Would 100 Global Workshops on Theory Building Make A Difference?

Year 2018, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 65 - 80, 13.06.2018

Knud Erik Jorgensen

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.335814

Cited By: 2

Abstract

The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable.

However, such an assumption cannot be taken for granted. Indeed the first

objective is to examine the comparative advantages of theoretical knowledge.

Second, if 100 theory building workshops would make a difference, what exactly

would the difference be? After all, movie production is said to be dominated by

Hollywood but Bollywood produces more movies than Hollywood. Nonetheless,

the world market is dominated by Hollywood. 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.

Moreover, the apparent need for 100 workshops rests on the assumption that

the IR discipline is under American hegemony but 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. In short, intellectual global hegemony

is largely a chimera. Finally, the paper argues that 100 workshops might be

necessary but could turn out to be waste of time and for two reasons. While

theorizing a bygone world is fine, the workshops should address contemporary

issues and be future-oriented. Furthermore, the workshops should contribute to

redefine the (contested) core of the discipline.

Keywords

Theory, theory building, hegemony, markets, discipline, orthodoxy

References

• Alejando, Audrey. “Eurocentrism, Ethnocentrism, and Misery of Position: International Relations in Europe - A problematic oversight.” European Review of International Studies 4, no. 1 (forthcoming 2017).
• Alejando, Audrey, Knud Erik Jørgensen, Alexander Reichwein, Felix Rösch, and Helen Turton. Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. London: Palgrave, forthcoming 2017.
• Behr, E. Hartmut. “The European Union in the Legacies of Imperial Rule? EU Accession Politics Viewed From A Historical Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of International Relations 13, no. 2 (2007): 239-62.
• Bilgin, Pinar. “How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge for the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8, no. 3 (2016): 492–501.
• Brown, Chris. Practical Judgement in International Political Theory: Selected Essays. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
• Callahan, William A. "China and the Globalisation of IR Theory: Discussion of 'Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics'.” Journal of Contemporary China 10, no. 26 (2001): 75-88.
• Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Palgrave, 1946.
• Chacko, Priya. Indian Foreign Policy: The Politics of Postcolonial Identity from 1947 to 2004. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
• Czaputowicz, Jacek, and Anna Wojciuk. The Study of International Relations in Poland. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2017.
• Dugin, Alexander. “Theory Talk #66: Alexander Dugin on Eurasianism, the Geopolitics of Land and Sea, and a Russian Theory of Multipolarity.” By M. Millerman. Theory Talks, December 7, 2014. Accessed August 2, 2016. http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/12/theory-talk-66.html.
• Guzzini, Stefano. The Return of Geopolitics in Europe? Social Mechanisms and Foreign Policy Identity Crises. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Hobson, John M. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760-2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Hopf, Ted. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.
• Holsti, K.J. “Exceptionalism in American Foreign Policy: Is It Exceptional?” European Journal of International Relations 17, no. 3 (2010): 381-404.
• Hutchings, Kimberly. “Kimberly Hutchings on Quiet as a Research Strategy, the Essence of Critique, and the Narcissism of Minor Differences.” By A.S. Bang Lindegaard and P. Schouten, Theory Talks, October 10, 2016. Accessed November 10, 2016. http://www.theory-talks.org/2016/10/theory-talk-73-kimberly-hutchings.html.
• Jørgensen, Knud Erik. “After Hegemony in International Relations.” European Review of International Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 57-64.
• ——— . “Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret.” European Journal of International Relations 6, no. 1 (2000): 9-42.
• ——— . “Inter Alia.” International Studies Review (forthcoming 2017).
• ———. International Relations Theory: A New Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
• ——— . “Towards a Six Continents Social Science: International Relations.” Journal of International Relations and Development 6, no. 4 (2004): 330-43.
• Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Reuben Wong. “Social Constructivist Perspectives on China-EU Relations.” In China, the European Union, and International Politics of Global Governance, edited by Jianwei Wang and Weiqing Song, 51-74. London: Palgrave, 2015.
• Jupille, Joseph, James A. Caporaso, and Jeffrey T. Checkel. “Integrating Institutions Rationalism, Constructivism, and the Study of the European Union.” Comparative Political Studies 36, no. 1-2 (2003): 7-40.
• Katzenstein, Peter J. “‘Walls’ Between ‘Those People’? Contrasting Perspectives on World Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 1 (2010): 11-25.
• Keene, Edward. Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order In World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
