Full text
Bajpai, Ravi Dutt. Civilizational Perspectives in International Relations and Contemporary China-India Relations
2018, Civilizational Perspectives in International Relations and Contemporary China-India Relations. in "The ‘Clash of Civilizations’ 25 Years On: A Multidisciplinary Appraisal" eds Orsi, D. E-International Relations Publishing
Expand entry
, Contributed by: Alex Lopez Postma
Abstract: This paper explores the assumptions of civilizational identities purely based on cultural, religious or geographical distinctions and their limitations. It reviews the ‘civilizations’ discourse in IR and discusses the concept of ‘civilization states’ in the context of China and India. It analyzes the key components of civilizational overlaps and exchanges between these two countries and the invocation of their ‘civilization-state’ identity in their contemporary bilateral relations. Rejecting Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ hypothesis in understanding ‘civilization-states’ like China and India, I conclude that it is critical to understand how states perceive their civilizational heritage, which both facilitates and impedes bilateral exchanges and the conduct of international relations.

Comment: Offers a critique of the basic assumptions in IR. Argues that any purposeful analysis of the China-India bilateral relationship and their worldviews is not possible without studying their inter-civilizational links. This text could be used to discuss cultural generalizations and cross cultural links. Suitable for a course on postcolonial IR.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options
Full text
Chen, Ching-Chang. The absence of non-western IR theory in Asia reconsidered
2010, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 11(1), pp. 1–23.
Expand entry
Abstract:

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.

Comment: Ching-Chang Chen discusses how to shift the western focus in IR to a non-western one. His article makes an important point in that simply calling for greater incorporation of ideas beyond the west will not make IR more global - we need to move beyond tokenistic inclusion towards transforming the Eurocentric foundations of the discipline. Moreover, the article argues that scholarship to produce Asian IR theorising has maintained the treatment of the East and West as oppositional entities, and thus reinforces the structural dominance of Western theories in IR. The author calls for decolonisation as necessary for the democratization of IR which must take place not only in the periphery, ie in Asian countries, but also in the core. This article is suitable for an introductory course on global/postcolonial IR and can be used as a basis for the debate on decolonising the typically western discipline of IR.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options
Full text
Grovogui, Siba N'Zatioula. A Revolution Nonetheless: The Global South in International Relations
2011, The Global South , Vol. 5, No. 1, 175-190
Expand entry
, Contributed by: Silvester Beerens
Abstract:

There have been debates on the meaning and appropriateness of the term Global South. To many, no unifying term can apply to regions and countries whose differences extent to the colonial past, cultural traditions, economic trajectories, and administrative or organizational structures. The critics are mistaken. This essay postulates that the term Global South is a symbolic designation with political implications. It is meant to capture a cohesion that emerged when former colonial entities engaged in political projects of decolonization and moved toward the realization of a postcolonial international order. As it stands today, the Global South has its origins in twentieth-century anti-colonialism, the 1955 Bandung Conference, the 1961 NonAligned Movement, and Cuba’s Tricontinentalism, among others.
Although the term Global South gained currency at the end of the Cold War, when the term Third World seemed to fall into disfavor, the change does not signify a renunciation of the ‘Third World.’ It merely signals an adjustment in ideological and political positioning to reflect the new forms of contentions around the legacies of colonialism. Thus, the Global South captures the spirit of Third World engagements in that it continues to invite re-examinations of the intellectual, political, and moral foundations of the international system. The Global South is therefore a multifaceted movement that underscores the need for a postcolonial international community of interest that advances the objectives of equality, freedom, and mutuality in the form of a new ethos of power and subjectivity through
foreign policy, international solidarity, and responsibility to self and others in an international order free of the institutional legacies of colonialism. Finally, as a movement, the Global South has no central structure, no central command, and no appointed spokesperson. It has had multiple custodians, all of them self-selected, in reaction to the deepening and multifaceted violence experienced at the moment by its members.

Comment: This text discusses both the outwards representation of the Global South and the internal identity. It makes clear how the Global South came to be what it is today and how this evolved from the Cold War onwards. Useful for a course on the global Cold War, post WWII IR etc.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options
Full text
Parashar, Swati. What wars and ‘war bodies’ know about international relations
2013, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 26(4), pp. 615–630.
Expand entry
, Contributed by: Caroline Mathilda Rohr
Abstract: What happens when the ‘international’ as a distinct social space is approached from the perspective of war rather than war from the perspective of the ‘international’? Tarak Barkawi’s question (Millennium, 39:3, 2011, 701–706) is best answered by attempts to understand war not as part of inter/intra-state relations but as a socio­ cultural, trans-historical institution that impacts on the ‘everyday’ lives of men, women and children. In this article I argue that war is not a disruption of the ‘everyday’, an abstraction that has a definite beginning and end, something we enter into and exit. Instead, it can be captured in daily and mundane lived experiences of people and in powerful emotions that constitute ‘self’, community and the ‘other.’ Drawing upon my research on wars in South Asia, I particularly reflect on how war shapes the banal and the fervent and how cultural and political narratives of ‘war bodies’ perform the ‘international’ in a variety of ways. Most significantly I want to draw attention to how international relations as a scholarly discipline is so deeply engaged with war and yet seems to have an estranged relationship with it.

