SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2

Epistemological Freedom and the Globalization of IR: Challenges and Opportunities for Core-Periphery Dialogue

Epistemolojik Özgürlük ve Uluslararası İlişkilerin Küreselleşmesi: Merkez-Çevre Diyaloğu için Zorluklar ve Fırsatlar

Mürsel Doğrul

Pages
353–369
Publication Date
2024-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗

Abstract

This article examines core-periphery dynamics within global international relations (IR), focusing on how intellectual history informs the ongoing dialogue between the core, primarily the United Kingdom and the United States, and the 'periphery', representing the rest of the world. The study critically engages with Turton's conceptualisations of cores and explores how the concept of the periphery can be rethought to promote a more inclusive global IR framework. The article uses qualitative methods, including content analysis of key reference texts and historical sources, to examine the evolution of the core-periphery divide. The concept of epistemological freedom is discussed, prompting the question of whether a convergence of epistemologies or the pursuit of independent epistemic freedom is a more attainable objective for the expansion and diversification of the intellectual foundation of global IR. The importance of dialogue in reshaping the discipline is emphasized, and the potential of civilizational discourse to advance Global IR is considered. However, the article critically assesses whether such a discourse may inadvertently promote exceptionalism and essentialism. Ultimately, the article argues for a more balanced and pluralistic approach to global knowledge production that integrates perspectives from historically marginalized regions to challenge the traditional centre/periphery binary and promote intellectual diversity in the discipline. Drawing on the insights of scholars such as Shahi, Moshirzadeh and Kuru as well, the article explores the complexities of establishing genuine dialogue and inclusivity within IR, considering alternative approaches such as Shahi's 'dialogic approach' and Kuru's emphasis on global intellectual history.

Özet

Bu makale, Küresel Uluslararası İlişkilerde (Uİ) merkez-çevre dinamiklerini incelemekte ve entelektüel tarihin, başta İngiltere ve ABD olmak üzere “merkez” ile dünyanın geri kalanını temsil eden “çevre” arasında süregelen diyaloğu nasıl bilgilendirdiğine odaklanmaktadır. Çalışma, Turton'un merkez kavramsallaştırmasına eleştirel bir yaklaşım getirerek, çevre kavramının daha kapsayıcı bir küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler çerçevesini desteklemek için nasıl yeniden düşünülebileceğini araştırmaktadır. Makale, merkez-çevre ayrımının evrimini araştırmak için önemli referans metinlerinin ve tarihsel kaynakların içerik analizi de dahil olmak üzere nitel yöntemler kullanmaktadır. Epistemolojik özgürlük kavramı incelenerek, epistemolojilerin yakınsamasının mı yoksa bağımsız epistemik özgürlük arayışının mı küresel Uİ'nin entelektüel temelinin genişlemesi ve çeşitlenmesi için daha ulaşılabilir bir hedef olduğu sorusu ortaya atılmıştır. Disiplinin yeniden şekillendirilmesinde diyaloğun önemi vurgulanmakta ve medeniyet söyleminin Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler'i ilerletme potansiyeli değerlendirilmektedir. Ancak makale, böyle bir söylemin istemeden de olsa istisnacılığı ve özcülüğü teşvik edip etmeyeceğini eleştirel bir şekilde değerlendirmektedir. Sonuç olarak makale, geleneksel merkez/çevre ikiliğine yenilikçi ve disiplinde entelektüel çeşitliliği teşvik etmek için tarihsel olarak ötekileştirilmiş bölgelerden perspektifleri entegre eden küresel bilgi üretimine daha dengeli ve çoğulcu bir yaklaşımı savunmaktadır. Shahi, Moshirzadeh ve Kuru gibi akademisyenlerin de görüşlerinden yararlanan makale, Shahi'nin 'diyalojik yaklaşımı' ve Kuru'nun küresel entelektüel tarihe yaptığı vurgu gibi alternatif yaklaşımları göz önünde bulundurarak Uluslararası İlişkiler içerisinde gerçek bir diyalog ve kapsayıcılık oluşturmanın karmaşıklıklarını araştırmaktadır.

Keywords
🔖

Cite This Article

Doğrul, M. (2024). Epistemological Freedom and the Globalization of IR: Challenges and Opportunities for Core-Periphery Dialogue. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 2, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.1570335

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

References (39)

