Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2

Would 100 Global Workshops on Theory Building Make A Difference?

Pages
65–80
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 workshops should contribute to redefine the (contested) core of the discipline.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Second, if 100 theory building workshops would make a difference, what exactly would the difference be?
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, the workshops should contribute to redefine the (contested) core of the discipline.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The paper rests on the assumption that theoretical knowledge is valuable. However, such an assumption cannot be taken for granted. Indeed the first objective is to examine the comparative advantages of theoretical knowledge. Second, if 100 theory building workshops would make a difference, what exactly would the difference be? After all, movie production is said to be dominated by Hollywood but Bollywood produces more movies than Hollywood. Nonetheless, the world market is dominated by Hollywood. Hence, if a distinction between academic domestic and global markets is applied, theory building for a number of domestic or regional markets might impact ‘consumption’ patterns in domestic or regional markets but not necessarily the world market. Moreover, the apparent need for 100 workshops rests on the assumption that the IR discipline is under American hegemony but this assumption is severely challenged by empirical research showing that American hegemony remains a fact in institutional terms but not in terms of theoretical fads and debates being followed in the rest of the world. In short, intellectual global hegemony is largely a chimera. Finally, the paper argues that 100 workshops might be necessary but could turn out to be waste of time and for two reasons. While theorizing a bygone world is fine, the workshops should address contemporary issues and be future-oriented. Furthermore, the workshops should contribute to redefine the (contested) core of the discipline.

Özet

Bu makale, kuramsal bilginin değerli olduğu varsayımına dayanmakla beraber böyle bir varsayımın kendiliğinden kabul edilmesi doğru değildir. Gerçekten de makalenin ilk hedefi, kuramsal bilginin karşılaştırmalı üstünlüğünü incelemektir. İkincisi ise şu soruya cevap vermektir: eğer kuram inşa etmek üzerine yapılan 100 çalıştay bir farklılık yaratacak olursa, bu farklılık tam olarak ne olacaktır? Nihayetinde, Bollywood, Hollywood’dan daha fazla film üretmesine rağmen film yapımında dünya pazarı Hollywood’un hâkimiyeti altındadır. Bu nedenle akademik pazarlar arasında yurtiçi ve küresel olarak bir ayrım yapılacak olursa, birtakım yurtiçi ve bölgesel pazarlara yönelik yapılan kuram inşası, yurtiçi ve bölgesel marketlerdeki ‘tüketim’ kalıplarını etkileyebilir ama dünya marketi için aynı şeyin olacağı kesin değildir. Buna ek olarak, 100 çalıştaya olan görünürdeki gereklilik Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplininin Amerikan hegemonyası altında olduğu varsayımına dayanmaktadır ancak bu varsayım, Amerikan hegemonyasının kurumsal anlamda bir gerçek olmaya devam ettiği ancak dünyanın geri kalanında takip edilen kuramsal modalar ve tartışmalara bakıldığında durumun böyle olmadığını gösteren ampirik araştırmalarla sarsılmıştır. Kısacası entelektüel küresel hegemonya büyük ölçüde bir kuruntudur. Son olarak makale, 100 çalıştayın gerekli olabileceği ancak iki neden yüzünden zaman kaybına dönüşebileceğini tartışmaktadır. Geçmişteki dünyayı kuramlaştırmakta bir sorun bulunmamaktadır ancak çalıştaylar güncel sorunlara hitap etmeli ve gelecek odaklı olmalıdır. Ayrıca çalıştaylar disiplinin (tartışmaya açık) çekirdeğinin yeniden tanımlanmasına katkıda bulunmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Jørgensen, K. E. (2022). Would 100 Global Workshops on Theory Building Make A Difference?. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 2, 65–80. https://ajindex.com/articles/435003

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Alejando, Audrey. “Eurocentrism, Ethnocentrism, and Misery of Position: International Relations in Europe - A problematic oversight.” European Review of International Studies 4, no. 1 (forthcoming 2017).
  2. Alejando, Audrey, Knud Erik Jørgensen, Alexander Reichwein, Felix Rösch, and Helen Turton. Reappraising European IR Theoretical Traditions. London: Palgrave, forthcoming 2017.
  3. Behr, E. Hartmut. “The European Union in the Legacies of Imperial Rule? EU Accession Politics Viewed From A Historical Comparative Perspective.” European Journal of International Relations 13, no. 2 (2007): 239-62.
  4. Bilgin, Pinar. “How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge for the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8, no. 3 (2016): 492–501.
  5. Brown, Chris. Practical Judgement in International Political Theory: Selected Essays. Abingdon: Routledge, 2010.
  6. Callahan, William A. "China and the Globalisation of IR Theory: Discussion of 'Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics'.” Journal of Contemporary China 10, no. 26 (2001): 75-88.
  7. Carr, E. H. The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. London: Palgrave, 1946.
  8. Chacko, Priya. Indian Foreign Policy: The Politics of Postcolonial Identity from 1947 to 2004. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
  9. Czaputowicz, Jacek, and Anna Wojciuk. The Study of International Relations in Poland. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming 2017.
  10. Dugin, Alexander. “Theory Talk #66: Alexander Dugin on Eurasianism, the Geopolitics of Land and Sea, and a Russian Theory of Multipolarity.” By M. Millerman. Theory Talks, December 7, 2014. Accessed August 2, 2016. http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/12/theory-talk-66.html.
  11. Guzzini, Stefano. The Return of Geopolitics in Europe? Social Mechanisms and Foreign Policy Identity Crises. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  12. Hobson, John M. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760-2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
  13. Hopf, Ted. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2002.
  14. Holsti, K.J. “Exceptionalism in American Foreign Policy: Is It Exceptional?” European Journal of International Relations 17, no. 3 (2010): 381-404.
  15. Hutchings, Kimberly. “Kimberly Hutchings on Quiet as a Research Strategy, the Essence of Critique, and the Narcissism of Minor Differences.” By A.S. Bang Lindegaar