amitav acharya in search of ir theories beyond the west

MILLENNIUMJournal of International Studies

Millennium: Journal of International Studies

39(3) 619637 The Author(s) 2011

Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co. uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0305829811406574mil.sagepub.com

Corresponding author:Amitav Acharya, American University, USA. Email: [email protected]

Plenary Article

Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West1

Amitav AcharyaAmerican University

AbstractScholars of International Relations (IR) increasingly realise that their discipline, including its theories and methods, often neglects voices and experiences outside of the West. But how do we address this problem and move the discipline forward? While some question whether Western and non-Western (or post-Western) are useful labels, there are also other perspectives, including those who believe in the adequacy of existing theories and approaches, those who argue for particular national schools of IR, and those who dismiss recent efforts to broaden IR theory as mimicry in terms of their epistemological underpinnings. After reviewing these debates, this article identifies some avenues for further research with a view to bringing out the global heritage of IR. These include, among other things, paying greater attention to the genealogy of international systems, the diversity of regionalisms and regional worlds, the integration of area studies with IR, people-centric approaches to IR, security and development, and the agency role of non-Western ideas and actors in building global order. I also argue for broadening the epistemology of IR theory with the help of non-Western philosophies such as Buddhism. While the study of IR remains dominated by Western perspectives and contributions, it is possible to build different and alternative theories which originate from non-Western contexts and experiences.

Keywordsarea studies and International Relations, Buddhist philosophy and International Relations, Global South, history of international systems, non-Western International Relations theory, philosophy of science and International Relations, regionalism, Third World

1. ThisarticleisbasedontheauthorsopeningdialogueattheMillenniumAnnualConferenceattheLondonSchoolofEconomics,1617October2010.ThisreviseddraftincorporatesmyresponsetothecommentsmadebyKimberlyHutchingsattheopeningdialogue,whicharealsopublishedinthisissueofMillennium.

620 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(3)

That the study of InternationalRelations itsmain theories, its dominant centres ofteaching and research, its leading publications neglects or marginalises the worldbeyondtheWestisnolongeranovelargumentthatrequiresprooforelaboration.2Whatismorechallengingistofindsomeagreementonhowtoredressthisproblemandmoveforward.Someoftheideasandavenuessuggestedtowardsachievingagenuinelyinter-nationalfieldofIRhavethemselvesbeencriticisedandprovokedcontroversy.Questionsaboutwhattostudy,howtostudyandevenwheretostudyIRareinvolved.Resolvingallthesecontroversiesandfindingcommongroundmaynotbepossible,orevendesirable.Buthavingadialogueoverthemseemstimelyandessentialtotheoriginalcausethateveryoneagreeson: that thecurrentparochialismandethnocentrismof InternationalRelationsasafieldofstudy,especiallyitsdominanttheoreticalapproaches,areunac-ceptableandperhapsuntenable.

Mymaingoalsinthisarticlearetwofold.ThefirstistodiscusssomeoftheissuesofcontentionthathaveariseninthevaguelyarticulatedandhighlydiversifiedprojectofmakingthestudyofIRmoreinclusiveofnon-Westernworlds.Thesecondistoidentifyareaswherefurtherreflectionandresearchcouldsignificantlyadvancetheproject.Thetwogoalsarenecessarilyrelated:howwedevelopIRintoamoregenuinelyuniversaldisciplinedependsverymuchonwhatwethinkismissingfromitnow.Mymainargu-mentisthatwhileonecannotandshouldnotseektodisplaceexisting(orfuture)theoriesofIRthatmaysubstantiallyoriginatefromWesternideasandexperiences,itispossible,throughdialogueanddiscovery,tobuildalternativetheoriesaboutthefunctioningofinternational relations that have their origin in the South.3 Moreover, one shouldacknowledgeandencouragedialoguewithinaswellasbetweenculturesandlocations,East,West,North,South,tomaketheprojectofdiscoveryworthwhileandproductive.Thisarticleisamodestcontributiontothisend.

