Widening the World of International Relations

Homegrown Theorizing

Ersel Aydinli, Gonca Biltekin

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138572188
• eBook ISBN: 9781351332842
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

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.

1 Introduction

Widening the world of IR

Ersel Aydınlı and Gonca Biltekin

There are few other disciplines that are more open to fundamental criticism, inter-disciplinarity, and input from non-academic sources¹ than is International Relations (IR). Over the years, various debates, multiple paradigms, a number of new methods and forms of data, as well as the incorporation of input from other disciplines, have given IR a remarkable level of sophistication. This sophistication can best be seen in areas that have been studied the longest, such as inter-state relations, decision making processes, material capabilities, alliance patterns, democratic and capitalist peace, and war between major powers. Overall, IR scholars have become more self-reflexive and more aware of the political implications of their work. Despite its long history of exclusively focusing on the major powers in the Western world, IR has also come quite a long way in taking non-Western phenomena as an object of study as well. It has been ontologically “widened” as some formerly understudied—mostly non-Western—phenomena have found their way into mainstream scholarship.²

IR’s inclusiveness, however, does not apply to International Relations Theory (IRT), which remains imperfect as a tool for understanding and explaining the newest and often more problematic parts of contemporary IR.³ Overwhelmed by an expanding ontology, IRT has failed to explain and foresee the most momentous international events of recent decades. Despite the ongoing efforts of IR scholars, one could argue that IR scholarship has never before been left this much behind the actual global affairs that it seeks to explain and is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Consider the surprise over the Iranian revolution, over the irrationality of suicide attacks after 9/11, or more recently, over ISIS’ efficiency. Being under-theorized, such novel phenomena are approached using concepts usually alien to the context, and ultimately unhelpful in understanding or addressing the needs surrounding these issues.⁴ The incongruence is not limited to rationalist/positivist IRT,⁵ but extends to post-positivist theories.⁶ Our supposedly revolutionary new concepts and approaches remain largely insufficient in explaining what happens globally and in offering lessons for improvement.

This paucity cannot be attributed to lack of methodological rigor, a persistent deficiency in reflexivity, apathy toward the human condition outside the West, or a stubborn attachment to pre-defined borders of IR as a discipline. IR has come a long way in addressing all of the above issues. It is, beyond all, a “theory” problem, i.e., taking alternative meta-theoretical positions or using more rigorous methods cannot fix the inefficiency of the theory to account for contemporary global affairs. It is a problem that can only be addressed by building more relevant theories. For theory to be relevant in accounting for contemporary IR, we argue, it should not only apply to, but also emanate from different corners of the current political universe. The main obstacle for IRT, then, is arguably the exclusion of the periphery from original theory production.

A growing literature points to the conditions augmenting exclusion of the periphery from theory building processes.⁷ Despite the general agreement on the need and ongoing efforts to enrich IRT with periphery voices, there is a major divide in terms of how this can and should be done. There are many who suggest building directly on the richness of these periphery lands, their history, practices, and experiences.⁸ In International Relations Theory and the Third World, one of the earliest collection of works that deal with the incongruence between IRT and the non-Western experience, Neuman explicitly refers to the fact that “theory has never quite been borne out by events in the Third World.”⁹ The authors in the volume focus on how Western theories are inadequate in accounting for the Third World events, and what alterations to these theories are needed to remedy this lack. Similarly, Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan introduce the reader to non-Western traditions, literature and histories that might be relevant to IR in Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. These works argue that a genuine attempt to widen the world of IRT requires periphery voices acquiring their theorizing agency first, and this can only be done if their experience can serve as a source for unique new theorizing efforts and perspectives. They look for knowledge and practice in non-Western settings and assess their potential in offering alternative general frameworks of IR. Claiming the International edited by Tickner and Blaney, as well as Non-Western Approaches to International Relations, the fourth volume in Approaches to International Relations, edited by Chan and Moore,¹⁰ are works of this sort that usually dig deeper into local traditions and ideas.

Many others, however, think otherwise and argue that the best way is to have periphery IR scholars tackle the primary questions of the core and try to modify, criticize, and improve upon existing theories. This second view is advocated by more positivist leaning scholars, since they see no fundamental difference between theorizing in the core and in the periphery, except in the social and material conditions of scholarship.¹¹ Hence, their suggestion is to improve those conditions for the periphery scholar. While this last point has also been the concern of many others, it is, interestingly, also the route preferred by advocates of “post-Western” theory, who share an “intuition that greater incorporation of knowledge produced by non-Western scholars from local vantage points cannot make the discipline of IR more global or less Eurocentric.”¹² They usually point to the role of underlying nationalistic ideology in bringing about distinctively “non-Western” theories, and they argue that such endeavors only serve to recreate the relationship between the core and periphery.¹³ They warn against any project that is self-admittedly “non-Western” but emulates the dominant forms of thinking (including methodology) in the West.¹⁴ This conviction also emanates from a belief in the falseness of the West/non-West dichotomy, hence the preference for the term “post-western.”

