Teoriyi Batı ve Batı-Dışı Ayrımının Ötesinde Düşünmek: Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler Fikri Üzerine Eleştirel Bir İnceleme

Öz

Bu makale, 2014 yılında Amitav Acharya tarafından gündeme getirilmiş olan Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikrini, Uluslararası İlişkiler teorileri bağlamında analiz etmektedir. Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikri, disiplininin daha kapsayıcı, çoğulcu ve gerçek manada evrensel bir hale gelebilmesi için Batı/Batı-dışı, Kuzey/Küresel Güney, Batı/Batı Sonrası, Batı/Geriye Kalan gibi ikiliklerin aşılabildiği bir teorik birikimin inşa edilmesi gerektiğini varsaymaktadır. Ancak bu makalede de iddia edildiği gibi özellikle disiplinin mevcut durumu ve Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikrinin daha emekleme aşamasında olan bir fikir olduğu göz önünde bulundurulduğunda bunu başarmak kısa vadede oldukça zordur. Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikri, teoriye evrensel nitelik ve birikim kazandıracak bir çerçeve çizmede başarılı olmasına rağmen pratikte hayata geçirilmesini engelleyen birçok zorluk ile karşı karşıyadır. Bu makalede, öncelikle Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikrine giden yolun taşlarını döşeyen Batı/Batı-dışı teori tartışmasının seyri iki ayrı bölümde ele alınmaktadır. Ardından gelen iki bölümde sırasıyla Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikrinin temel varsayımları ve pratikte uygulanabilirliği eleştirel bir analize tabi tutulmaktadır. Son olarak ise Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikrinin gelişimine katkı sunacağı düşünülen tavsiyelerin yer aldığı genel bir değerlendirme ile makale sonlandırılmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler
• Batı-merkezcilk
• Batı-dışı Teori
• Diyalog
• Çoğulculuk

Thinking Theory beyond the Western and Non-Western Distinction: A Critical Review of the Idea of Global International Relations

Öz

This article analyzes the idea of Global International Relations, which was raised by Amitav Acharya in 2014, in the context of theories of International Relations. The idea of Global International Relations assumes that in order for the discipline to become more inclusive, pluralistic and truly universal, it is necessary to build a theoretical accumulation where dualities such as West / Non-West, North / Global South, West / Post West, West / Rest can be overcome. But, as this article claims, this is quite difficult to achieve in the short term, especially given the current state of discipline and the idea of Global International Relations is an idea that is in its infancy. Although the idea of Global International Relations succeeds in drawing a framework that will give the theory a universal character and knowledge, it faces many difficulties that prevent it from being implemented in practice. The first two sections of this article discuss the course of the Western/non-Western theory debate that paved the way for the idea of Global International Relations. In the following two sections, the basic assumptions and practical applicability of the idea of Global International Relations are subjected to a critical analysis, respectively. Finally, the article is concluded with a general evaluation with recommendations that are considered to contribute to the development of the idea of Global International Relations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Western-centrism
• Non-Western Theory
• Global International Relations
• Dialogue
• Pluralism

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and discovery: In search of international relations theories beyond the West, Millennium: Journal Of International Studies, 39 (3), 619-637.
2. Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies, International Studies Quarterly, 58 (4), 647-659.
3. Acharya, A. (2015). An IR for the global south or a global IR. [Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2015/10/21/an-ir-for-the-global-south-or-a-global-ir/], Retrieved on April 11, 2021.
4. Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing global IR: Challenges, contentions, and contributions. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 4-15. Acharya, A. (2017). Towards a global international relations?. [Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2017/12/10/towards-a-global-international-relations/], Retrieved on April 10, 2021.
5. Acharya, A. (2019). Towards global international relations, In A. Acharya ve B. Buzan (Eds.), The making of global international relations origins and evolution of IR at its centenary (285-320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? an introduction. International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific, 7 (3), 287–312.
6. Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2010). Conclusion: On the possibility of a non-Western international relations theory. In A. Acharya & B. Buzan (Eds.), Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia (221-238). London and New York: Routledge.
7. Acharya, A. & Buzan, B. (2017). Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? ten years on”, International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific, 17 (3), 341-370.
8. Alker, H. & Biersteker, T. (1984). The dialectics of world order: Notes for a future archeologist of international savoir faire. International Studies Quarterly, 28 (2), 121–142.

