Towards Guanxi? Reconciling the “Relational Turn” in Western and Chinese International Relations Scholarship

Year 2022, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 67 - 85, 19.01.2022

Siyang Liu Jeremy Garlick Fangxing Qin

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.952841

Cited By: 1

Abstract

In recent years, the “relational turn” in International Relations (IR) theory has attracted extensive attention. However, the limitations of the substantialist ontology of mainstream (Western) IR theory means that it encounters difficulties and dilemmas in interpreting the evolving international system. Against the background of the rapid development of globalization and regional integration, the reality of world politics is constantly changing, and increasingly shows obvious characteristics of interconnection and high interdependence. In this context, there is insufficient research comparing the Western and non-Western versions of the “relational turn”. Relational ontology may be able to provide a bridge between Chinese Confucian philosophy, Western philosophy, Western sociology, and mainstream western IR theories capable of generating productive synergies. However, there are major theoretical and cultural obstacles to be overcome if a reconciliation of the Western and Chinese versions of relationalism is to be achieved.

Keywords

Relationality, guanxi, relational ontology, Confucianism, international relations (IR) theory

Supporting Institution

Czech Science Foundation

Project Number

19-01809S

References

• Acharya, Amitav. Rethinking Power, Institutions and Ideas in World Politics: Whose IR? Abingdon: Routledge, 2014.
• Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loïc J. D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
• Callahan, William. “Chinese Visions of World Order: Post-Hegemonic or A New Hegemony.” International Studies Review 10, no. 7 (2008): 749–61.
• Chen, Dingding. “Cooperation Conflict and Processual Constructivism: The Case on Sino-U.S. Relations.” World Economics and Politics, no.10 (2016): 59–74.
• Dewey, John, and Arthur F. Bentley. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press. 1949.
• Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 405–25.
• Emirbayer, Mustafa. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology.” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 2 (1997): 281–317.
• Fei, Xiaotong. From the Soil: The Foundations of Chinese Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
• Feng, Zhang. Chinese Hegemony: Grand Strategy and International Institutions in East Asian History. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015.
• Garlick, Jeremy. The Impact of China’s Belt and Road Initiative: From Asia to Europe, Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2020.
• Gilpin, Robert. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
• Hoffman, Stanley. “International Relations: An American Social Science.” Daedalus 106 (1977): 41–60.
• Huang, Chiung-Chiu, and Chih-yu Shih. Harmonious Intervention China’s Quest for Relational Security. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014.
• Hwang, Kwang-Kuo. Foundations of Chinese Psychology: Confucian Social Relations. New York: Springer, 2012.
• Ignatow, Gabe, and Laura Robinson. “Pierre Bourdieu: Theorizing the Digital.” Information, Communication & Society 20, no.7 (2017): 950-66.
• Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Daniel H. Nexon. “International Theory in a Post-Paradigmatic Era: From Substantive Wagers to Scientific Ontologies.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 543–65.
• ——. “Reclaiming the Social: Relationalism in Anglophone International Studies.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 5 (2019): 582–600. ——. “Relations before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 3 (1999): 291–332.
• Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. “Relational Constructivism: A War of Words.” In Making Sense of International Relations Theory, edited by Jennifer Sterling-Folker, 139–55. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 2006.
• Kavalski, Emilian. “Chinese Concepts and Relational International Politics,” All Azimuth 7, no.1 (2018): 87–102.
• ——. “Complexifying IR: Disturbing the ‘Deep Newtonian Slumber’ of the Mainstream.” In World Politics at the Edge of Chaos: Reflections on Complexity and Global Life, edited by Emilian Kavalski, 253–72. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2015.
• ——. “Guanxi or What is the Chinese for Relational Theory of World Politics.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 18, no. 3 (2018): 397–20.
• ——. “The Guanxi of Relational International Affairs.” Chinese Political Science Review no. 3 (2018): 233–51.
• ——. “The Struggle for Recognition of Normative Powers: Normative Power Europe and Normative Power China in Context.” Cooperation and Conflict 48, no. 2 (2013): 247–67.
