Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• International Relations theory,core and periphery,homegrown theory,theory building,non-Western IRT,post-Western IR

References

1. Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (April 27, 2011): 619-37.
2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan, eds. Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. Abington: Routledge, 2009.
3. ———, eds. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Realtions of the Asia Pacific 7, no. 3 (August 7, 2007): 287-312. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lcm012.
4. Agathangelou, Anna M., and L. H. M. Ling. “The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism.” International Studies Review 6, no. 4 (December 2004): 21-49.
5. Ascione, Gennaro, and Deepshikha Shahi. “Rethinking the Absence of Post-Western International Relations Theory in India:‘Advaitic Monism’as an Alternative Epistemological Resource.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 2 (2016): 313-34.
6. Ayoob, Mohammed. “Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective.” In Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Strategies, edited by K. Krause and MC. Williams, 121-48. London: UCL Press, 1997.
7. ———. “Security in the Third World: The Worm About to Turn.” International Affairs 60, no. 1 (1984): 41–51.
8. Azar, Edward, and Chung-in Moon. “Third World National Security: Towards a New Conceptual Framework.” International Interactions 11, no. 2 (1984): 103-35.

9. Bajpai, Kanti. “Indian Conceptions of Order and Justice: Nehruvian, Gandhian, Hindutva, and Neo-Liberal.” In Order and Justice in International Relations, edited by Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell, 236-61. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
10. ———. “Indian Grand Strategy: Six Schools of Thought.” In India’s Grand Strategy: History, Theory, Cases, edited by K. Bajpai, S. Basit and V. Krishnappa, 113-54. New Delhi: Routledge, 2014.
11. Barkawi, Tarak. “On the Pedagogy of ‘Small Wars.’” International Affairs 80, no. 1 (2004): 19-38.
12. Bates, Robert H. “Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy?” PS: Political Science & Politics 30, no. 2 (June 1997): 166-9.
13. Behera, Navnita. “Re-Imagining IR in India.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 341-68.
14. Bilgin, Pınar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5-23.
15. Bilgin, Pınar, and David Morton. “From ‘Rogue’ to ‘Failed’ States? The Fallacy of Short-Termism.” Politics 24, no. 3 (2004): 169-80.
16. ———. “Historicising Representations of ‘Failed States’: Beyond the Cold-War Annexation of the Social Sciences?” Third World Quarterly 23, no. 1 (2002): 55-80.
17. Bilgin, Pınar, and Oktay F. Tanrisever. “A Telling Story of IR in the Periphery: Telling Turkey about the World, Telling the World About Turkey.” Journal of International Relations and Development 12, no. 2 (2009): 174-9.
18. Boesche, Roger. “Moderate Machiavelli? Contrasting the Prince with the Arthashastra of Kautilya.” Critical Horizons: A Journal of Philosophy & Social Theory 3, no. 2 (2002): 153-76.
19. Buzan, Barry. “The Concept of National Security for Developing Countries with Special Reference to Southeast Asia.” Paper presented at the Workshop on Leadership and Security in Southeast Asia, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore, December, 10-12, 1987.
20. ———. “People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in the Third World.” In National Security in the Third World, edited by Chung-in Moon and Edward Azar, 14-43. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1988.
21. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
22. Cai, Tony. “Global Governance: The Chinese Angle of View and Practice.” Social Sciences in China 25, no. 2 (2004): 57-68.
23. Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto. Dependency and Development in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.
24. Chen, Ching-Chang. “The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 1 (2011): 1-23.
25. ———. “The Impossibility of Building Indigenous Theories in a Hegemonic Discipline: The Case of Japanese International Relations.” Asian Perspective 36, no. 3 (2012): 463-92.
26. Chirot, Daniel, and Thomas D. Hall. “World-System Theory.” Annual Review of Sociology 8, no. 1 (1982): 81-106.
27. Cho, Young Chul. “Colonialism and Imperialism in the Quest for a Universalist Korean-Style International Relations Theory.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 28, no. 4 (2015): 680-700.
28. Choi, Jong Kun. “Theorizing East Asian International Relations in Korea.” Asian Perspective 32, no. 1 (2008): 193-216.
