The absence of non-western IR theory in Asia reconsidered

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

The Pacific Review, 2017

The study of international relations in or of Asia is no longer atheoretical, as was the case only three decades ago, when the Pacific Review was founded. But how serious are the efforts to study the international relations of Asia theoretically? Some Western scholars argue that writings on Asian International Relations (IR) are still peripheral to the major concerns and debates among IR theories such as realism, liberalism, and constructivism. The 'indigenization' of Asian IR theory remains limited by, among other factors, a tendency among local scholars to rely heavily on Western theories, and the close academia-officialdom nexus in the region that inhibits theoretical work. But this essay argues that Asia offers an opportunity to IR theory for broadening itself and shed its hitherto Westerncentrism, especially at a time of a 'global' turn in IR (global IR). Theoretical writings on Asian IR are already making a difference by exposing the limitations of mainstream IR theories in the regional context. And they have the potential to offer new and alternative concepts that are more contextually grounded and relevant for Global IR. At the same time, there remain some important conditions that must be met before theoretical writings on Asian IR can make further progress and realize their full potential. KEYWORDS International relations theory; global international relations; global IR; Asian regionalism; ASEAN; Chinese school of IR Three decades of The Pacific Review is a fitting occasion to reflect on the place of theory in the study of Asia's international relations. At its founding, the journal, in keeping with the state of the literature on the international relations of Asia, was largely atheoretical. But over the years, especially under the editorial direction of the Warwick team led by Richard Higgott, the Review has evolved into a vibrant outlet for theoretically informed work on Asia. Indeed, my own turn to IR theory was through the pages of this journal, with an essay entitled 'Ideas, Identity ad Institution-Building' (Acharya, 1997). It is tied for the top spot as the most cited article in the journal (in the last three years to August 26 2016). To its credit, the journal has not shunned analytical and empirical essays that make no direct theoretical claim or contribution. But it has led been at the forefront of efforts to bring Asia into IR theory and vice versa.

Asian Regional Integration Review, 2011

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

2008

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.

International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 2011

This article investigates and explains the development of International Relations studies (IRS) in China, Japan, and India. Beginning in early 1980s IRS experienced exponential growth in China and is becoming a separate discipline in that country. Despite early starts, IRS in Japan and India is still an appendage in other disciplinary departments, programs, and centers although growing interest is discernible in both countries. Continued rise of Asian powers along with their growing roles and responsibilities in constructing and managing regional and global orders is likely sustain and increase interest in IRS in these countries and more generally in Asia. Distinctive trajectories have characterized the development of IRS in China, Japan, and India. Distinctiveness is evident in master narratives and intellectual predispositions that have shaped research and teaching of IR in all three countries. The distinct IRS trajectories are explained by the national and international context of these countries as well as the extensiveness of state domination of their public spheres. Alterations in national circumstances and objectives along with changes in the international position explain the master narratives that have focused the efforts of IR research communities. Extensiveness of state domination and government support, respectively, explain intellectual predispositions and institutional opportunities for the development of IRS. IRS in Asia has had a

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.

Perceptions, 2014