Reshaping International Relations: Theoretical Innovations from Africa

Yıl 2018, , 81 - 92, 13.06.2018

Karen Smith

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.335811

Cited By: 1

Öz

This article is based on the assumption that theoretical contributions from the

global South – and in this case, from Africa, do not need to be radically different

from existing theories to constitute an advancement in terms of engendering

a better understanding of international relations. Reinterpretations or

modifications of existing frameworks and the introduction of new concepts

for understanding are equally important. This is an accepted practice in

mainstream IR, where existing theories are constantly amended and revisited.

One need only consider the various incarnations of realist thought.While

adaptations and conceptual innovations by western scholars are recognised

as legitimate and adopted into the canon of theory, this is not always the case

with similar contributions emerging from outside of the West. This article will

examine three examples of such contributions by African scholars.1The first

group of scholars reinterpreted the concept of “middle power,” arguing that

there are specific characteristics that set emerging middle powers like South

Africa apart from traditional middle powers. The second, Deon Geldenhuys,

developed the concept “isolated states” and generated a novel analytical

framework to categorise states based on indicators of isolation. Finally, Thomas

Tieku draws on the African worldview of ubuntu in calling for the state to be

reconceptualised in a collectivist, societal way. It is hoped that these examples

will illustrate that there are theoretical innovations emerging from the Global

South that can assist us in not only better understanding international relations

in a particular part of the world, but can in fact provide greater insights into

the field as a whole.

Anahtar Kelimeler

South Africa, middle power, emerging states, ubuntu, homegrown theorizing, non-Western IR

