Western-Centric Moments in Homegrown IR Theories: Dependency, Chinese and African Schools

Abstract

The modern international system has been shaped by long-standing historical practices of unequal power relations, which have positioned the Western world at the center of the political universe. Due to the centrality of the Global North in the international system, any IR theory that aims to portray a true picture of the “globe” necessarily situates the West at the center of scientific inquiry. Furthermore, the form of universality generated by Western hegemony has been diffused throughout the world over centuries, spreading Western political institutions, economic structures, and ideological norms in an uneven setting. As a result, the social structures of the Global South have developed through an uneven form of relationship and dialectical interaction with the West. Therefore, homegrown IR theories, which uncover local political, philosophical, or cultural motives as sources for theory-making, in fact, concentrate on stratified forms of the universal reality that is diffused through the uneven spread of Western social structures. In this sense, there is a Western-centric moment in any homegrown IR theory. Accordingly, this article develops a scientific realist account of the structure/agent relationship in order to analyze the material grounds of Westerncentrism in the field of international politics and to evaluate the role of non- Western actors. Additionally, it critically evaluates distinctive homegrown theories produced on three different continents to reveal the aforementioned Western-centric moments in these theoretical initiatives. Namely, the Dependency School of Latin America, the Chinese School of International Relations, and the African School are respectively scrutinized to disclose the embedded Westerncentrism in these theoretical initiatives

Keywords

• Western-centrism
• Scientific Realism
• Dependency School
• Chinese School
• African School

References

1. Akgül, Pınar. “Non-Western International Relations Theories.” In Critical Approaches to International Relations: Philosophical Foundations and Current Debates, edited by M. Kürşad. Özekin and Engin Sune, 217-239. Leiden: Brill, 2021.
2. Amin, Samir. “Accumulation and development: a theoretical model.” Review of African Political Economy 1, no. 1 (1974): 9-26.
3. Anievas, Alexander, and Kerem Nişancıoğlu. “The Transition Debate: Theories and Critique,” in How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism, 13-42. London: Pluto Press, 2015.
4. Aydınlı, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Introduction: Widening the World of IR.” In Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorizing, edited by Ersel Aydınlı and Gonca Biltekin, 1-12. London: Routledge, 2018.
5. Baran, Paul. The Political Economy of Growth. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968.
6. Bell, Richard H. Understanding African Philosophy: A Cross-Cultural Approach to Classical and Contemporary Issues. New York: Routledge, 2002.
7. Bhaskar, Roy. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press, 1989.
8. Bilgin, Pınar. “Thinking Past Western IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5-23.

