Locating a Multifaceted and Stratified Disciplinary ‘Core’

Yıl 2020, , 177 - 210, 30.06.2020

Helen Louise Turton

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.716725

Cited By: 4

Öz

Disciplinary depictions using the core-periphery distinction are often premised on a ‘blurred’ and/or monolithic understanding of the core. For instance, the ‘core’ is often conceptualized broadly to include Western Europe and North America, or narrowly to refer to just the United States. Simultaneously the corresponding disciplinary self-images often refer to the core and the periphery as fixed and homogenous entities, which overlook the often diverse tendencies and hierarchies within the predefined space. This article therefore seeks to highlight the changing geographies of the core/periphery distinction in order to reveal the presence of different cores because there are different core properties. What this means is that the ‘core’ can appear in surprising spaces and occupy geographies that are normally associated with the periphery. In order to specifically illustrate certain workings and reach of the ‘core’ within spaces typically conceptualized as ‘peripheral’ this article will draw on existing data and research. The resultant empirical sketch will show how the ‘core’ is able to extend its reach and produce further epistemic hierarchies within peripheral spaces. In locating IR’s different cores and their hidden geographies this article aims to destabilize the core-periphery distinction in order to move beyond this disciplinary and disciplining archetype.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Periphery, core, epistemic hierarchies, international relations, disciplinary self-images