Attheoutset,letmeclarifymyuseofnon-WesternIRtheory.ThisinitselfhasbeenapointofdisagreementamongthosewhowouldotherwiseagreethatIRremainsanarrowlyWesternsocialsciencethatneedstobebroadened.Itiseasytoseethatnei-therWestnornon-Westisahomogeneousconcept.ContestationsoverIRtheoryoccurswithinasmuchasbetweenthem.4Notonlydonon-Westernscholarsdrawfromtheir

2. AmitavAcharya,EthnocentrismandEmancipatoryIRTheory,inDisplacing Security,edsSamanthaArnoldandJ.MarshallBier(Toronto:CentreforInternationalandSecurityStudies,YorkUniversity,2000); Arlene Tickner, Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World,Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32, no. 2 (2003): 295324;AmitavAcharya andBarryBuzan, eds, Why IsThereNoNon-Western InternationalRelationsTheory?Reflectionsonand fromAsia,Special IssueofInternational Relations of Asia Pacific 7(2007);ArleneTicknerandOleWaever,eds,International Relations Scholarship around the World (LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2009);AmitavAcharyaandBarryBuzan,eds, Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2010).

3. Karen Smith, Can It BeHome-Grown?Challenges toDeveloping IRTheory in theGlobal South,Paperpresentedtothe47thAnnualConventionoftheInternationalStudiesAssociation,SanDiego,225March2006,2.

4. ManyWesternscholarsareuncomfortablewiththeearlierparochialismsoftheirfield.Thus,BuzanandLittlechallengeandseektoreformulatetheideasinHedleyBullandAdamWatson,eds,The Expansion of International Society(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1984).BarryBuzanandRichardLittle,International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),3.

Acharya 621

Western counterparts; but many so-called Western International Relations theories(IRTs)mayalsohaverootsinthenon-Westernspheres,althoughtheyoftengounac-knowledgedandunheralded.5Hence,therearegoodarguments,includingthosemadebyProfessorHutchingsinthisissueofMillennium,againstusingadichotomousviewofWesternandnon-Western.6

Iusethetermnon-Westernpartlyasatermofconvenience,ratherthantoreflectanyparticular ideology.7The term is alsouseful to interrogate the ideaof Western,whichhasbeensodominant,pervasive(andlessquestionedbycriticsofnon-Western),in themainstream IRT, and as a point of reference to engage theorists, such as thefoundersoftheEnglishSchool,whousedtheseconcepts(WesternorEuropean)tolayouttheirownbeliefsaboutthefoundationsandevolutionofinternationalrelations.8ThisiscertainlyafarcryfromtheWestversustheRestdichotomyinsomerecentpolicy discourses.9 Moreover, one suspects alternative categories, such as ThirdWorld,GlobalSouth,subaltern,post-colonial,post-Western,willeachprovetobeequallyunsatisfactory.10

5. HelenLouiseTurtonandLucasG.Freire, HybridityunderHegemonic Influence in IRScholarship:RealisminSouthAmerica,PaperpresentedtotheISA/ABRIConferenceonDiversityandInequalityinWorldPolitics,RiodeJaneiro,2224July2009,26.

6. Kimberly Hutchings, Dialogue between Whom? The Role of the WestNon-West Distinction inPromotingGlobalDialogueinIR,Millennium,thisissue.Allsubsequentquotationsfromheraretakenfromthesamearticle.

7. MyusageissimilartowhatChanandMandavillecallbodiesofnon-Westernknowledge,andTicknerandWaeverrefertoasnon-WesternandThirdWorldcontexts,andnon-Westernscholars.StephenChanandPeterMandaville, Introduction:Within InternationalRelations Itself, aNewCultureRisesUp,inChan,MandavilleandRolandBleiker,eds,The Zen of International Relations: IR Theory from East to West (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan, 2001), 8;A.Tickner andO.Waever, Introduction:GeoculturalEpistemologies,p.3,andConclusion:WorldingWhere theWestOnceWas,p.332, inTicknerandWaever,eds,International Relations Scholarship around the World.