9. Andrews, N. (2020). International relations (IR) pedagogy, dialogue and diversity: Taking the IR course syllabus seriously. All Azimuth, 9 (2), 267-281.
10. Angotti, T. (1981). The political implications of dependency theory. Latin American Perspectives, 8 (3/4), 124-137.
11. Aydınlı, E. & Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and the periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1 (3), 289–303.
12. Aydınlı, E. & Biltekin, G. (2018). Widening the world of IR: A typology of homegrown theorizing. All Azimuth, 7 (1), 45-68.
13. Ayoob, M. (1997). Defining security: A subaltern realist perspective. In K. Krause & M. C. Williams (Eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, ss. 121-146.
14. Babones, S. (2020), From Tianxia to Tianxia: The generalization of a concept, Chinese Political Science Review, 5 (2), 131-147.
15. Baipaj, K. (2003). Indian conceptions of order and justice: Nehruvian, Gandhian, Hindutva, and neo-liberal. In R. Foot, J. Gaddis & A. Hurrell (Eds.), Order and justice in international relations (236-261), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Behera, N. C. (2007). Re–imagining IR in India. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 7 (3), 341–68.
17. Bentil, S. (2020). When you think of a global IR theory, think Uhuru Na Ujamaa?. Asian Research Journal of Arts & Social Sciences, 10 (1), 8-20.
18. Bilgin, P. (2005). Uluslararası ilişkiler çalışmalarında merkez-çevre: Türkiye nerede?. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 2 (6), 3-14. Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking past Western IR. Third World Quarterly, 29 (1), 5-23.
19. Bilgin, P. (2016). Contrapuntal reading as a method, an ethos, and a metaphor for global IR. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 134–146,
20. Bilgin, P. (2018). How to globalise IR?. [Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/04/22/how-to-globalise-ir/], Retrieved on April 17, 2021.
21. Biltekin, G. (2015). Özgün teori inşası ve Batı-dışı uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri. İç. R. Gözen (Der.), Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri (517-564), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
22. Breunıng, M., Bredehoft, J. & Walton, E. (2005). Promise and performance: An evaluation of journals in international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6 (4), 447-461.
23. Breuning, M., Feinberg, A., Gross, B. I., Martinez, M., Sharma, R. & Ishiyama, J. (2018). How international is political science? Patterns of submission and publication in the American Political Science Review. PS: Political Science & Politics , 51 (4), 789-798.
24. Buzan, B. (2018). How and how not to develop IR theory: Lessons from core and periphery. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11 (4), 391-414.
25. Callahan, W. A. (2008). Chinese visions of world order: post-hegemonic or a new hegemony?. International Studies Review, 10 (4), 749-761.
26. Cardoso, F. H. & Faletto, E. (1979). Dependency and development in Latin America, Berkeley: University of California Press.
27. Carr, E. H. (1946). The Twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939: An introduction to the study of international relations. London: Macmillan & Co.
28. Chen, C. C. (2011). The absence of non–Western IR theory in Asia reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 11 (1), 1–23.
29. Chen, C. C. (2012). The im/possibility of building indigenous theories in a hegemonic discipline: the case of Japanese international relations”, Asian Perspective, 36 (3), 463-492.
30. Chon, A. (2010). Southeast Asia: Theory between modernization and tradition. In A. Acharya & Barry Buzan (Eds.), Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia (117-147), London and New York: Routledge.
31. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10 (2), 126-155.
32. Çapan, Z. G. & Zarakol, A. (2018). Between ‘East’ and ‘West’: Travelling theories, travelling imaginations. In A. Gofas, I. H. Ataya & N. Onuf (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the history, philosophy and sociology of international relations (122-133), London: Sage Publications.
33. Dankbaar, S. (2012). The U.S. monopoly in international relations and history: a comparative analysis of leading academic journals, Groningen: University of Groningen Press.
34. Dos Santos, T. (1970). The structure of dependence. American Economic Review, 60 (2), 231-36.
35. Dunne, A. P. (1996). International theory: To the brink and beyond. Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
36. Eun, Y. S. (2016). Pluralism and engagement in the discipline of international relations, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
37. Eun, Y. S. (2018). Beyond ‘the West/non-West divide’ in IR: How to ensure dialogue as mutual learning. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11 (4), 435-449.