29. Cox, Robert W. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies 10, no. 2 (1981): 126-55.
30. ———. “Towards a Post-Hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun.” In Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, edited by James N. Rosenau and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, 132-59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
31. Crawford, Robert M. A. “Where Have All the Theorists Gone- Gone to Britain? Everyone? A Story of Two Parochialisms in International Relations.” In International Relations—Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, edited by Robert M.A. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis, 221-42. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
32. Crawford, Robert M.A., and Darryl S.L. Jarvis, eds. Where Have All the Theorists Gone- Gone to Britain? Everyone? A Story of Two Parochialisms in International Relations. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
33. Creutzfeldt, Benjamin. “Theory Talk# 51: Yan Xuetong on Chinese Realism, the Tsinghua School of InternationalRelations, and the Impossibility of Harmony,”Theory Talks, November 28, 2012. http://www.theory-talks.org/2012/11/theory-talk-51.html.
34. Cunningham-Cross, Linsay. “Using the Past to (Re)Write the Future: Yan Xuetong, Pre-Qin Thought and China’s Rise to Power.” China Information 26, no. 2 (2012): 219-33.
35. Deudney, Daniel. “Bringing Nature Back In: Geopolitical Theory from the Greeks to the Global Era.” In Contested Grounds: Security and Conflict in the New Environmental Politics, edited by Daniel Deudney and Richard Matthew, 25-60. SUNY Press, 1999.
36. Drulák, Peter. “Introduction to the International Relations (IR) in Central and Eastern Europe Forum.” Journal of International Relations and Development 12, no. 2 (2009): 168-73.
37. Friedrichs, Jörg. European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions. Oxon: Routledge, 2004.
38. Gaddis, John Lewis. “History, Theory, and Common Ground.” International Security 22, no. 1 (1997): 75-85.
39. Galtung, Johan. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. London: Sage, 1996.
40. Geldenhuys, Deon. Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Press Syndicate, 1990.
41. Gilpin, Robert. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
42. Gowen, Herbert H. “‘The Indian Machiavelli’ or Political Theory in India Two Thousand Years Ago.” Political Science Quarterly 44, no. 2 (1929): 173-92.
43. Hassan, Umit. Ibn Haldun’un Metodu ve Siyaset Teorisi. Istanbul: Toplumsal Donusum, 1998.
44. Hoffmann, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Deadalus 106, no. 3 (1977): 41-60.
45. Hopkins, Terence K., and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein. World-Systems Analysis: Theory and Methodology. London: Sage, 1982.
46. Inoguchi, Takashi, and Paul Bacon. “The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline.” International Realtions of the Asia Pacific 1, no. 1 (2001): 1-20.
47. Kalpakian, Jack. “Ibn Khaldun’s Influence on Current International Relations Theory.” The Journal of North African Studies 13, no. 3 (2008): 363-76.
48. Kavalski, Emilian. “Recognizing Chinese International Relations Theory.” In Asian Thought on China’s Changing International Relations, edited by Niv Horesh and Emilian Kavalski, 230-48. New York: Pelgrave Macmillian, 2014.
49. Korany, Bahgat. “Strategic Studies and the Third World: A Critical Appraisal.” International Social Science Journal 38, no. 4 (1986): 547-62.
50. Kristensen, Peter Marcus. “How Can Emerging Powers Speak? On Theorists, Native Informants and Quasi-Officials in International Relations Discourse.” Third World Quarterly 36, no. 4 (2015): 637-53.
51. Kusnezow, Artur. “A New Model for Traditional Civilisations.” International Affairs (Moscow) 41, no. 4-5 (1995): 95-100.
52. Love, Joseph L. “Raúl Previsch and the Origins of the Doctrine of Unequal Exchange.” Latin American Research Review 15, no. 3 (1980): 45-72.
53. Lynham, Susan A. “The General Method of Theory-Building Research in Applied Disciplines.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 4, no. 3 (August 1, 2002): 221-41.