8. For the usage of these terms in the early English School literature, see Bull andWatson, eds, The Expansion of International Society,includingtheintroductionandconclusionbyBullandWatsonandBullschapterTheRevoltagainsttheWest.SeealsoMartinWight,WesternValuesinInternationalRelations, in Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, edsHerbertButterfieldandMartinWight(London:AllenandUnwin),89131.But, ingeneral,The Expansion of International SocietyemploysothertermssuchasEuropeanandThirdWorld.

9. See,forexample,KishoreMahbubani,Can Asians Think? Understanding the Divide between East and West,3rdedn(Singapore:TimesEditions,2004).

10. Somepreferthetermpost-Westerntonon-Western.Tome,post-WesternassumestheendofWesterndominanceasanobjectivefactoranormativeaspiration,neitherofwhichisaccurateorhelpfulforthepurposeofmakingIRtheorymoreinclusive.WhileProfessorHutchings(inherarticleandinanobviousnodtothepost-colonialistdistasteforbinaries)objectstonon-Western,shedoesnotcommentonthemeritofpost-Western.Thepurposeofmyarticleisnottodebatewhichtermisbest,butratherhowtobringotherkindsofknowledgeandperspectiveoutsideoftheWestintothepicture.AsBilginnotes,theideaofanon-WesterninIRscholarshipdoesnotimplypassivesubmissiontoIRknowledgegeneratedbytheWest.Whatmayberegardedasnon-WesterndoesnotnecessarilyoriginatewithinteleologicalWesternisation,andthosethatdonotappeartoberadicallydifferentbutseemtobeframedwithinthecategoriesandconceptsofWesternIRTcannotbedismissedastheroboticStepfordWifetoWesternIR.Suchastance,Bilginconcludes, deniesagencytonon-Westernscholarsandrepresents themasunthinkingemulators.PinarBilgin,ThinkingPastWesternIR,Third World Quarterly29,no.1(2008):13.


Issues of Contention

In this section, I address threemainquestions thathaveattracted somedebate (asidefromtheissueofWesternandnon-Western)intheeffortstoadvanceIRstudies:

1. WhetherexistingIR theoriesarealreadyadequate toaccount fornon-Westernexperiencesandvoices,andwhetherthosewhichhavenotbeenareexpandingtheiranalyticscopeandreachtoissuesandconcernsoftheworldasawhole.

2. Whether attempts todevelop indigenous concepts and theories endup simplymimickingWesterntheories.

3. Whether one should engage in developing IRT through national or regionalschools.

Arecentstudyofthesubjectunderdiscussionasked:haveexistingIRtheoriesfoundtherightanswerstoallthemainquestionsofinteresttoIRscholars?11Itsfindingwasthattheyhadnot.MainstreamtheoristsofIRmayfeelotherwise.Forexample,IkenberryandMastandunoargue that thedistinctivefeaturesofAsias inter-staterelationsarebeinggradually eroded by its progressive integration into themodern international system.HencethecoreconceptsofIRT,suchashegemony,thedistributionofpower,interna-tional regimesandpolitical identity,areas relevant in theAsiancontextasanywhereelse.12SnyderconcedesChinasclaimtoadistinctivestrategicculture,butrejectstheneedforadistinctivetheorytoanalyseit.HearguesinsteadforusingChinesedistinc-tivenesstotestandbroadenexistingIRtheories.Thekeydistinctionbetweentheoriessuchasrealismandliberalism,ontheonehand,andConfucianism(asthemainphilo-sophicalbasisforaChineseschool),ontheother,arguesSnyder, is thatrealismandliberalismpresentthemselvesasuniversallyapplicableparadigms,whereasConfucianismisformulateda[sic]specifictoChineseorEastAsiancivilization.13Yetonemightask:arerealismandliberalismgenuinelyuniversal,eventhoughtheypresentthemselvesassuch?OnehardlyneedstoberemindedoftheWesternhistoricalandphilosophicalrootsofboth.