38. Eun, Y. S. (2019a). An intellectual confession from a member of the ‘non-white’ IR community: a friendly reply to david lake’s ‘white man’s IR. PS: Political Science and Politics, 52 (1), 78-84.
39. Eun, Y. S. (2019b). Opening up the debate over ‘Non-Western’ international relations. Politics, 39 (1), 4-17.
40. Eun, Y. S. (2020). Calling for reflexive solidarity in international relations. [Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/12/calling-for-reflexive-solidarity-in-international-relations/), Retrieved on April 1, 2021.
41. Fonseca, M. (2019). Global IR and Western dominance: moving forward or Eurocentric entrapment?. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 48 (1), 45-59.
42. Friedrichs, Jörg (2004). European approaches to international relations theory: A house with many mansions. London and New York: Routledge.
43. Geldenhuys, D. (1990). Isolated states: A comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Goh, E. (2019). “US dominance and American bias in international relations scholarship: A view from the outside. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4 (3), 402–410.
45. Grosser, A. (1956). L'étude des relations internationales, spécialité américaine?. Revue Française de Science Politique, 6 (3), 634-651.
46. Hills, J. (1994). Dependency theory and its relevance today: International institutions in telecommunications and structural power. Review of International Studies, 20 (2), 169-186.
47. Hobson, J. M. (2007). Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphillian towards a post-racist IR. Review of International Studies, 33 (1), 91-116.
48. Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric conception of world politics Western international theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Hoffman, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations”, Daedalus, 106 (3), 41-60.
50. Holsti, K. J. (1985). The dividing discipline: Hegemony and diversity in international theory. London: Allen & Unwin Press. Hurrell, A. (2016). Beyond critique: How to study global IR?”. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 149–151.
51. Hutchings, K. (2011). Dialogue between whom? The role of the West/non-West distinction in promoting global dialogue in IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39 (3), 639-647.
52. Ikenberry, G. J. & Mastanduno, M. (2003). Conclusion: Images of order in the Asia- Pacific and the role of the United States. In G. J. Ikenberry & M. Mastanduno (Eds.), International relations theory and the Asia- Pacific (421-439), New York: Columbia University Press.
53. Kalpakian, J. (2008). Ibn Khaldun’s influence on current international relations theory. The Journal of North African Studies, 13 (3), 363-376.
54. Kang, D. C. (2003). Getting Asia wrong: The need for new analytical frameworks. International Security, 27 (4), 57–85.
55. Katzenstein, P. J. (1997). Introduction: Asian regionalism in comparative perspective. In P. J. Katzenstein & T. Shiraishi (Eds.), Network power: Japan and Asia (1-44), New York: Cornell University Press.
56. Katzenstein, P. J. (2018). The second coming? Reflections on a global theory of international relations”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11 (4), 373–390.
57. Kayaoğlu, T. (2010). Westphalian Eurocentrism in international relations theory. International Studies Review, 12 (2), 193-217.
58. Kayaoğlu, T. (2014). Batı-merkezli olmayan uluslararası ilişkiler kuramı ve İslam. İç. Ş. Kardaş ve A. Balcı (Der.), Uluslararası ilişkilere giriş (198-207), İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
59. Kolmas, M. & Kozisek, D. (2020). A sociological survey of Japanese international relations journals and university education: Still a discipline ‘in between’?”. Social Science Japan Journal, 23 (2), 299–313.
60. Koyoma, H. & Buzan, B. (2019). Rethinking Japan in mainstream international relations. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 19 (2), 185–212.
61. Köstem, S. (2015). International relations theories and Turkish international relations: Observations based on a book. All Azimuth, 4 (1), 59-66.
62. Kristensen, P. M. (2019). Southern sensibilities advancing third wave sociology of international relations in the case of Brazil. Journal of International Relations and Development, 22 (2), 468-494.
63. Kusnezow, A. (1995). “A new model for traditional civilisations. International Affairs (Moscow), 41 (4-5), 95-100.
64. Kuru, D. (2020). Dialogue of the “Globals”: Connecting global IR to global intellectual history. All Azimuth, 9 (2), 229-248.
65. Lake, D. (2011). Why ‘Isms’ are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55 (2), 465–480.
66. Lake, D. (2013). Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism. European Journal of International Relations, 19 (3), 567–587.
67. Lake, D. (2016). White man’s IR: An intellectual confession. Perspectives on Politics, 14 (4), 1112–1122.