Comment: Her work focuses on South Asian conflict from a feminist theory perspective. She focuses on the lived experiences of 'war bodies' and how including these factors can change narratives prominent in International Relations. Parashar criticises mainstream IR for being ideological in their focus on macro narratives of war, as other important factors are included in their inquiry, since it is argued they are not concerned by war. The main argument in this article is that the nature of war should not be accepted as an ontological reality. This article can be used in conflict studies as well as international relations, and provides an application of IR theories.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options
Full text Read free See used
Qin, Yaqing. A Relational Theory of World Politics
2016, International Studies Review 18, no. 1: 33 - 47
Expand entry
, Contributed by: Fay de Lange
Abstract: Culture matters in social theory construction because the metaphysical component of the theoretical hard core is primarily shaped by the background knowledge of a cultural community. Individual rationality, a key concept abstracted from Western culture, constitutes the nucleus for much of mainstream Western International Relations Theory. This article proposes a relational theory of world politics with relationality as the metaphysical component of its theoretical hard core. It conceives the International Relations (IR) world as one composed of ongoing relations, assumes international actors as actors-in-relations, and takes processes defined in terms of relations in motion as ontologically significant. It puts forward the logic of relationality, arguing that actors base their actions on relations in the first place. It uses the Chinese zhongyong dialectics as its epistemological schema for understanding relationships in an increasingly complex world. This theoretical framework may enable us to see the IR world from a different perspective, reconceptualize key elements such as power and governance, and make a broader comparison of international systems for the enrichment of the Global IR project.

Comment: This articles offers an alternative understanding to the mainstream Western IR theories, which can be interesting to discuss.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options
Full text Read free
Shimizu, Kosuke. Materializing the ‘non-Western’: two stories of Japanese philosophers on culture and politics in the inter-war period
2015, Cambridge review of international affairs, 28(1), pp. 3–20.
Expand entry
, Contributed by: Noemi Suter
Abstract: This paper investigates the risk presumably involved in the narratives of non- Western international relations theory (IRT) by focusing on a similar historical case in Japan. It reveals the risk of uncritically accepted geographical division, and particularly focuses on the discourses of the Kyoto School’s theory of world history as an example of non-Western narratives in the past, which was to ‘overcome’ the Western civilization similar to the contemporary non-Western IRT. However, they are also infamous for providing justification for the wartime regime in Japan for their aggression in the Asian continent. What is the connection between their philosophy and support for the imperialist regime? If there is a connection between them, is there any possibility of the resurrection of the same results in the case of non-Western IRT? To answer these questions, the article introduces the philosophy of Tosaka Jun who was critical of the School but, unlike Kyoto School philosophers, stubbornly fought against the mainstream politics of the time.

Comment: By concentrating on a similar historical situation in Japan, Kosuke Shimizu’s article “Materializing the ‘non-Western’: two stories of Japanese philosophers on culture and politics in the inter-war period” examines the risk that is supposedly inherent in the narratives of non-Western international relations theory (IRT) and sheds a different light on IRT. He demonstrates the dangers of uncritically accepting geographical division and explains that “non-Western IRT discussion faces the risk of being co-opted into the Western positivist mainstream IR that it seeks to challenge”.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options
Full text Read free
Shimizu, Kosuke. The Genealogy of Culturalist International Relations in Japan and Its Implications for Post-Western Discourse
2018, All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 1(7), pp. 121–136
Expand entry
, Contributed by: Cassandra Dube
Abstract: This paper aims to introduce a neglected methodology from Japanese international relations (IR) – the culturalist methodology – to Anglophone specialists in IR. This methodology is neglected not only by an Anglophone audience but also by Japanese IR scholars. I argue here that despite this negligence, the culturalist methodology has great potential to contribute to contemporary post-Western international relations theory (IRT) literature by posing radical questions about the ontology of IR, as it questions not only the ontology of Western IR, but also the IR discourses developed in the rest of the world. Consequently, in understanding and imagining the contemporary world, I clarify the importance of perceptions based on what, in Japan, are commonly called ‘international cultural relations’ (kokusai bunka) and ‘regional history’ (chiikishi). I also indicate how our perceptions of the world are limited by the Westphalian principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention among ‘equal’ nations on the basis of state borders. While historical understanding is widely recognised as an important approach to contemporary IR, its scope is limited by its universalised principles.

Comment: This article concerns Japanese Culturalist methodology in international relations. It encourages letting go of western mainstream international relations and examininf a culturalist viewpoint in order to challenge the western view on international relations, intervening in the debate on different IR theories. It is a suitable paper for a course on the history of decolonial IR.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options
Full text
Tahir Amin. Afghan Resistance: Past, Present, and Future
1984, Asian Survey 24(4): 373-399
Expand entry
, Contributed by: Gijs ter Haar
Abstract: Armchair strategists analyzing the far-reaching impli- cations of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan tend to ignore or under- emphasize one very important reality: The Soviet occupation of Af- ghanistan is not yet an established fact. The Afghan resistance movement has become a national liberation war, posing a real and formidable challenge to Soviet control over Afghanistan. Six months after the Soviet intervention in December 1979, Brezhnev claimed in the plenary session of the central committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union: "Now life in Afghanistan is gradually returning to normal. Large bands of counterrevolutionaries have been routed, and interventionists have suf- fered a serious defeat."' But four years later, the Soviet media continue to report "counterrevolutionary" activities, admitting that "many public institutions in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Industrial enterprises, utility lines and irrigation systems have become targets of sabotage, costing Afghan industry alone 2.8 billion Afghanis.3 On April 11, 1983, Kabul Radio carried a broadcast in which Prime Minister Sultan Ali Keshtmand revealed that half of Afghanistan's hospitals and schools have been destroyed and three-quarters of the country's communications have been disrupted by the guerrillas.4

Comment: Discusses the Afghan resistance towards the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979. According to the writer, this is a topic that is overlooked by most other works on the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

Export citation in BibTeX format
Export text citation
View this text on PhilPapers
Export citation in Reference Manager format
Export citation in EndNote format
Export citation in Zotero format
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Plus Share on Pinterest Share by Email More options