Butthereisalargerpointhere.TosaythatIRTshouldbeinclusiveofnon-WesternvoicesandrealitiesisnottosaythatWestern-derivedtheoriesareirrelevant,especiallywhentheyapplytorelationshipswithintheWestandbetweenWesternandnon-Westernactors.DismissingWesterntheoriessimplybecausetheyareWesterncanbeaslipperyslopetotherelativisttrap.ButIRtheoryshowsmajorgapswhenitcomestoexplainingthepolitical,economicandsecurityrelationshipsinthenon-Westernworld.14

11. AcharyaandBuzan,eds,WhyIsThereNoNon-WesternInternationalRelationsTheory?.12. G. John Ikenberry and Michael Mastanduno, The United States and Stability in East Asia, in

International Relations Theory and the Asia-Pacific,edsG.JohnIkenberryandMichaelMastanduno(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2003),4212.

13. Jack Snyder, Some Good and Bad Reasons for a Distinctively ChineseApproach to InternationalRelations Theory, Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAPSA, Hynes Convention Center,Boston,Massachusetts,28August2008,9,10.

14. StephanieG.Neuman,International Relations Theory and the Third World(NewYork:StMartinsPress,1998).

Acharya 623

Theoriesofinternationalrelationsareneithermonolithicnorunchanging.Tosome,IRtheoryhasbeenmademorerelevanttothenon-Westernworldwiththehelpofexten-sionsandadvances.15Theconstructivistturnintheory,despiteitsdistinctlyWesternorigin,hashelpedtofosteragrowingbodyoftheoreticalworkonAfrica,AsiaandLatinAmericaandIslam,16thankstoitssensitivitytoquestionsofcultureandidentity,identi-fiedbyArleneTicknerasoneofthemajorpotentialsourcesofnon-Westerntheorising.17Post-colonialism,feminismandstrandsofcriticalIRtheoryallofwhichhavesignifi-cantWestern pedigree have helped considerably in broadening the relevance andappealofIRtheoryaroundtheworld.Ayoobhasadaptedrealismtoexplainthedistinc-tivesecuritypredicamentoftheThirdWorld.18

Nonetheless, the call for bridging theNorthSouth gap in IRT by simply testing,extending and revising existing theories like realism, liberalism and constructivismwouldnotaddresstheneedanddemandforchange.19Whatisneeded,indeed,arepro-posalsforalternativetheoriesaboutthefunctioningofinternationalrelationsthathavetheiroriginintheSouth.20Thisleadstothequestionastowhethersomeofthenon-WesternformulationsonIRTsaresimplemimicryoftheWesternoraregenuinelypost-WesternasubjectIshalladdressnow.

InanearliersurveyofthefieldofIR,OlsonandOnufhopedtoseetheidealofacosmopolitan discipline inwhich adepts frommany cultures enrich the discourse ofInternationalRelationswithalltheworldswaysofseeingandknowing.Buttheyalsowarned that theglobalisationof IRmaywell indicate thesuccessfuldiffusionof theAnglo-Americancognitive styleandprofessional stance rather than theabsorptionofalienmodesofthought.21Tosome,thisispreciselywhatishappeningtoagoodmanyof the recent efforts to explore the possibility of non-Western IR theories.Are theseeffortsthenmeremimicryorlocalvariationsofWesterntheoriesanddebates?22

15. WilliamBrown,AfricaandInternationalRelations:ACommentonIRTheory,AnarchyandStatehood,Review of International Studies32(2006):11943.

16. Constructivisms theoretical reachextendspast theWestandinto theThirdWorld.MichaelBarnett,RadicalChic?SubalternRealism:ARejoinder,International Studies Review4(2002):52.TadjbakhshatteststotheusefulnessofconstructivisminanalysingIslamicsourcesofIRT.ShahrbanouTadjbakhsh,International RelationsTheory and the IslamicWorldview, inNon-Western International Relations Theory,edsAcharyaandBuzan.

17. Tickner,SeeingIRDifferently.18. Mohammed Ayoob, Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern

Realism,International Studies Review4,no.3.(2002):2748.19. Caroline Thomas and PeterWilkin, StillWaiting afterAll TheseYears: The ThirdWorld on the

PeripheryofInternationalRelations,British Journal of Politics & International Relations6,no.2(May2004):24158.