68. Mahoney, J. & Rodriguez, F. D. (2018). Dependency theory. In C. Lancaster & N. van de Walle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the politics of development (22-42), New York: Oxford University Press.
69. Malinak, D., Peterson, S. Powers, R. & Tierney, M. J. (2018). Is international relations a global discipline? Hegemony, insularity, and diversity in the field. Security Studies, 27 (3), 448-484.
70. Mearsheimer, J. J. (2016). Benign hegemony. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 147-149.
71. Mena, F. P. (2020). The trap of diversity: what constitutes ‘Non-Western IR theory’?. [Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/08/the-trap-of-diversity-what-constitutes-non-western-ir-theory/], Retrieved on January 30, 2021.
72. Misra, A. (2016). Rajamandala theory and India’s international relations. Nação e Defesa, 142, 10-27.
73. Modelski, G. (1964). Kautilya: Foreign policy and international system in the ancient Hindu World. American Political Science Review, 58 (3), 549-560.
74. Narain, S. (2020). International Relations Theory: Still a White Man’s Burden. [Available online at: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/29/international-relations-theory-still-a-white-mans-burden/], Retrieved on March 10, 2021.
75. Neuman, S. G. (1998). International relations theory and the third world: An oxymoron?. In S. G. Neuman (Ed.), International relations theory and the third World (1-29), London: Palgrave Macmillan.
76. Qin, Y. (2007). Why is there no Chinese international relations theory. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7 (3), 313–340.
77. Qin, Y. (2011). Rule, rules, and relations: Towards a synthetic approach to governance. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 4 (2), 117–145.
78. Paul, T.V. (2017). Indian international relations studies: The need for integration with global scholarship. Orf Issue Brıef, 219, 1-8. Por, S. S. (2020). Tianxia: China’s concept of international order. Global Asia, 15 (2), 43-50.
79. Rumelili, B. (2009). Uluslararası ilişkiler teorisinde yerel-görüşlülük ve Doğu’nun özneselliği. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 6 (23), 45-71.
80. Rumelili, B. (2014). Batı merkezcilik ve postkolonyalizm. İç. E. Balta (Ed.), Küresel siyasete giriş: Uluslararası ilişkilerde kavramlar, teoriler, süreçler (203-220), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
81. Schmidt, B. (2008). International relations theory: Hegemony or pluralism?. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 36 (2), 295–304.
82. Sil, R. & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Analytical eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8 (2), 411–423.
83. Shahi, D. (2014). Arthashastra beyond realpolitik: The 'eclectic' face of Kautilya. Economic and Political Weekly, 49 (41), 68-74.
84. Shahi, D. (2018). Kautilya and non-Western IR theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
85. Shahi, D. (2020). Foregrounding the complexities of a dialogic approach to global international relations. All Azimuth, 9 (2), 163-176.
86. Shani, G. (2008). Toward a post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth,and critical international relations theory. International Studies Review, 10 (4), 722–734.
87. Smith, T. (1979). The underdevelopment of development literature: The case of depency theory. World Politics, 31 (2), 247-288.
88. Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science?. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2 (3), 374–402.
89. Smith, K. (2018). Reshaping international relations: Theoretical innovations from Africa. All Azimuth, 7 (2), 81-92.
90. Tickner, A. B. (2003). Seeing IR differently: Notes from the third World. Millennium, 32 (2), 295–324.
91. Tickner, A. B. (2008). Latin American IR and the primacy of lo práctico. International Studies Review, 10 (4), 735-748.
92. Tickner, J. A. (2011). Dealing with difference: Problems and possibilities for dialogue in international relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39 (3), 607-618.
93. TRIP Faculty Survey, [Available online at: https://trip.wm.edu/data/dashboard/faculty-survey], Retrieved on January 18, 2021.
94. Turton, H. L. (2016). International relations and American dominance: A diverse discipline. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
95. Turton, H. L. (2020). Locating a multifaceted and stratified disciplinary core. All Azimuth, 9 (2), 177-209.
96. Waever, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52 (4), 687–727.
97. Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., Bell, N. J., Morales, M. N. & Tierney, M. J. (2016). The IR of the beholder: Examining global IR using the 2014 TRIP survey. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 16–32.
98. Xuetomg, Y. (2010). The instability of China–US relations. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3 (3), 263-292.
99. Xuetong, Y. (2011). Ancient Chinese thought, modern Chinese power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.