• Keohane, Robert O., and Stanley Hoffmann. “Conclusions: Community Politics and Institutional Change.” In The Dynamics of European Integration, edited by William Wallace, 276-300. London; New York: Pinter Publishers for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1990.
• Lake, David A. “The New American Empire?” International Studies Perspectives 9, no. 3 (2008): 281-9.
• ——— . “Why “isms” are Evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2011): 465-80.
• Langan, Mark. “Budget Support and Africa–European Union Relations: Free Market Reform and Neo-Colonialism?” European Journal of International Relations 21 (2015): 101-21.
• Leca, Jean. “La science politique dans le champ intellectuel français.” Revue française de science politique 4 (1982): 653-77.
• Legro, Jeffrey W., and Andrew Moravcsik. “Is anybody still a realist?” International Security 24, no. 2 (1999): 5-55.
• Lizée, Pierre. A Whole New World: Reinventing International Studies for the Post-Western World. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011.
• Long, David. “Who Killed the International Studies Conference?” Review of International Studies 32, no. 4 (2006): 603-22.
• Mallavarapu, Siddharth. “Development of International Relations Theory in India: Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories.” International Studies 46, no. 1-2 (2009): 165-83.
• Mansour, Imad. “A Global South Perspective on International Relations Theory.” International Studies Perspectives 18 (2016): 2-3. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/isp/ekw010.
• Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing Is Bad For International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 427-57.
• Moravcsik, Andrew. ‘‘Is something rotten in the state of Denmark? Constructivism and European integration.” Journal of European Public Policy 6, no. 4 (1999): 669-81.
• Nau, Henry R. “No Alternative to ‘isms’.” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2 (2011): 487-91.
• Nau, Henry R., and Deepa M. Ollapally, eds. Worldviews of Aspiring Powers: Domestic Foreign Policy Debates in China, India, Iran, Japan, and Russia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
• Ollapally, Deepa M., and Rajesh Rajagopalan. “India: Foreign Policy Perspectives of an Ambiguous Power.” In Nau and Ollapally, Worldviews of Aspiring Powers, 73-113.
• Pan, Zhongqi. Conceptual Gaps in China-EU Relations: Global Governance, Human Rights and Strategic Partnerships. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012.
• Peters, Ingo, and Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar, eds. Globalizing International Relations. London: Palgrave, 2016.
• Puchala, Donald J. Theory and History in International Relations. London: Routledge, 2003.
• Pye, Lucian W. The Spirit of Chinese Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
• Qin, Yaqing. “Relationality and Processual Construction: Bringing Chinese Ideas into International Relations Theory.” Social Sciences in China 30, no. 4 (2009): 5-20.
• Qutb, Sayed. Milestones. New Delhi: Islamic Book Service, 2006.
• Rosenau, James N., and Mary Durfee. Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches to an Incoherent World. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner, 1995.
• Ruggie, John G. American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism and Global Governance. KSG Working Paper No. RWP04-006, Harvard University, February 2004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.517642.
• ——— . “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46, no. 3 (1992): 561-98.
• ——— . “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain—Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10, no. 4 (2004): 499-531.
• Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.
• Scott, David A. “Multipolarity, Multilateralism and Beyond…? EU-China Understandings of the International System.” International Relations 27, no. 1 (2013): 30-51.
• Shih, Chih, and Jiwu Yin. “Between Core National Interest and a Harmonious World: Reconciling Self Conceptions in Chinese Foreign Policy.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 6, no. 1 (2013): 59-84.
• Shlapentokh, Dmitry. “Dugin’s Eurasianism: A Window on The Minds of the Russian Elite or an Intellectual Ploy?” Studies in East European Thought 59, no. 3 (2007): 215-36.
• Trenin, Dmitri. Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story. Washington DC.: Carnegie, 2011.
• Tsygankov, Andrei P. “Self and Other in International Relations Theory: Learning from Russian Civilizational Debates.” International Studies Review 10, no. 4 (2008):762-75.
• van Herpen, Marcel H. Putin’s Wars: The Rise of Russia’s New Imperialism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2014.
• Walt, Stephen. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy 110 (1998): 29-46.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. “Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory.” Journal of International Affairs 44, no. 1 (1990): 21-37.
• Vitalis, Robert. White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015.
• Wang, Yiwei. “The Identity Dilemmas of EU Normative Power: Observations from Chinese Traditional Culture.” In Normative Power Europe in a Changing World: A Discussion, edited by A. Gerrits, 67-76. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 2009.
• Wæver, Ole. “Securitization and Desecuritization.” In On Security, edited by Ronnie Lipschutz, 46-86. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
• Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security 20, no. 1 (1995): 71-81.