54. Mathews, Julie, and Ersel Aydınlı. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289-303.
55. Mignolo, Walter D. “Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom.” Theory, Culture & Society 26, no. 7-8 (2009): 159-81.
56. Modelski, George. “Kautilya: Foreign Policy and International System in the Ancient Hindu World.” The American Political Science Review 58, no. 3 (1964): 549-60.
57. Morris, James Winston. “An Arab Machiavelli? Rhetoric, Philosophy, and Politics in Ibn Khaldun’s Critique of Sufism.” Harvard Middle Eastern and Islamic Review 8 (2009): 242-91.
58. Neuman, Stephanie G. International Relations Theory and the Third World. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
59. Nicolaidis, Kalypso, and Justine Lacroix. “Order and Justice beyond the Nation-State: Europe’s Competing Paradigms.” In Order and Justice in International Relations, edited by Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell, 125-54. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
60. Nielsen, Ras T., and Peter Marcus Kristensen. “Constructing a Chinese International Relations Theory: A Sociological Approach to Intellectual Innovation.” International Political Sociology 7, no. 1 (2013): 19-40.
61. Norbu, Dawa. “Tibet in Sino-Indian Relations: The Centrality of Marginality.” Asian Survey 37, no. 11 (1997): 1078-95.
62. Ozdemir, Haluk. “An Inter-Subsystemic Approach in International Relations.” All Azimuth 4, no. 1 (2015): 5-26.
63. Paltiel, Jeremy T. “Constructing Global Order with Chinese Characteristics: Yan Xuetong and the Pre-Qin Response to International Anarchy.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 4, no. 4 (2011): 375-403.
64. Pasha, Mustapha Kemal. “Ibn Khaldun and World Order.” In Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, edited by Stephan Gill and James H. Mittleman, 56-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
65. Patnaik, Prabhat. “The Fascism of Our Times.” Social Scientist 21, no. 3-4 (1993): 69-77.
66. Paul, T.V. “Integrating International Relations Studies in India to Global Scholarship.” International Studies 46, no. 1-2 (2009): 129-45.
67. Qin, Yaqing. “Rule, Rules, and Relations: Towards a Synthetic Approach to Governance.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 4, no. 2 (2011): 117-45.
68. ———. “Why Is There No Chinese International Relations Theory?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 313-40.
69. Rubinson, Richard. “The World-Economy and the Distribution of Income within States: A Cross-National Study.” American Sociological Review 41, no. 4 (1976): 638-59.
70. Sankaran, Krishina. “The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International Relations Theory.” Alternatives 18, no. 3 (1993): 385-417.
71. Sartori, Giovanni. “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics.” The American Political Science Review 64, no. 4 (1970): 1033-53.
72. Sayigh, Yezid. “Confronting the 1990s: Security in the Developing Countries.” Adelphi Papers 30, no. 251 (1990): 3-7.
73. Schroeder, Paul W. “History and International Relations Theory: Not Use or Abuse, but Fit or Misfit.” International Security 22, no. 1 (1997): 64-74.
74. Sergouinin, Alexander. “Russia: IR at a Crossroads.” In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, 223-41. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
75. Shambaugh, David. “International Relations Studies in China: History, Trends, and Prospects.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 3 (2011): 339-72.
76. Shani, Giorgio. “Toward a Post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008): 722-34.
77. Smith, Steve. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 2 (2000): 374-402.
78. ———. “Six Wishes for a More Relevant Discipline of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit and Duncan Snidal, 725-32. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
79. ———. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.’” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 67-85.
80. Smith, Tony. “The Underdevelopment of Development Literature: The Case of Dependency Theory.” World Politics 31, no. 2 (1979): 247-88.
81. Snyder, David, and Edward Kick. “Structural Position in the World System and Economic Growth, 1955-1970: A Multiple-Network Analysis of Transnational Interactions.” American Journal of Sociology 84, no. 5 (1979): 1096-126.
82. Snyder, Jack. “Some Good and Bad Reasons for a Distinctively Chinese Approach to International Relations Theory.” Paper presented at the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, 2008.