9. Booth, Ken. “Human Wrongs and International Relations.” International Affairs 71, no. 1 (1995): 103-126.
10. Booth, Ken. “Navigating the Absolute Novum': John H. Herz's Political Realism and Political Idealism.” International Relations 22, no. 4 (2008): 510-526.
11. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. “World History and the Development of non-Western International Relations Theory.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia, eds. Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 207-230. New York: Routledge, 2010.
12. Demir, Emre. “Chinese School of International Relations: Myth or Reality?” All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 6, no. 2 (2017): 95-104.
13. Dessler, David. “What’s at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?” International Organization 43, no. 3 (1989): 441-473.
14. Doyle, Michael. “Liberalism and World Politics.” The American Political Science Review 80, no. 4 (1986): 1151-1169.
15. Dunne, Tim. Inventing International Society: A History of English School. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998.
16. Feger, Hans. “Universalism vs. ‘All Under Heaven’ (Tianxia) – Kant in China.” Yearbook for Eastern and Western Philosophy, 4, no. 1 (2019): 193-207.
17. Frank, Andre Gunder. “The Development of Underdevelopment.” In Sociological Worlds Comparative and Historical Readings on Society, edited by Stephen K. Sanderson, 135-141. New York: Routledge, 2013.
18. Frank, Andre Gunder. Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1969.
19. Gaylard, Robert. “Welcome to the World of our Humanity: (African) Humanism, Ubuntu and Black South African Writing.” Journal of Literary Studies 20, no. 3 (2004): 265-282.
20. Geeta, Chowdhry, and Nair Sheila. “Introduction: Power in a Postcolonial World: Race, Gender, and Class, International Relations.” in Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender, and Class, edited by Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair, 1-32. London: Routledge, 2002.
21. Grovogui, Siba N. Beyond Eurocentrism and Anarchy: Memories of International Order and Institutions. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006. Hobson, John M. “Realism.” In The State and International Relations, 17-63. New York: Cambridge, 2003.
22. Grovogui, Siba N. Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
23. Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” International Security 23, no. 1 (1998): 171-200.
24. Isike, Christopher, and Lynda Chinenye Iroulo. “Introduction: Theorizing Africa’s International Relations.” African and Asian Studies 22, no. 1-2 (2023): 3-7.
25. Joseph, Jonathan. “Hegemony and the Structure-Agency problem in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Contribution.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 1 (2008): 109-128.
26. Kay, Cristobal. Latin American Theories of Development and Underdevelopment. London: Routledge, 2011.
27. Krishna, Sankaran. “Narratives in Contention: Indian, Sinhalese, and Tamil Nationalism.” In Postcolonial Insecurities: India, Sri Lanka, and the Question of Nationhood, 3-100. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
28. Liu, Yongtao. “Security theorizing in China Culture, evolution and social practice.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, eds. by Arlene Tickner and David Blaney, 72-91. London: Routledge, 2012.
29. Martin, William G. “The World-Systems Perspective in Perspective: Assessing the Attempt to Move Beyond Nineteenth-Century Eurocentric Conceptions.” Review 17, no. 2 (1994): 145-185.
30. Marx, Karl. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. New York: Die Revolution, 1852.
31. Mazrui, Ali A. Africa’s international relations: The diplomacy of dependency and change. New York: Routledge, 2019.
32. Mbembe, Achille. “African Modes of Self-Writing.” Public Culture 4, no. 1 (2002): 239–273.
33. Munck, Ronaldo. “Dependency and Imperialism in the New Times: A Latin American Perspective.” European Journal of Development Research 11, no. 1 (1999): 56-74.
34. Murithi, Tim. “Practical Peacemaking Wisdom from Africa: Reflections on Ubuntu.” The Journal of Pan African Studies 1, no. 4 (2006): 25-34.
35. Ngcoya, Mvuselelo. “Ubuntu: Toward an Emancipatory Cosmopolitanism?” International Political Sociology, 9, no. 3 (2015): 248-262.
36. Nielsen, Ras Tin, and Peter Marcus Kristensen. “You need to do something that the Westerners cannot understand: The innovation of a Chinese school of IR.” In Chinese Politics and International Relations: Innovation and Invention, edited by Nicola Horsburgh, Astrid Nordin, and Shaun Breslin, 97-118. London: Routledge, 2014.
37. Odoom, Isaac, and Nathan Andrews. “What/who is still missing in International Relations scholarship? Situating Africa as an agent in IR theorizing.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 1 (2017): 42-60.
38. Ofuho, Cirino H. “Africa: teaching IR where it’s not supposed to be.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene B.Tickner and Ole Wæver, 85-99. London: Routledge, 2009.
39. Özekin, M. Kürşad. “The Achievements of Dependency Approach as a Critical IR Theory.” In Critical Approaches to International Relations: Philosophical Foundations and Current Debates, edited by M. Kürşad Özekin and Engin Sune, 70-94. Leiden: Brill, 2021.
40. Parry, Benita. “Resistance Theory/Theorizing Resistance or Two Cheers for Nativism.” In Colonial Discourse/Postcolonial Theory, edited by Francis Barker, Peter Hulme and Margaret Iversen, 172-196. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994.
41. Peng, Lu. “Chinese IR Sino-centrism tradition and its influence on the Chinese School Movement.” The Pacific Review 32, no. 2 (2019): 150-167.
42. Powell, Robert. “Anarchy in International Relations Theory: The Neorealist-Neoliberal Debate.” International Organization 48, no. 2 (1994): 313-344.
43. Ren, Xiao. “Grown from within: Building a Chinese School of International Relations.” The Pacific Review 33, no. 3 (2020): 386-412.
44. Salem, Ahmed A. “A critique of failing International Relations theories in African tests, with emphasis on North African responses.” In Africa in Global International Relations, edited by Paul-Henri Bischoff, Kwesi Aning, and Amitav Acharya, 22-42. London: Routledge, 2016.
45. Seth, Sanjay. Postcolonial Theory and International Relations: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 2013.
46. Smith, Karen. “Contrived boundaries, kinship and ubuntu: A (South) African view of “the international.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and David Blaney, 301-322. London: Routledge, 2012.
47. Smith, Karen. “Reshaping international relations: theoretical innovations from Africa.” In Widening the World of International Relations, edited by Ersel Aydınlı and Gonca Biltekin, 142-156. London: Routledge, 2018.
48. Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou. “International Relations Theory and the Islamic Worldview.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory Perspectives on and beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 184-206. New York: Routledge, 2010.
49. Taylor, Ian. The International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa. London and New York: Continuum, 2010.
50. Tickner, Arlene B., and David Blaney. Thinking International Relations Differently. London: Routledge, 2012.
51. Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver. International Relations Scholarship around the World. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.
52. Tieku, Thomas Kwasi. “A New Research Agenda for Africa’s International Relations.” African Affairs 121, no. 484 (2022): 487-499.
53. Tieku, Thomas Kwasi. “Collectivist Worldview: Its Challenge to International Relations.” In Africa and International Relations in the 21st Century, edited by Scarlett Cornelissen, Fantu Cheru, and Tim Shaw, 36-50. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
54. Tieku, Thomas Kwasi. “The Legon School of International Relations.” Review of International Studies 47, no. 5 (2021): 656-671.
55. Tingyang, Zhao. “Rethinking Empire from a Chinese Concept ‘All-Under-Heaven’ (Tian-xia).” Social Identities 12, no. 1 (2006): 29-41.
56. Tingyang, Zhao. All Under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order, translated by Josephy E. Harroff. California: University of California Press, 2021.
57. Vale, Peter. “International Relations in Post-apartheid South Africa: Some Anniversary Questions.” Politikon 31, no. 2 (2004): 239-249.
58. Wang, Yiwei. “China, between copying and constructing.” in International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene B.Tickner and Ole Wæver, 117-133. London: Routledge, 2009.
59. Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
60. Yalvaç, Faruk. “Eleştirel Gerçekçilik: Uluslararası İlişkiler Kuramında Post-Pozitivizm Sonrası Aşama [Critical Realism: The Post-Positivist Phase in International Relations Theory].” Uluslararası İlişkiler 6, no. 24 (2010): 3-32.
61. Yalvaç, Faruk. “Karl Marx: Marksizm ve Uluslararası Tarihsel Sosyoloji [Karl Marx: Marxism and International Historical Sociology].” In Tarihsel Sosyoloji ve Uluslararası İlişkiler [Historical Sociology and International Relations], edited by Faruk Yalvaç, 11-42. Ankara: Nika 2017.
62. Young, Crawford. “The Heritage of Colonialism.” In Africa in World Politics: The African State System in Flux, edited by John W. Harbeson and Donald Rothchild, 9-26. Colorado: Westview Press, 2000.