  1. Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West.” Millennium 39(3). 619–637.
  2. Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 619–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811406574
  3. Acharya, A. (2014). “Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds”. International Studies Quarterly: A Publication of the International Studies Association, 58(4), 647–659. doi:10.1111/isqu.12171
  4. Acharya, A. and Buzan, B. (2017). “Why is There non Non-Western IR Theory? Ten Years On”. International Relations of the Asia Pacific 17(3). 341–370.
  5. Anderl, F., & Witt, A. (2020). Problematising the Global in Global IR. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 49(1), 32–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829820971708
  6. Aydinli, E., & Biltekin, G. (December 2017). “Peripheral perspectives: The theorizing potential of Global South IR”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, 7(1), 45 - 68.
  7. Bailón, R. O. F., & De Lissovoy, N. (2018). Against coloniality: Toward an epistemically insurgent curriculum. Policy Futures in Education, 17(3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210318819206
  8. Bayly, M. J. (2022). Global intellectual history in International Relations: Hierarchy, empire, and the case of late colonial Indian international thought. Review of International Studies, 49(3), 428–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/s026021052200041
  9. Baer, W. (1962). The Economics of Prebisch and ECLA. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 10(2), 169–182. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1151909
  10. Bettiza, G. (2014). Civilizational Analysis in International Relations: Mapping the Field and Advancing a “Civilizational Politics” Line of Research. International Studies Review, 16(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/misr.12100
  11. Bilgin, P. (2007). Thinking past ‘Western’ IR? Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590701726392
  12. Bilgin, P. (2016). “Contrapuntal Reading as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR,” International Studies Review. 18(1). 134–46.
  13. Blaney, D. L., & Tickner, A. B. (2017). “Worlding, Ontological Politics and the Possibility of a Decolonial IR”. Millennium. 45(3), 293-311. doi. 10.1177/0305829817702446
  14. Buzan, B. (2016). “Could IR Be Different?”. International Studies Review 18(1), 155–157. doi:10.1093/isr/viv025
  15. Donnelly, J. (2006). Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society. European Journal of International Relations, 12(2), 139–170.
  16. Eun, Y. & Pieczara, K. (2013). “Getting Asia Right and Advancing the Field of IR,” Political Studies Review 11(3). 369–77.
  17. Eun, Y. S. (2018). Beyond ‘the West/non-West Divide’ in IR: How to Ensure Dialogue as Mutual Learning. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11(4), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poy014
  18. Gelardi, M. (2019). “Moving global IR forward—A road map”. International Studies Review 22(4), 830–852. doi:10.1093/isr/viz049
  19. Goodhart, M. (2003). Origins and Universality in the Human Rights Debates: Cultural Essentialism and the Challenge of Globalization. Human Rights Quarterly, 25(4), 935–964. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2003.0043
  20. Gray, S. (2013). Reexamining Kautilya and Machiavelli. Political Theory, 42(6), 635–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591713505094
  21. Hellmann, G., & Valbjørn, M. (2017). Problematizing global challenges: Recalibrating the “inter” in IR-Theory Inter Alia: On global orders, practices, and Theory. The inter as liminal spaces: Prudence, transience, and Affection Dialoguing about dialogues: On the purpose, procedure and product of dialogues in inter-national relations Theory Interpreting international Relations The narrative of academic dominance: How to overcome performing the “core-periphery” divide. International Studies Review, 19(2), 279–309. doi:10.1093/isr/vix009
  22. Kayaoğlu, T. (2010). “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory,” International Studies Review 12(2). 193–217.
  23. Klink, F. F. (1990). Rationalizing Core-Periphery Relations: The Analytical Foundations of Structural Inequality in World Politics. International Studies Quarterly, 34(2), 183–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600708
  24. Köchler, H. (2011). The Philosophy and Politics of Dialogue. Culture and Dialogue, 1(2), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1163/24683949-00102002
  25. Kuru, D. (2020). Dialogue of the “Globals”: Connecting Global IR to Global Intellectual History”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace. 9(2), 229-248.
  26. Lake, D. A. (2016). “White Man’s IR: An Intellectual Confession”. Perspectives on Politics 14(4), 1112–1122. doi:10.1017/S153759271600308X
  27. Lukács, György. (1971). History and class consciousness: studies in Marxist dialectics 1885-1971. Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press.
  28. Moshirzadeh, H. (2020). “The Idea of Dialogue of Civilizations and Core-Periphery Dialogue in International Relations”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy & Peace 9(2). 211-227.
  29. Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. J. (2020). “The cognitive empire, politics of knowledge and African intellectual productions: reflections on struggles for epistemic freedom and resurgence of decolonisation in the twenty-first century”. Third World Quarterly, 1-20.
  30. Prah, K. K. (1998). Beyond The Colorline. Trenton, NJ: Africa Research & Publications.
  31. R’boul, H. (2022). Epistemological plurality in intercultural communication knowledge. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 17(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2022.2069784
  32. Schenoni, L., & Escudé, C. (2016). “Peripheral realism revisited”. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional. 59(1). doi:10.1590/0034-7329201600102
  33. Shahi, D. (2020). “Foregrounding the Complexities of a Dialogic Approach to Global International Relations”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy & Peace. 9(2). 163-176.
  34. Sharma, A. (2021). Decolonizing International Relations: Confronting Erasures through Indigenous Knowledge Systems. International Studies, 58(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020881720981209
  35. Spengler, J. J. (1964). Economic Thought of Islam: Ibn Khaldūn. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6(3), 268–306. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0010417500002164
  36. Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, periphery and (neo)imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627–646. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494323
  37. Tickner, A., & Blaney, D.L. (Eds.). (2012). Thinking International Relations Differently (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203129920
  38. Turton, H. L. (2020). “Locating a multifaceted and stratified disciplinary ‘core’”. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace 9(2). 177-209.
  39. Zhou, V. X., & Pilcher, N. (2018). Tapping the thirdness in the intercultural space of dialogue. Language and Intercultural Communication, 19(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2018.1545025