SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2

The Idea of Dialogue of Civilizations andCore-Periphery Dialogue in International Relations

Homeira MOSHIRZADEH
Pages
211–227
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Furthermore, the way in which dialogue of civilizations in the discipline can be conducted and the expectations thereof are discussed.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The idea of dialogue of civilizations, as was envisaged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, includes multi-layer, multi-actor dialogues.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Civilization, when defined as “correspondence between material conditions of existence and intersubjective meanings,”1 has epistemological and ontological elements that constitute the parameters of knowledge.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, the way in which dialogue of civilizations in the discipline can be conducted and the expectations thereof are discussed.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The idea of dialogue of civilizations, as was envisaged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, includes multi-layer, multi-actor dialogues. Civilization, when defined as “correspondence between material conditions of existence and intersubjective meanings,”1 has epistemological and ontological elements that constitute the parameters of knowledge. One may easily claim that the existing knowledge of international relations has its roots in Western civilization and, if it is to become a truly global body of knowledge, it has to be nourished by contributions from various civilizations, mostly belonging to the “periphery”. Yet, even this is not enough if we just reach an archipelago consisting of various islands of knowledge without a connection to each other. What may help bridging these islands is dialogue. Dialogues among IR scholars from different civilizational backgrounds may lead to more mutual understanding and even may lead to some common grounds found in-between. Dialogues can be conducted both at inter-civilizational and intra-civilizational levels as civilizations cannot be taken as monolithic wholes. This article seeks to clarify the meaning and implications of dialogue of civilizations in IR. Furthermore, the way in which dialogue of civilizations in the discipline can be conducted and the expectations thereof are discussed.

🔖

Cite This Article

MOSHIRZADEH, H. (2022). The Idea of Dialogue of Civilizations andCore-Periphery Dialogue in International Relations. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 211–227. https://ajindex.com/articles/434981

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. 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 – Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–37.
  2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why Is There No Non–Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of Asia and Pacific 7 (2007): 287–312. –––. “Why Is There No Non–Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” In Non–Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 1–26. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
  3. Aning, Kwesi, and Fiffi Edu–Afful. “African Agency in R2P: Interventions by African Union and ECOWAS in Mali, Cote D’ivoire, and Libya.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 120–33.
  4. Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.
  5. Bashiriyeh, Hossein. “From Civilizational Dialectics to Civilizational Dialogue.” In Dialogue among Civilizations: Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations, edited by Bahram Mostaghimi, 237–55. Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 1384 [2005].
  6. Behera, Navnita Chadha. “Knowledge Production.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 153–55.
  7. Benhabib, Seyla. “International Law and Human Plurality in the Shadow of Totalitarianism: Hannah Arendt and Raphael Lemkin.” Constellations 16, no. 2 (2009): 331–50.
  8. Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23.
  9. Bilgin, Pinar. “’Contrapantal Reading’ as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 134–46.
  10. Blanchard, Eric M., and Shuang Lin. “Gender and Non–Western Global IR: Where Are the Women in Chinese International Relations Theory?” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 48–61.
  11. Bohm, David. “On Dialogue.” Accessed April 17, 2019. http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Chaos-Complexity/ dialogue.pdf. Bohm, David, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett. “Dialogue-A Proposal.” Accessed June 23, 2019. https://www. dialogue-associates.com/files/files/DIALOGUE%20A%20PROPOSAL%2026-3-14(2).pdf. Buzan, Barry. “Could IR Be Different?” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 155–57.
  12. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Colonial Difference. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
  13. Cox, Robert. “Civiliza