SavedAdd your journal

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

The Chinese School, Global Production of Knowledge, and Contentious Politics in the Disciplinary IR

Yongjin ZHANG
Pages
283–298
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)

School labelling therefore matters, it is argued, because it has become a site of contestation of geopolitics of knowledge and reflects the perils and promises in our collective pursuit of constructing a truly global IR.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Chinese studies of International Relations constitute today an integral part of the claim of IR as a global discipline.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This paper starts by providing a critical evaluation of the contribution made by the so-called ‘Chinese School of IR’ to the global production of knowledge.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:School labelling therefore matters, it is argued, because it has become a site of contestation of geopolitics of knowledge and reflects the perils and promises in our collective pursuit of constructing a truly global IR.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Chinese studies of International Relations constitute today an integral part of the claim of IR as a global discipline. This paper starts by providing a critical evaluation of the contribution made by the so-called ‘Chinese School of IR’ to the global production of knowledge. Against this background, it teases out a curious case of ‘schools of IR’ as commonly labelled in the global IR theoretical conversation and looks at how such labels have been used by the ‘core’ to create a parallel but explicitly inferior universe of knowledge production to localize theoretical noises from the ‘peripheries’. Situating the Chinese School of IR in such global context, it considers how ‘school’ label has been proactively appropriated by Chinese scholars to engage in a purposely contentious politics in the disciplinary IR, which questions the claim of the American ‘core’ as the creator, depositor, and distributor of universal knowledge, and seeks to unveil the geo-historical linkage between the political and the epistemic. School labelling therefore matters, it is argued, because it has become a site of contestation of geopolitics of knowledge and reflects the perils and promises in our collective pursuit of constructing a truly global IR.

🔖

Cite This Article

ZHANG, Y. (2022). The Chinese School, Global Production of Knowledge, and Contentious Politics in the Disciplinary IR. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 283–298. https://ajindex.com/articles/434982

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647–59.
  2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is there no Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten years on.” International Relations of the Asia- Pacific 17, no. 3 (2017): 341–70.
  3. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why Is There No Non-Western IR Theory?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.
  4. Collins, Randall. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998.
  5. Deng, Xiaoping. Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Volume II. Beijing: People”s Publishing House, 1994.
  6. Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  7. MaGann, James G. “2018 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report.”2019. https://repository.upenn.edu/think_ tanks/16/. Mignolo, Walter D. “Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and De- Colonial Freedom.” Theory, Culture & Society 26, no. 7–8 (2009): 1–23. –––. “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 1 (2002): 57–96.
  8. Noesselt, Nele. “Mapping the World from a Chinese Perspective? The Debate on Constructing a Theory of International Relations with Chinese Characteristics.” China Quarterly 222 (2015): 430–48.
  9. Porter, Brian, ed. Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics, 1919-69. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
  10. Qin, Yaqing. “A Chinese School of International Relations Theory: Possibility and Inevitability.” World Economics and Politics 3 (2006): 7–13. –––. “Culture and Global Thought: Chinese International Theory in the Making.” Revista CIDOB d”Afers Internacionals 100 (2012): 67–90. –––. “Development of International Relations Theory in China: Progress through Debates.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 2 (2011): 231–57. –––. “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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. –––. “Why is There No Chinese IR Theory.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 313–40.
  11. Shambaugh, David. “International Relations Studies in China Today: History, Trends and Prospects.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 3 (2011): 339–72.
  12. Sohu Report. “A sy