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 IRtheorizing using non-Western knowledge and/or scholarship. This articledeconstructs the idea of homegrown theorizing by focusing on its constitutivepart, dealing separately with the aspects of knowledge, scholar, and theory, questioningthereby the differing meanings of homegrownness. Such an approach provides aninitial framework that accomplishes two things: First, the paper discusses today’score Western IR community and its disciplinary sociology in terms of the mainfactors engendering present critiques of its scholarship. Second, it thenbecomes possible to pay attention to peripheral non-Western IR’s position at atime of gradual post-Westernization, both world politically and within thediscipline. Engaging with the pitfalls of Western IR and elaborating on the reasonsnot only explains the emergence of IR’s homegrown turn, but also provides thebasis for understanding how scholars engaging in homegrown theorizing can learnfrom the (past) mistakes of core scholarship. Dealing with the impact ofglobalization, Eurocentrism, presentism, and parochialism as the main problemareas of (Western) IR, the article concludes by providing a list of lessons tobe taken into account when engaging in homegrown theorizing within the periphery.