Kaynakça

• Acharya, Amitav. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 4–15.
• –––. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West.” Millennium 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–37.
• –––. “Theorising the International Relations of Asia: Necessity of Indulgence? Some Reflections.” The Pacific Review 30, no. 6 (2017): 816–28.
• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An introduction.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.
• –––. “Why is There non Non-Western IR Theory? Ten Years On.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 17, no. 3 (2017): 341–70.
• Adamson, Fiona B. “Spaces of Global Security: Beyond Methodological Nationalism.” Journal of Global Security Studies 1, no. 1 (2016): 19-35.
• Adiong, Nassef Manabilang, Raffaele Mauriello, and Deina Abdelkader, eds. Islam in International Relations: Politics and Paradigms. Oxon: Routledge, 2018.
• Alagappa, Muthiah. “International Relations Studies in Asia: Distinctive Trajectories.” International Relations of the Pacific 11, no. 2 (2011): 193–230.
• Alejandro, Audrey. “The Narrative of Academic Dominance: How to Overcome Performing the ‘Core-Periphery’ Divide.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017): 300–04.
• –––. Western Dominance in International Relations? The Internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India. Oxon: Routledge, 2019.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorising.” All Azimuth 7, no. 1 (2018): 45–68.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin, eds. Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorising. Oxon: Routledge, 2018.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and the Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289–303.
• Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory Out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (2008): 693–712.
• Behera, Navnita Chadha. “Re-Imaging in India.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 341–68.
• –––. “South Asia: A ‘Realist’ Past and Alternative Futures.” In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, edited by Arlene Tickner, and Ole Wæver, 137–57. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
• Biersteker, Thomas. “The Parochialism of Hegemony: Challenges for ‘American’ International Relations.” In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, 308–27. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
• Bilgin, Pinar. “Contrapuntal Reading” as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 134–46.
• –––. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23.
• Bond, David. “Thomson Reuters in $3.55bn sale of IP and science business.” Financial Times, July 11, 2016. Accessed June 2, 2019. https://www.ft.com/content/81697af2-4778-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab.
• Buzan, Barry. “Could IR Be Different?” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 155–57.
• Cardoso, Fernando, and Enzo Faletto. Dependency and Development in Latin America. California: University of California Press, 1979.
• Chatterjee, S Shibashis. “Western Theories and the non-Western World: A Search for Relevance.” South Asian Survey 21, no. 1&2 (2017): 1–19.
• Chen, Ching-Chang. “The Absence of Non-Western International Relations Theory in Asia Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 11, no. 1 (2011): 1–23.
• Choi, Jong Kun. “Theorizing East Asian International Relations in Korea.” Asian Perspective 32, no. 1 (2008): 193–216.
• Connell, Raewyn. Southern Theory: Social Science and the Global Dynamics of Knowledge. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
• Cox, Wayne, and Kim Richard Nossal. “The ‘Crimson World’: The Anglo Core, the Post-Imperial Non-Core, and the Hegemony of American IR.” In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, 287–307. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
• D’Aoust, Anne-Marie. “Accounting for the Politics of Language in the Sociology of IR.” Journal of International Relations and Development 15, no. 1 (2012): 120–31.
• Deciancio, Melissa. “International Relations for the South: A Regional Research Agenda for Global IR.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 106–99.
• Duszak, Anna, and Jo Lewkowicz. “Publishing academic texts in English: A Polish Perspective.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7, no. 2 (2008): 108–20..
• Escudé, Carlos. “Argentina's Grand Strategy in Times of Hegemonic Transition: China, Peripheral Realism and Military Imports.” Revista De Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia y Seguridad 10, no/ 1 (2015): 21–39.
• –––. “Realism in the Periphery.” In Routledge Handbook of Latin America in the World, edited by J. Dominguez and A. Covarrubias, 45–57. Oxon: Routledge, 2014.
• Eun, Yong-Soo, and Kamila Pieczara. “Getting Asia Right and Advancing the Field of IR.” Political Studies Review 11, no. 3 (2013): 369–77.
• Ferguson, Yale. “The Transatlantic Tennis Match in IR Theory: Personal Reflections.” European Review of International Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 8–24.
• Friedrichs, Jörg. European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions. London: Routledge, 2004.
• Friedrichs, Jörg, and Ole Wæver. “Western Europe: Structure and Strategy at the National and Regional Levels.” In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, 261–86. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
• Galtung, Johan. “A Structural Theory of Imperialism.” Journal of Peace Research 8, no. 2 (1971): 81–117.
• Garfield, Eugene. “How the ISI Selects Journals for Coverage: Quantitative and Qualitative Considerations.” Current Contents 22 (1990):185–93.