Social and material conditions of thinking, teaching, writing, publishing, and disseminating original ideas in the periphery are too fundamental for theoretical innovation to overlook. Yet, an exclusive focus on improving those conditions does not automatically generate veritable theories. First, submerging oneself within core concepts and debates and trying to work from within the system is not particularly viable for periphery theorists. It is extremely hard for the periphery scholar to find a spot for herself/himself within the core theory circles, requiring at minimum a fully Western post-graduate education and training in Western methodologies and language. Socializing into this competitive environment requires imitation and utilization of those core ideas as reference points; for otherwise periphery scholars are regarded as less than competent. Therefore, for the voice of a periphery scholar to be heard in the core debates, whether to criticize or otherwise, they have be fully immersed within that community and forego any periphery perspective.

Second, core theoretical debates are not generally open to empirical input from the periphery. Even when they are, the expectation for periphery-inspired work is that it supports the core theories, rather than amends or corrects them. Thus periphery scholars become “social-science socialized”¹⁵ producers of local data, who are expected to support mainstream theories, and operate as “native informants.”¹⁶ Becoming a “theorist” in the periphery may be seen as prestigious in the periphery, but it means risking “becoming nobody”¹⁷ in the global community. In the rare instances when a periphery scholar nevertheless attempts to “do theory,” their work is likely to be dismissed as not being “theory.”¹⁸ This attitude highlights the dichotomy between “theory” and “local” that is imposed on the periphery scholar. Under these conditions, integrating oneself with the global IRT degenerates into hiring new labor for the same task and the same purpose. Indeed, such a course of action sounds like a perfect recipe for the perpetuation of marginalization under the guise of pluralism, akin to the self-promotion of “ethnic food” or “world music” in contemporary Western societies.

Moreover, empirical record of the integrationists is not very promising either. Attempts by a few very competent periphery scholars to take up the integrationist route have met with little success. For example, Ayoob¹⁹ actually tried to amend realist understandings of security by bringing in input from the Third World, but his ideas did not resonate globally. Similarly, Xuetong’s attempts to revise realism did not lead to substantial debate within the core.²⁰ Such efforts have not managed to enrich “core” theory with widened perspectives.

This volume has been borne out of the conviction that before trying to cram periphery feet in the core’s glass shoes, the discipline needs to see what those in the periphery themselves have to offer. Over time, we realized that refusing to wear the glass shoes, i.e., declaring that core concepts do not fit in the periphery, was necessary but doing so does not itself provide a wearable, efficient pair of shoes. Diversity, dialogue, and innovation can only come about when periphery scholars do not just “meta-theorize” but also “theorize.” Therefore, the increasing irrelevance of IRT needs to be addressed by a new form of theorizing, one which effectively blends peripheral outlooks with theory production. We call this form “homegrown theorizing,” i.e., original theorizing in the periphery about the periphery.

It is with the above ideas in mind that we decided to organize a workshop on the topic of homegrown theorizing, which took place in September 23–24, 2016 at Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research (CFPPR) in Ankara. Turkey. The purpose of the workshop was to encourage independent conceptualization in the periphery and ease the wider dissemination of such scholarly efforts. In doing so, we aim to contribute to the dialogue between the “center” and the periphery, and help transcend the conventional theoretical, methodological, geographical, academic, and cultural barriers between the two. The goal of the workshop was to bring together scholars from different corners of the world to discuss:

• structural factors that define the core-periphery relationship and their effect on IR theorizing;

• original theorizing efforts from the periphery and their contribution to our understandings of contemporary international affairs; and

• ways and strategies of moving forward in overcoming the discrepancies between theorizing in the core and the periphery.

The current volume is the culmination of the above efforts and consists of ten chapters by a select group of scholars, organized into three parts. Considering the level of contestation on the subject, Part I “Homegrown theorizing in perspective” is dedicated to reviewing existing debates about the desirability and viability of non-Western perspectives in IR. The first chapter by Aydınlı and Biltekin proposes and explicates the above definition of homegrown theorizing and offers an overall review of homegrown theorizing attempts so far. It also introduces a typology of homegrown theorizing that may prove useful in providing a guide for IR scholars on how to engage with homegrown theorizing in a more intellectually stimulating manner. The chapter concludes by highlighting a number of critical factors in opening up space for different voices in the world of IR.

The second chapter by Jørgensen questions the basic assumptions about homegrown theorizing found in the literature and suggests institutionalization rather than theorizing as a move forward. It argues that a quantitative increase in the number of non-Western theoretical perspectives may not be sufficient for overcoming the so-called hegemonic structure of knowledge production. Hence, if a distinction between academic domestic and global markets is applied, theory building for a number of domestic or regional markets might impact “consumption” patterns in domestic or regional markets but not necessarily the world market. It also questions a second widespread assumption, i.e., that the IR theory is under American hegemony. It argues that this assumption is severely challenged by empirical research showing that American hegemony remains a fact in institutional terms but not in terms of theoretical fads and debates being followed in the rest of the world. Finally, it proposes that intellectual global hegemony is largely a chimera, and one should rather focus on alternative institutionalization in the discipline by way of or...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright page
• Table of Contents
• 1 Introduction: widening the world of IR
• PART I Homegrown theorizing in perspective
• PART II Theorizing at “home”
• PART III Innovative encounters
• Index