83. Stowasser, Barbara Freyer. “Religion and Political Development: Comparative Ideas on Ibn Khaldun and Machiavelli.” Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, 2011.Accessed August 21, 2016. https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/ufohrhyqa4phr775z9p1.https://georgetown.app.box.com/s/ufohrhyqa4phr775z9p1.
84. Strange, Susan. “Political Economy and International Relations.” In International Relations Theory Today, edited by Ken Booth and Steve Smith, 154-74. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995.
85. Thomas, Caroline. In Search of Security: The Third World in International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1987.
86. Thornton, Stephen. “Karl Popper.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nov 13, 1997. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/popper/.
87. Tickner, Arlene B. Claiming the International. London and New York: Routledge, 2013.
88. ———. “Latin American IR and the Primacy of Lo Práctico.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008): 735-48.
89. ———. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2003): 295-324.
90. Tickner, Arlene B., and David L. Blaney. Thinking International Relations Differently. New York: Routledge, 2013.
91. Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
92. Tinker, Hugh. “Magnificent Failure? The Gandhian Ideal in India after Sixteen Years.” International Affairs 40, no. 2 (1964): 262-76.
93. Tsygankov, Andrei P., and Pavel A. Tsygankov. “National Ideology and IR Theory: Three Incarnations of the ‘Russian Idea.’” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 4 (2010): 663-86.
94. ———. “New Directions in Russian International Studies: Pluralization, Westernization, and Isolationism.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 37, no. 1 (2004): 1-17.
95. ———. “A Sociology of Dependence in International Relations Theory: A Case of Russian Liberal IR.” International Political Sociology 1, no. 4 (2007): 307-24.
96. Turton, Helen Louise, and Lucas G Freire. “Peripheral Possibilities: Revealing Originality and Encouraging Dialogue through a Reconsideration of ‘Marginal’ IR Scholarship.” Journal of International Relations and Development 20, no. 2 (April 18, 2014): 458. doi:10.1057/jird.2015.17.
97. Vasilaki, Rosa. “Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory.” Millennium - Journal of International Studies 41, no. 1 (2012): 3-22.
98. Vernengo, Matias. “Technology, Finance and Dependency: Latin American Radical Political Economy in Retrospect.” Review of Radical Political Economics 38, no. 4 (2006): 551-68.
99. Wallerstein, Immanuel Maurice, and Terence K. Hopkins. The Essential Wallerstein. New York: The New Press, 2000. Walt, Stephen M. “The Relationship between Policy and Theory in International Relations.” Annual Review of Political Science 8, no. 1 (2005): 23-48.
100. Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1979.
101. Weber, Thomas. “The Impact of Gandhi on the Development of Johan Galtung’s Peace Research.” Global Change,Peace & Security 16, no. 1 (2004): 31-43.
102. Weiss, Thomas G., and Rorden Wilkinson. “Global Governance to the Rescue: Saving International Relations?” Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations 20, no. 1 (2014): 19-36.
103. Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
104. Wesley, Michael. “Australia’s International Relations and the (IR)relevance of Theory.” Australian Journal of International Affairs 55, no. 3 (2001): 453-67.
105. Wiarda, Howard J. “The Ethnocentrism of the Social Science Implications for Research and Policy.” The Review of Politics 43, no. 2 (1981): 163-97.
106. Wilkinson, Claire. “The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan: Is Securitization Theory Useable Outside Europe?” Security Dialogue 38, no. 1 (2007): 5-25.
107. Xinning, Song. “Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics.” Journal of Contemporary China 10, no. 26 (2001): 61-74.
108. Xuetong, Yan. Ancient Chinese Thought and Modern Chinese Power. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011.
109. ———. “The Instability of China–US Relations.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 3, no. 3 (2010): 263-92.
110. ———. “Xun Zi’s Thoughts on International Politics and Their Implications.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 2, no. 1 (2008): 135-65.
111. Zaman, Rashed Uz. “Kautilya: The Indian Strategic Thinker and Indian Strategic Culture.” Comparative Strategy 25, no. 3 (2006): 231-47.
112. Zinnes, Diana A. “Three Puzzles in Search of a Researcher.” International Studies Quarterly 24, no. 3 (1980): 315-42.