• Giesen, Klaus-Gerd. “France and Other French-Speaking Countries 1945-1994.” In International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations, edited by Knud Erik Jørgensen, and Tonny Brems Knudsen, 72-99. Oxon: Routledge, 2006.
• Grenier, Felix, and Jonas Hagmann. “Sites of Knowledge (Re)Production: Toward an Institutional Sociology of IR Scholarship.” International Studies Review 18, no. 2 (2016): 333–65.
• Grondin, David. “Languages as Institutions of Power/Knowledge in Canadian Critical Security Studies: a personal tale of an insider/outsider.” Critical Studies on Security 2, no. 1 (2014): 39–58.
• Hagmann, Jonas, and Thomas J. Biersteker. “Beyond the Published Discipline: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of International Studies.” European Journal of International Relations 20, no. 2 (2014): 291–315.
• Hamel, Rainer E. “The Dominance of English in the International Scientific Periodical Literature and the Future of Language Use in Science.” AILA Review 20 (2007): 53–71.
• Hellmann, Gunther. “Methodological Transnationalism – Europe’s Offering to Global IR.” European Review of International Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 25–37.
• Holsti, Kal. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. London: Allen & Unwin, 1985.
• Hurrell, Andrew. “Towards the Global Study of International Relations.” Revista Brasileira de Politica Internacional 58, no. 2 (2016): 1–18.
• Hutchingson, Kim. “Dialogue between Whom? The Role of the West/Non-West Distinction in Promoting Global Dialogue in IR.” Millennium 39, no. 3 (2011): 639–47.
• Jenkins, Katy. “Exploring Hierarchies of Knowledge in Peru: Scaling Urban Grassroots Women Health Promoters’ Expertise.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41, no. 4 (2009): 879–95.
• Jørgensen, Knud Erik. “After Hegemony in International Relations, or, the Persistent Myth of American Disciplinary Hegemony.” 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. 9 (2000): 9–42.
• Jørgensen, Knud Erik, Audrey Alejandro, Alexander Reichwein, Felix Rösch, and Helen Louise Turton. Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.
• Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Tonny Brems Knudsen, eds. International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations. Oxon: Routledge, 2006.
• Kayaoglu, Turan. “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 12, no. 2 (2010): 193–217.
• Kojo, Yoshiko. “Global Issues and Business in International Relations: Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Medicines.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 18, no. 1 (2018): 5–23.
• Kristensen, Peter Marcus. “Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations.” International Studies Review 14, no. 1 (2012): 32–50.
• –––. “International Relations in China and Europe: the Case for Interregional Dialogue in a Hegemonic Discipline.” The Pacific Review 28, no. 2 (2015): 161–87.
• –––. “Navigating the Core-Periphery Structures of ‘Global’ IR: Dialogues and Audiences for the Chinese School as Traveling Theory.” In Constructing a Chinese School of International Relations: Ongoing Debates and Sociological Realities, edited by Yongjin Zhang and Teng-Chi Chang, 143–62. New York: Routledge, 2016.
• –––. “Revisiting the "American Social Science" – Mapping the Geography of International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 16, no. 3 (2015): 246–69.
• Kubálkova, Vendulka. “The ‘Take-Off’ of the Czech IR Discipline.” Journal of International Relations and Development 12, no. 2 (2009): 205–20.
• Kuru, Deniz. “Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholars, Theory.” All Azimuth 7, no. 1 (2018): 69–86.
• Lake, David. “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 567–87.
• Larivière Vincent, Stefanie Haustein and Philippe Mongeon. “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” PLOS ONE 10, no. 6 (2015): 1–15.
• Lebedeva, Marina M. “International Relations Studies the USSR/Russia: Is there a Russian National School of IR Studies?” Global Society 18, no. 3 (2004): 263–78. Makarychev, Andrey, and Viatcheslav Morozov. “Is ‘Non-Western Theory’ Possible? The Idea of Multipolarity and the Trap of Epistemological Relativism in Russian IR.” International Studies Review 15 no. 3 (2013): 328–50.
• Maliniak, Daniel, Susan Peterson, Ryan Powers, and Michael J. Tierney. “TRIP 2014 Faculty Survey.” Williamsburg, VA: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, 2014. Accessed June 2, 2019. https://trip.wm.edu/charts/
• Mallavarapu, Siddharth. “Development of International Relations Theory in India: Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories.” International Studies 46, no. 1-2 (2009): 165–83.
• Mansbach, Richard. “Among the Very Best: A Brief Selection of European Contributors and Contributions to IR Theory.” European Review of International Studies 1, no. 1 (2014): 80–7.
• Mansour, Imad. “A Global South Perspective on International Relations Theory.” International Studies Perspectives 18, no. 1 (2017): 2-3.
• Mearsheimer, John. “Benign Hegemony.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 147–49.
• Morgan, John. “Branching Out” The Times Higher Education, February 3, 2011. Accessed June 2, 2019. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/branching-out/415018.article
• Moshirzadeh, Homeira. “Iranian Scholars and Theorizing International Relations: Achievements and Challenges.” All Azimuth 7, no. 1 (2018): 103–19.
