SavedAdd your journal

Journals / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2018 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

Chinese Concepts and Relational International Politics

Emilian KAVALSKİ
Pages
87–102
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)

In the process, the paper uncovers the practices of ‘international relationality’ as an opportunity to redefine the ‘international’ as a co-dependent space where two or more actors (despite their divergences) can interface into a dialogical community

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The rise of China troubles the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological constitution of International Relations (IR) theory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The contention is that ‘relationality’ renders a more accurate translation of guanxi in English.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the process, the paper uncovers the practices of ‘international relationality’ as an opportunity to redefine the ‘international’ as a co-dependent space where two or more actors (despite their divergences) can interface into a dialogical community
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The rise of China troubles the taken-for-granted epistemological and ontological constitution of International Relations (IR) theory. The Greek term ‘theoria’ implied travelling to foreign locales with the aim of gaining illumination that can then simultaneously inform and transform the ‘home’ of the traveler. Yet, instead of travelling, IR theory engages in silencing. This paper undertakes an interpretative journey of China’s IR concepts. In particular, it looks at the notion of guanxi – one of the two terms that goes into the Chinese phrase for International Relations (guoji guanxi). The contention is that ‘relationality’ renders a more accurate translation of guanxi in English. In the process, the paper uncovers the practices of ‘international relationality’ as an opportunity to redefine the ‘international’ as a co-dependent space where two or more actors (despite their divergences) can interface into a dialogical community

🔖

Cite This Article

KAVALSKİ, E. (2022). Chinese Concepts and Relational International Politics. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 87–102. https://ajindex.com/articles/435008

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Acharya, Amitav. “Ethnocentrism and Emanipatory IR Theory.” In (Dis)Placing Security: Critical Re-evaluations of the Boundaries of Security Studies, edited by S. Arnold and J.M. Beier, 1-18.
  2. Toronto, ON: Centre for International and Security Studies, 2000.
  3. Alston, Jon P. “Wa, Guanxi, and Inhwa: Managerial Principles in Japan, China, and Korea.” Business Horizons 32, no. 2 (1989): 26-31.
  4. Avelino, Flor, and Jan Rotmans. “Power in Transition: An Interdisciplinary Frameowrk to Study Power in Relation to Structural Change.” European Journal of Social Theory 12, no. 4 (2009): 543-69.
  5. Barbalet, Jack. “Guanxi, Tie Strength, and Network Attributes.” American Behavioural Scientist 59, no. 8 (2015): 1038-50. ———. “Market Relations as wuwei: Traditional Concepts in the Analysis of China’s Post-1978 Economy.” Asian Studies Review 35, no. 3 (2011): 335-54.
  6. Barkin, J. Samuel. Realist Constructivism: Rethinking International Relations Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).
  7. Bell, Duran. “Guanxi: A Nesting of Groups.” Current Anthropology 41, no. 1 (2000): 132-8.
  8. Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past Western IR.” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5-23.
  9. Bin, Yu. “China and Russia: Normalizing Their Relationship.” In Power Shift: China and Asia’s New Dynamics, edited by David Shambaugh, 228-47.
  10. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005.
  11. Carlson, Allen. “Moving Beyond Sovereignty? A Brief Consideration of Recent Changes in China’s Approach to International Order and the Emergence of the Tianxia Concept.” Journal of Contemporary China 20, no. 68 (2010): 89-102.
  12. Chang, Hui-Ching, and G. Richard Holt. “The Concept of Yuan and Chinese Interpersonal Relationships.” In Cross Cultural Interpersonal Communication, edited by Stella Ting-Toomey and Felipe Corzenny, 28-57. London: Sage, 1991.
  13. Chen, Ching-Chang. “The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 1 (2011): 1-23.
  14. Chong, Melody P.M., Ping Ping Fu, and Yu Fan Shang. “Relational Power and Influence Strategies: A Step Further in Understanding Power Dynamics.” Chinese Management Studies 7, no. 1 (2013): 53-73.
  15. Chow, Rey. “Violence in the Other Country: China as Crisis, Spectacle, and Woman.” In Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, edited by Ann Russo, Lourdes Torres, and Chandra Talpade Monaty, 80-100.
  16. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991.
  17. Chowdhry, C. and S.M. Rai. “The Geographies of Exclusion and the Politics of Exclusion