoid of particular importance. While Indigenous peoples are an integral part of the population and culture in the USA, in Australia, in New Zealand, and in the Scandinavian region, among others, there's still this relative lack of knowledge concerning them and a contained as well as deceptive framing of them in the (post)colonial imaginary. These misconceptions about Indigenous peoples are existing in the premises of International Relations as well, which hinder the establishment of a normative framework regulating their international status, as well as their effective representation and protection in the international community. In this context, a new field of studies in International Relations, namely Critical Indigenous Theory aims to deconstruct the acquis for indigenous peoples, which perpetuates their marginalization and oppression, and to redefine their international presence. Based on this theory, this study asks whether it is feasible to make International Relations more inclusive for indigenous peoples, but on an egalitarian and equal footing with states. Indeed, indigenous peoples seem, already from a first reading, to carry all the components of the state. They constitute population communities, bearing their own culture, their own idioms, and direct, -perhaps even closer contact with the territory than the states of realpolitik-, as well as systems of governance. Yet, in the context of International Relations, Indigenous Peoples are simply relegated as a partial but marginal part of a state, and as a result, this violates their core rights, and their fair representation. This present study will examine below whether the possibility of establishing a new perspective on the concept of self-determination, self-governance and sovereignty in an international context, so as to include indigenous peoples as self-reliant and sovereign international actors is a viable solution for their constant misrepresentation and mistreatment in the international context. For these reasons, one will employ common notions of International Relations, such as security, let alone sovereignty as already mentioned, to suggest that the current status of sovereignty is merely an aspect of state tokenism, and these notions could easily be redefined to a more inclusive definition. Before replying to that question, this present study will embark on a brief historical perspective, a few conceptual clarifications regarding the current "indigenous framing", a short outline of the existing international framework, and will finally examine a process of "reimagining" of an "indigenous sovereignty", and its intricate relationship with the human rights narrative. Finally, it will conclude with a practical approach to indigenous diplomacy as an international tool of sovereign indigenous peoples. Brief Historical Perspective The historical perspective on indigeneity in International Relations reveals a complex and often tumultuous relationship between indigenous peoples and the global community. Colonization and the expansion of Western powers led to the marginalization, displacement, and exploitation of indigenous populations worldwide. The disregard for indigenous rights, land dispossession, and cultural assimilation were pervasive features of this historical context. While it is impossible to include a detailed historical approach to indigeneity in the international community, due regard should be awarded to two historical phenomena that often go unnoticed but again are vital in decoding oppressive indigenous framings. These are the so-called "historic memory block" and the juridical principle of "uti possidetis juris". This concept is particularly representative of the modern concept of the state. It argues that states, such as Canada, with a strong indigenous population, suffer from a loss of memory, since they fail to recognize that the origins of their creation as a state consisted in the violent expulsion of indigenous people and the violent, unjustified seizure of their territory. Moreover, as they argue today, the maintenance of their sovereignty still depends in large part on the overt violation of indigenous rights. Simultaneously, this general acceptance of denying indigenous peoples' territorial rights and equal sovereignty as part of the "civilized" world's law of nations goes hand in hand with legal doctrines such as "uti possidetis juris" which effectively excludes any recognition of rights in the territories historically inhabited by indigenous peoples and lent an aura of historical legitimacy to the expropriation of indigenous territories. Deconstructing these fundamental tactics is the only way to redefine the international community. Mainstreaming Indigeneity demands scholarship that unravels the current configurations of the field and moves away from merely adding Indigeneity as a category within neoliberal, colonial, Westernised frameworks.
Western-Centric Moments in Homegrown IR Theories: Dependency, Chinese and African Schools
All Azimuth, 2024
The modern international system has been shaped by long-standing historical practices of unequal power relations, which have positioned the Western world at the center of the political universe. Due to the centrality of the Global North in the international system, any IR theory that aims to portray a true picture of the "globe" necessarily situates the West at the center of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, the form of universality generated by Western hegemony has been diffused throughout the world over centuries, spreading Western political institutions, economic structures, and ideological norms in an uneven setting. As a result, the social structures of the Global South have developed through an uneven form of relationship and dialectical interaction with the West. Therefore, homegrown IR theories, which uncover local political, philosophical, or cultural motives as sources for theory-making, in fact, concentrate on stratified forms of the universal reality that is diffused through the uneven spread of Western social structures. In this sense, there is a Western-centric moment in any homegrown IR theory. Accordingly, this article develops a scientific realist account of the structure/agent relationship in order to analyze the material grounds of Westerncentrism in the field of international politics and to evaluate the role of non-Western actors. Additionally, it critically evaluates distinctive homegrown theories produced on three different continents to reveal the aforementioned Western-centric moments in these theoretical initiatives. Namely,
Representing the Local: The Locus of the Indigenous in Globalization
This study aims at placing the local or indigenous in the proper locus and thereby allowing the tides of globalization to edify it, than dethroning and dismantling it. The energies and currents of globalization are to be tempered and modulated for organic growth and development of the local. This paper is not only an exclusive survey of the ontic questions precipitated by the globalizing trends, but also an analysis of the ontological anxiety spreading wide in the developing nations.
A growing number of Asian scholars have been engaging in indigenous theory-building that seeks to gain wider recognition for their local experiences and intellectual traditions in an international relations discipline that is still dominated by Western theories and methods. After examining recent attempts to develop a distinctive Japanese approach to world politics, I argue that such attempts should proceed with great caution, for their epistemological underpinnings remain Eurocentric. A close look at the Japanese conceptions of international society indicates that they reproduce, rather than challenge, a normative hierarchy embedded in the English school between the creators of Westphalian norms and those at the receiving end. To take seriously the agency rote of non-Western ideas in gearing the discipline in a truly international, less hegemonic direction , Japanese IR should recognize the plural origins and constitutional structures of international society and learn from social science and humanities communities in Asia and beyond.