• Niang, Amy. “The imperative of African perspectives on International Relations (IR).” Politics 36, no. 4 (2016): 453–66. Nossal, Kim Richard. “Tales That Textbooks Tell: Ethnocentricity and Diversity in American Introductions to 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, 167–86. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001.
• Odoom, Isaac, and Nathan Andrews. “What/Who is still Missing in International Relations Scholarship? Situating Africa as an Agent in IR Theorising.” Third World Quarterly 38, no. 1 (2017): 42–60.
• Paasi, Anssi. “Globalisation, Academic Capitalism, and the Uneven Geographies of International Journal Publishing Space.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 35, no. 5 (2005): 769–89. Puchala, Donald. “Some Non-Western Perspectives on International Relations.” Journal of Peace Research 34, no. 2 (1997): 129–34.
• Rokkan, Stein, and Derek W. Urwin. Economy, Territory, Identity: Politics of West European Peripheries. London: Sage, 1983.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. “Introducing Sufism to International Relations Theory: A Preliminary Inquiry into Ontological, Epistemological and Methodological Pathways.” European Journal of International International Relations 25, no. 1 (2019): 250–75.
• Shahi, Deepshikha, and Gennaro Ascione. “Rethinking the Absence of Post-Western IR Theory in India: ‘Advancing Monism’ as an Alternative Epistemological Resource.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 2 (2016): 313–34.
• Shambaugh, David. “International Relations Studies in China Today: History, Trends and Prospects.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 11, no. 3 (2011): 339–72.
• 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.
• Shilliam, Robbie, ed. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity. Oxon: Routledge, 2011.
• Smith, Karen. “Has Africa Got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations.” The Round Table 98, no. 402 (2009): 269–84.
• –––. “Reshaping International Relations: Theoretical Innovations from Africa.” All Azimuth 8, no. 2 (2018): 81–92.
• Smith, Steve. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.’” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 67–85.
• Streitwieser, Bernhard, and Bradley Beecher. “Information Sharing in the Age of Hyper-competition: Opening an International Branch Campus.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning Learning 49, no. 6 (2017): 44–50.
• Taylor, Lucy. “Decolonizing International Relations: Perspectives from Latin America.” International Studies Review 14, no. 3 (2012): 386–400.
• Testa, James. “The Thomson Scientific Journal Selection Process.” Contributions to Science 4, no. 1 (2008): 69–73.
• Tickner, Arlene. “Core, Periphery and (neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627–46.
• –––. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 4, no. 4 (2008): 325–50.
• Tickner, Arlene, and David Blaney, eds. Thinking International Relations Differently. Oxon: Routlegde, 2012.
• Tingyang, Zhao. “A Political World Philosophy in terms of All-under-heaven (Tian-xia).” 56, no. 1 (2009): 5–18.
• –––. “Redefining Political Concepts with Tianxia: Problems, Conditions and Methods.” World Economics and Politics 6 (2015): 4–22.
• –––. The System of Tianxia – All-Under Heaven: A Philosophy of World Institutions. Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Publishing House, 2005.
• Turton, Helen L. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. Oxon Routledge, 2016.
• Turton, Helen L., and Lucas Freire. “Peripheral Possibilities: Revealing Originality and Encouraging Dialogue through a Reconsideration of ‘Marginal’ IR Scholarship.” Journal of International Relations and Development 19, no. 4 (2016): 534–57.
• Uzuner, Sedef. “Multilingual Scholar’s Participation in Core/Global Academic Communities: A literature review.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7 (2008): 250–63.
• Vasilaki, Rosa. “Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory.” Millennium 41, no. 1 (2012): 3–22.
• Wæver, Ole. “Still a Discipline After All These Debates?” In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, Fourth Edition, edited by Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, 300–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
• –––. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52, no. 4 (1998): 687–727.
• Wang, Yiwei. “China: Between Copying and Constructing.” In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, edited by Arlene B. Tickner and Ole Wæver, 103–19. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
• Xuetong, Yan. Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019.
• –––. “Political Leadership and Power Redistribution.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 9, no. 1 (2016): 1–26.
• Xuetong, Yan, Duncan Bell, and Sun Zhe. Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011.
• Yaqing, Qin. “A Multiverse of Knowledge: Cultures and IR Theories.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 11, no. 4 (2018): 415–34.
• –––. “A Relational Theory of World Politics.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 33–47.
• –––. A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• Zegeye, Aabebe, and Maurice Vambe. “Knowledge Production and Publishing in Africa.” Development Southern Africa 23, no. 6 (2006): 333–49.
• Zhang, Yongjin, and Peter Marcus Kristensen. “The Curious Case of ‘Schools’ of IR: from Sociology to Geopolitics of Knowledge.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 10, no. 4 (2017): 429–54.
• Zhang, Yongjin, and Teng-Chi Chang, eds. Constructing a Chinese School of International Relations: Ongoing Debates and Sociological Realities. New York: Routledge, 2016.