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

Locating a Multifaceted and Stratified Disciplinary ‘Core’

Sayfa
177–210
Yayın Tarihi
2020-06-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

In locating IR’s different cores and their hidden geographies this article aims to destabilize the core-periphery distinction in order to move beyond this disciplinary and disciplining archetype.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Disciplinary depictions using the core-periphery distinction are often premised on a ‘blurred’ and/or monolithic understanding of the core.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:In order to specifically illustrate certain workings and reach of the ‘core’ within spaces typically conceptualized as ‘peripheral’ this article will draw on existing data and research.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:In locating IR’s different cores and their hidden geographies this article aims to destabilize the core-periphery distinction in order to move beyond this disciplinary and disciplining archetype.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Periphery · core · epistemic hierarchies

Abstract

Disciplinary depictions using the core-periphery distinction are often premised on a ‘blurred’ and/or monolithic understanding of the core. For instance, the ‘core’ is often conceptualized broadly to include Western Europe and North America, or narrowly to refer to just the United States. Simultaneously the corresponding disciplinary self-images often refer to the core and the periphery as fixed and homogenous entities, which overlook the often diverse tendencies and hierarchies within the predefined space. This article therefore seeks to highlight the changing geographies of the core/periphery distinction in order to reveal the presence of different cores because there are different core properties. What this means is that the ‘core’ can appear in surprising spaces and occupy geographies that are normally associated with the periphery. In order to specifically illustrate certain workings and reach of the ‘core’ within spaces typically conceptualized as ‘peripheral’ this article will draw on existing data and research. The resultant empirical sketch will show how the ‘core’ is able to extend its reach and produce further epistemic hierarchies within peripheral spaces. In locating IR’s different cores and their hidden geographies this article aims to destabilize the core-periphery distinction in order to move beyond this disciplinary and disciplining archetype.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TURTON, H. L. (2020). Locating a Multifaceted and Stratified Disciplinary ‘Core’. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 2, 177–210. https://ajindex.com/articles/119696

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  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 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–37. –––. “Theorising the International Relations of Asia: Necessity of Indulgence? Some Reflections.” The Pacific Review 30, no. 6 (2017): 816–28.
  2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An introduction.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312. –––. “Why is There non Non-Western IR Theory? Ten Years On.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 17, no. 3 (2017): 341–70.
  3. Adamson, Fiona B. “Spaces of Global Security: Beyond Methodological Nationalism.” Journal of Global Security Studies 1, no. 1 (2016): 19-35.
  4. Adiong, Nassef Manabilang, Raffaele Mauriello, and Deina Abdelkader, eds. Islam in International Relations: Politics and Paradigms. Oxon: Routledge, 2018.
  5. Alagappa, Muthiah. “International Relations Studies in Asia: Distinctive Trajectories.” International Relations of the Pacific 11, no. 2 (2011): 193–230.
  6. Alejandro, Audrey. “The Narrative of Academic Dominance: How to Overcome Performing the ‘Core-Periphery’ Divide.” International Studies Review 19, no. 2 (2017): 300–04. –––. Western Dominance in International Relations? The Internationalisation of IR in Brazil and India. Oxon: Routledge, 2019.
  7. Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorising.” All Azimuth 7, no. 1 (2018): 45–68.
  8. Aydinli, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin, eds. Widening the World of International Relations: Homegrown Theorising. Oxon: Routledge, 2018.
  9. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Are the Core and the Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 1, no. 3 (2000): 289–303.
  10. Aydinli, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory Out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (2008): 693–712.
  11. Behera, Navnita Chadha. “Re-Imaging in India.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 341–68. –––. “South Asia: A ‘Realist’ Past and Alternative Futures.” In IR Scholarship Around the World: Worlding Beyond the West, edited by Arlene Tickner, and Ole Wæver, 137–57. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
  12. Biersteker, Thomas. “The Parochialism