Kaynakça

• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is there no non-Western IR theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287-312.
• Aron, Raymond. "What Is a Theory of International Relations?" Journal of International Affairs 21, no. 2 (1967): 185-206.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Matthews. “Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1 (2000): 289-303.
• Ayoob, Mohamed. “Subaltern Realism: International Relations Theory Meets the Third World.” In International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by Stephanie G. Neuman, 31-54. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 1998.
• Bajpai, Kanti. “Obstacles to Good Work in Indian International Relations.” International Studies 46, no. 1-2 (2009): 109-28.
• Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5-23. doi:10.1080/01436590701726392.
• Bleiker, Roland. “Searching for Difference in a Homogeneous Discipline.” International Studies Review 8 (2006):
• Brown, William. “Africa in International Relations: A Comment on IR Theory, Anarchy and Statehood.” Review of International Studies 32 (2006):
• Clapham, Christopher. Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
• Cooper, Andrew, ed. Niche Diplomacy: Middle Powers after the Cold War. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 1997.
• Cunningham-Cross, Linsay. “The Innovation Imperative: Chinese International Relations Research and the Search for a ‘Chinese School’.” Unpublished paper, n.d.
• Dunn, Kevin, C. and Timothy M. Shaw, eds. Africa’s Challenge to International Relations Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.
• Gaylard, Rob. “Welcome to the World of Our Humanity”: (African) Humanism, ubuntu and Black South African Writing.” Journal of Literary Studies 20, no. 3-4 (2004): 268-82.
• Geldenhuys, Deon. Deviant Conduct in World Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
• ——— . The Diplomacy of Isolation: South African Foreign Policy Making. Johannesburg: Macmillan South Africa, 1984.
• ——— . Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
• Gill, Stephen. “Transformation and Innovation in the Study of World Order.” In Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, edited by Stephen Gill and James H. Mittelman, 5-24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• Jordaan, Eduard. “The Concept of a Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing Between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers.” Politikon 30, no. 1 (2003): 165-81.
• Kimmerle, Heinz. “Ubuntu and Communalism in African Philosophy and Art.” Rozenberg Quarterly, September 2011. Accessed August 10, 2016. http://rozenbergquarterly.com/ubuntu-and-communalism-in-african-philosophy-and-art/ .
• Le Pere, Garth. “South Africa – an ‘Emerging Power’?” Global Dialogue 3, no.1 (1998): 1-2.
• Mazrui, Ali. “On the Concept of “We are all Africans.” American Political Science Review 57, no. 1 (1963): 88-97.
• ———. Towards a Pax Africana: A Study of Ideology and Ambition. London: Wakefield & Nicolson, 1967.
• Mallavarapu, Siddharth. “Theories of International Relations.” In International Relations: Perspectives for the Global South, edited by Bhupinder Chimni and Siddharth Mallavarapu. New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley, 2012.
• Mittelman, James H. “Rethinking Innovation in International Studies: Global Transformation at the Turn of the Millennium.” In Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, edited by S. Gill and J. H. Mittelman, 248-63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• Murithi, Tim. “A Local Response to the Global Human Rights Standard: The ‘Ubuntu’ Perspective on Human Dignity.” Globalization, Societies and Education 5, no. 3 (2007): 277-86.
• ——— . “Practical Peacemaking Wisdom from Africa: Reflections on Ubuntu.” The Journal of Pan African Studies 1, no. 4 (2006): 25-34.
• Nel, P., I. Taylor, and J. van der Westhuizen. “Multilateralism in South Africa’s Foreign Policy: The Search for a Critical Rationale.” Global Governance 6, no. 1 (2000): 43-60.
• Neuman, Stephanie, ed. International Relations Theory and the Third World. Houndsmills: Macmillan, 1998.
• Nkiwane, Tandeka. “Africa and International Relations: Regional Lessons for a Global Discourse.” International Political Science Review 22, no. 3 (2001): 279-90.
• Schoeman, Maxi. “South Africa as an Emerging Middle Power.” African Security Review 9, no. 3 (2000): 47-58.
• ——— . “South Africa: Between History and a Hard Place.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Waever, London: Routledge, 53-70. 2009.
• Smith, Karen. “Contrived Boundaries, Kinship and Ubuntu: A (South) African View of the ‘International’.” In Thinking International Relations Differently, edited by A. Tickner and D. Blaney, 301-21. London: Routledge, 2012.
• ——— . “Has Africa Got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations.” The Round Table 98, no. 402 (2009): 269-84.
• ———. “Obstacles to the Development of IR Theory in the Developing World: The Case of South Africa.” Africa Review 2, no. 1 (2010): 65-80.
• Solomon, Hussein. “South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership.” In Fairy Godmother, Hegemon or Partner? In Search of a South African Foreign Policy, edited by Hussein Solomon. Halfway House: Institute for Security Studies Monograph Series, 1997.
• South African Government. “White Paper on South African Foreign Policy- Building a Better World: The Diplomacy of Ubuntu.” Accessed September 1, 2016. http://www.gov.za/documents/white-paper-south-african-foreign-policy-building-better-world-diplomacy-ubuntu.
• Swanson, D.M. “Ubuntu: An African Contribution to (Re)search for/with a ‘Humble Togetherness’.” Journal of Contemporary Issues in Education 2, no. 2 (2007): 53-67.
• Tickner, Arlene, and David Blaney, eds. Thinking International Relations Differently. London: Routledge, 2012.
• Tickner, Arlene, and Ole Wæver, eds. International Relations Scholarship around the World. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.
• Tieku, Thomas Kwasi. “Collectivist Worldview: Its Challenge to International Relations.” In Africa and International Relations in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Fantu Cheru, Timothy Shaw, and Scarlett Cornelissen, 36-50. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
• ———. “Solidarity Intervention: Emerging Trends in AU’s Interventions in African Crisis.” Speaking notes for the workshop on Africa International: Agency and Interdependency in a Changing World, Chatham House, London, UK, October 9, 2009.
• Vale, Peter. “International Relations in Post‐apartheid South Africa: Some Anniversary Questions.” Politikon 31, no. 2 (November 1, 2004): 239-49. doi:10.1080/0258934042000280751.
• van der Westhuizen, Janis. "South Africa's Emergence as a Middle Power." Third World Quarterly 19, no. 3 (1998): 435-55.