KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2021 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1

The Silence of non-Western International Relations Theory as a Camouflage Strategy: The Trauma of Qing China and the Late Ottoman Empire

Hayriye Asena DEMİRER
Sayfa
99–118
Yayın Tarihi
2020-12-10
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)

Therefore, the surfacing of NWIRT discussions in the last decades can be attributed primarily to the maturation of an internal condition that is the revival of self-confidence in the residuals of former empires due to their regaining of rising power status and, thus, can be seen as a new phase of the ‘revolt against the West.’ On the other hand, I argue that the rise of NWIRT discussions are also related to the ripening of an external condition: some European schools of IR have been attempting to intellectually balance against the hegemony of American mainstream IRT, therefore, publication of edited books and special issues on NWIRT can also be read as searching for intellectual alliance with NWIRT.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:My main argument in this article is that there have been at least three important barriers to the development of non-Western international relations theory (NWIRT): intellectual barriers (traumatizing effects of the imposition of the “standard of civilization”); ideational barriers (dominance of Western concepts and contexts); and scientific barriers (imposition of the standard of science).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:I argue that the silence of NWIRT is substantially a side effect of the strategy of mimicking the West, which was developed as an intellectual defense mechanism or as a camouflage strategy for the (re)establishment and the survival of non-Western states after their traumatic encounter with the Western states.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Therefore, the surfacing of NWIRT discussions in the last decades can be attributed primarily to the maturation of an internal condition that is the revival of self-confidence in the residuals of former empires due to their regaining of rising power status and, thus, can be seen as a new phase of the ‘revolt against the West.’ On the other hand, I argue that the rise of NWIRT discussions are also related to the ripening of an external condition: some European schools of IR have been attempting to intellectually balance against the hegemony of American mainstream IRT, therefore, publication of edited books and special issues on NWIRT can also be read as searching for intellectual alliance with NWIRT.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Non-western IR theory · standard of civilization · mimicking as a response to trauma

Abstract

My main argument in this article is that there have been at least three important barriers to the development of non-Western international relations theory (NWIRT): intellectual barriers (traumatizing effects of the imposition of the “standard of civilization”); ideational barriers (dominance of Western concepts and contexts); and scientific barriers (imposition of the standard of science). I argue that the silence of NWIRT is substantially a side effect of the strategy of mimicking the West, which was developed as an intellectual defense mechanism or as a camouflage strategy for the (re)establishment and the survival of non-Western states after their traumatic encounter with the Western states. Therefore, the surfacing of NWIRT discussions in the last decades can be attributed primarily to the maturation of an internal condition that is the revival of self-confidence in the residuals of former empires due to their regaining of rising power status and, thus, can be seen as a new phase of the ‘revolt against the West.’ On the other hand, I argue that the rise of NWIRT discussions are also related to the ripening of an external condition: some European schools of IR have been attempting to intellectually balance against the hegemony of American mainstream IRT, therefore, publication of edited books and special issues on NWIRT can also be read as searching for intellectual alliance with NWIRT.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

DEMİRER, H. A. (2020). The Silence of non-Western International Relations Theory as a Camouflage Strategy: The Trauma of Qing China and the Late Ottoman Empire. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 1, 99–118. https://ajindex.com/articles/119701

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (16)

  1. Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 619–37.
  2. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is There No Non–Western IR Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of the Asia–Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 287–312.
  3. Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan, eds. Non–Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and Beyond Asia. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
  4. Adelson, Leslie A. “Touching Tales of Turks, Germans, and Jews: Cultural Alterity, Historical Narrative, and Literary Riddles for the 1990s.” New German Critique no. 80 (2000): 93–124.
  5. Alruwaih, Meshari. “The Agency of the Muslim IR Researcher in Developing a Theory of Islamic Agency in International Relations.” Asian Politics and Policy 7, no. 1 (2015): 39–56.
  6. Alagappa, Muthiah. “International Relations Studies in Asia: Distinctive Trajectories.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 11, no. 2 (2011): 193–230.
  7. Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
  8. Aydınlı, Ersel. “The Turkish Pendulum between Globalization and Security: From the Late Ottoman Era to the 1930s.” Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 3 (2004): 102–33.
  9. Aydınlı, Ersel, and Mathews, Julie. “Periphery Theorizing for a Truly Internationalized Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34 (2008): 693–712.
  10. Ayoob, Mohammed. “Challenging Hegemony: Political Islam and the North–South Divide.” International Studies Review 9, no. 4 (2007): 629–43. ———. “Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism.” International Studies Review 4, no. 3 (2002): 27–48.
  11. Behera, Navnita Chadha. “Re–imagining IR in India.” International Relations of the Asia Pacific 7, no. 3 (2007): 341–68.
  12. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.
  13. Biber, Ahmet Emre. “Osmanlı İmparatorluğu’nun dünya sistemine eklemlenme süreci ve az gelişmişliğin evrimi.” Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi 6, no. 1 (2009): 27–44.
  14. Bilgin, Pınar. “The ‘Western–Centrism’ of Security Studies: ‘Blind Spot’ or Constitutive Practice?” Security Dialogue 41, no. 6 (2010): 615–22.
  15. Bull, Hedley. “The Revolt Against the West.” In The Expansion of International Society, edited by Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, 217–28. Oxford: Clarendon, 1984.
  16. Buzan, Barry. An Introduction to the English School of IR.