• Keohane, Robert O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Kayaoglu, Turan. “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 12, no. 2 (2010): 197–217.
• Krasner, Stephen D. “Structural Causes and Regime Consequences: Regimes as Intervening Variables.” International Organization 36, no. 2 (1982): 185–205.
• Ling, LH.M. “Worlds beyond Westphalia: Daoist Dialectics and the ‘China Threat’.” Review of International Studies 39 (2013): 549–68.
• McCourt, David M. “Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism.” International Studies Quarterly 60, no. 3 (2016): 475–85.
• Moshirzadeh, Homeira. “The Idea of Dialogue of Civilizations and Core-Periphery Dialogue in International Relations.” All Azimuth 9, no. 2 (2020):211–27.
• Navarro, Peter, and Greg Autry. Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Global Call to Action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011.
• Nordin, Astrid H. M., and Graham M. Smith. “Relating Self and Other in Chinese and Western Thought.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 5 (2019): 636–53.
• Nordin, Astrid H. M., Graham Smith, Raoul Bunskoek, Chiung-chiu Huang, Yih-Jye Hwang, Patrick Jackson, Emilian Kavalski, L. Ling, Leigh Martindale, Mari Nakamura, Daniel Nexon, Laura Premack, Yaqing Qin, Chih-yu Shih, David Tyfield, Emma Williams, and Marysia Zalewski. “Towards Global Relational Theorizing: A Dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone Scholarship on Relationalism.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 5(2019): 570–81.
• Paes, Lucas de Oliveira, and Lucia J. Linares. “Letter from the Editors.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 5 (2019): 569.
• Pillsbury, Michael. The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower. New York: Henry Holt, 2015.
• Qin, Yaqing. A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• ——. “A Relational Theory of World Politics.” International Studies Review 18, no.1 (2016): 33–47.
• ——. “Relationality and Processual Construction: Bringing Chinese Ideas into International Relations Theory.” Social Sciences in China 30 (2009): 5–20.
• ——. “Rule, Rules, and Relations: Towards a Synthetic Approach to Governance.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 3, no. 2 (2011): 117–45.
• Qin, Yaqing, and Astrid H. M. Nordin. “Relationality and Rationality in Confucian and Western Traditions of Thought.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 5 (2019): 601–14.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. “Foregrounding the Complexities of a Dialogic Approach to Global International Relations,” All Azimuth 9, no. 2. (2020): 163–176.
• Shih, Chih-yu. “Asian Local School of International Relations Research.” Quarterly Journal of Intenational Politics 3 (2010): 51–73.
• ——. “Relations and Balances: Self-Restraint and Democratic Governability Under Confucianis.” Pacific Focus 29, no.3 (2014): 351–73.
• Shih, Chih-yu, Chiung-chiu Huang, Pichamon Yeophantong, Raoul Bunskoek, Josuke Ikeda, Yih-Jye Hwang, Hung-jen Wang, Chih-yun Chang and Ching-chang Chen. China and International Theory. London: Routledge, 2019.
• Silver, Laura, Kat Devlin, and Christine Huan. “Unfavorable Views of China Reach Historic Highs in Many Countries.” Pew Research Center: Global Attitudes & Trends, October 6, 2020. Accessed October 24, 2020. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/10/06/unfavorable-views-of-china-reach-historic-highs-in-many-countries/.
• Smith, Steve. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2, no. 3 (2000): 374–402.
• Schinkel, Willem. “Sociological Discourse of the Relational: The Cases of Bourdieu & Latour.” The Sociological Review 55, no. 4 (2007): 707–29.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
• Wei, Ling. “Balance of Relations: ASEAN Centrality and the Evolving Regional Order.” World Economics and Politics no.7 (2017): 38-64.
• Wendt, Alexander. “The State and the Problem of Corporate Agency.” In Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, 193. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Wight, Colin. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge Studies in International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
• Zalewski, Marysia. “Forget(ting) Feminism? Investigating Relationality in International Relations.” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 32, no. 5 (2019): 615–35.
• Zhao, Tingyang. “Ontology of Coexistence: Relations and Hearts.” Philosophical Researches 8 (2009): 22–30.
• ——. A Possible World of All-under-the-Heaven System: The World Order in the Past and for the Future. Beijing: Citic Press Group, 2016.
• ——. “To Deepen Enlightenment: From Methodological Individualism to Methodological Relationalism.” Philosophical Researches 1 (2011): 90–3.