Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2021 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2

The Interactions of International Relations: Racism, Colonialism, Producer-Centred Research

Pages
231–253
Publication Date
2021-07-16
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The core engages PCR, but it incites violence in the periphery which defends rationality and so is colonialism’s bastion, now.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The racial hierarchy underscoring colonialism persists, organises core-periphery interactions and so undermines International Relations’ (IR’s) purpose of accounting and explaining to mitigate violence.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Despite IR’s awareness of its colonialism, it reconstitutes in the hermeneutic’s deductive and inductive method via aphasia (calculated forgetting) about its heuristic: diplomacy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The core engages PCR, but it incites violence in the periphery which defends rationality and so is colonialism’s bastion, now.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Diplomacy · Eurocentrism · racism

Abstract

The racial hierarchy underscoring colonialism persists, organises core-periphery interactions and so undermines International Relations’ (IR’s) purpose of accounting and explaining to mitigate violence. Despite IR’s awareness of its colonialism, it reconstitutes in the hermeneutic’s deductive and inductive method via aphasia (calculated forgetting) about its heuristic: diplomacy. The result, analytic-violence or the core’s heuristic corrupting interaction with the periphery. Yet, its evasiveness testifies to a meaningfulness beyond IR’s hermeneutic. Irretrievably corrupted by its heuristic, IR’s hermeneutic is ejected for an altogether new hermeneutic: Producer-Centred Research (PCR). Eschewing deduction and induction, and so colonialism, PCR initiates with abduction or a problem arising from theory and practice to resolve it in terms of rationality because of its, and the problem’s, significance. Changing “rationality” to “rationalities” registers the core’s rationality as colonialism while preventing it from contaminating PCR’s collection and assessment of peripheral practices to determine if they cohere into another rationality. Moreover, treating peripheral practitioners authoritatively, as capable of rationalising themselves and thus equal to rationality, further protects PCR from aphasia. Verifying efficacy shows PCR’s decolonisation of the hermeneutic is not entirely replicated externally, amongst IR scholars. The core engages PCR, but it incites violence in the periphery which defends rationality and so is colonialism’s bastion, now.

🔖

Cite This Article

DATTA-RAY, D. K. (2021). The Interactions of International Relations: Racism, Colonialism, Producer-Centred Research. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 2, 231–253. https://ajindex.com/articles/220794

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Ahmad, A. “Datta-Ray, Deep K.: The Making of Indian Diplomacy: a Critique of Eurocentrism.” CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries (March 2016): 1081. Abraham, Itty. The Making of the Indian Atom Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the Post-Colonial State. London: Zed Books, 1998.
  2. Abraham, Itty, ed. South Asian Cultures of the Bomb: Atomic Publics and the State in India and Pakistan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.
  3. Acharya, Amitav. “Theorising the International Relations of Asia: Necessity or Indulgence? Some Reflections.” The Pacific Review 30, no. 6 (2017): 816–28.
  4. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is there no Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten Years On.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 17 (2017): 341–70.
  5. Anghie, Antony. “The Bush Administration, Preemption Doctrine and the United Nations.” American Society of International Law Proceedings, 98 (2004): 326–29. –––. “The War on Terror and Iraq in Historical Perspective.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 43, no. 1 (2005): 45–66.
  6. Anievas, Alexander, Nivi Manchanda and Robbie Shilliam. “Confronting the Global Colour Line: An Introduction.” In Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line, edited by Alexander Anievas, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam, 1–16, New York: Routledge, 2015.
  7. Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Widening the World of IR: a Typology of Homegrown Theorizing.” All Azimuth 7, no. 1 (2018): 45–68.
  8. Ayres, Alyssa. Our Time Has Come: How India in Making its Place in the World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
  9. Babu, B. Ramesh. “Dealing with the World, Indian Style.” The Hindu, November 1, 2015. https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/dealing-with-the-world-indian-style/article7828083.ece.
  10. Bajpai, Kanti. “Indian Conceptions of Order and Justice: Nehruvian, Gandhian, Hindutva and Neo-Liberal.” In Order and Justice in International Relations, edited by Rosemary Foot, John Gaddis, and Andrew Hurrell,, 236–61. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
  11. Bajpai, Kanti, and Byron Chong. “India’s Foreign Policy Capacity.” Policy Design and Practice 2, no. 2 (2019): 137–62.
  12. Bajpai, Kanti, and Siddharth Mallavarapu, ed. International Relations in India: Bringing Theory Back Home. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2004.
  13. Barkan, Elazar. The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1992.