20. Smith,CanItBeHome-Grown?,2.21. WilliamOlsonandNicholasOnuf,TheGrowthofaDisciplineReviewed,inInternational Relations:

British and American Perspectives,ed.SteveSmith(NewYork:Blackwell,1985),18.22. GiorgioShani,TowardaPost-WesternIR:TheUmma, Khalsa Panth,andCriticalInternationalRelations

Theory, International Studies Review10(2008):723.SeealsoChing-ChangChen, TheAbsenceofNon-Western IRTheory inAsiaReconsidered, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 1(2011):123.Mimicryisatermattributedtopost-colonialscholarHomiBhaba(seeBilgin,ThinkingPastWesternIR,14).Butheremimicryisusedintheliteralsenseofemulation,orimitation,whichhasaconstructivistpedigree.


IdonotthinkthosewhodecrymimicryareaskingthatwesummarilyrejectIRtheo-riesjustbecausetheyareWestern.Whatyardsticksmightoneusetojudgewhatisgenu-inelynon-Westernorpost-Western?AnobviouscandidatemightbethecriticaltheoriesofIR,butthese,asnoted,arenotdivorcedfromWesterninfluenceeither.ShouldwestartfromanindigenousbaseandthenlinkupwithavailableWesterntheoriesifandwhereithelpsabetterunderstandingoftheproblemathand?Thiswouldrequirelessrelianceondeductivetheorising,aimedattestingtheories,andmoreoninductiongeneralisingfromlocalexperiencesontheirownterms,orabductionusingadialecticalcombina-tionoftheoryandempiricalfindings,movingbackandforthbetweenthetwotoproduceanappropriateaccount.23Thesequestionsrequiremuchmorecarefuldebateanddia-logue,withoutwhichweruntheriskoftrivialisingthewholeideaofdevelopingagenu-inelyuniversaldisciplineofIR.

Finally,ifoneistoquestiontheintegrityoftheideaofanon-WesternIRTasanover-arching and homogeneous project, should the natural next step not be to open it tonationalandregionalvoices?IsorganisingIRTintonationalorregionalschoolsneces-saryordesirable?Thereareseveralobviousadvantagestosuchamove,suchasmobilis-inginterestandresources,andattractingattentionandevenprestige.OneneedlooknofurtherthantheestablishmentofanEnglishSchoolsectionintheInternationalStudiesAssociationtogetasenseofthis.

Inmyview,suchapproachesarewelcomeiftheystayclearofsomewell-knowntraps.Thefirstisexcessivenationalismandparochialism.Itisofcoursenotalwaysthecasethatsuchschoolsareinternallyhomogeneousorexternallyexclusive.Tociteagaintheexam-pleof theEnglishSchool (whichalsogoesby thenameof the international societyperspective),ithadHedleyBull,anAustralian,RobertJackson,aCanadian,andmorecontentiouslyCharlesManning,aSouthAfrican,andtheChinese-bornbutUK-trainedYongjinZhang(nowatBristol).AndwithintheSchoolitself,therehavebeendivisionsoverleadershipandnaming.24Butnationalorregionalschoolscanbecomeintellectualandmethodological(ifnotideological)straitjackets,creatingbarrierstopluralisationandcross-national/regional discourse.And they can take an exceptionalist turn, becomingself-servingandevenrepressive.TheSingaporeSchoolofthe1990s,moreapolicydis-coursethananacademicproject,waswidelyseenasanintellectualjustificationforLeeKuanYews brand of soft authoritarianism.National schools can also seem, fairly orunfairly,toberationalisationsofacountrys(orratherpowers)shiftingfortunes,declineorrise.ReadingafascinatinghistoryoftheemergenceoftheEnglishSchoolthroughthedeliberationsoftheBritishCommitteeontheTheoryofInternationalRelations,25 it ishardtoescapethefeelingthatitreflectedaparticularnationalcontextandexperience.

23. HiroyukiHoshiro,BookReview,Whose Ideas Matter: Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism,Pacific Affairs83,no.3(September2010):5478.

24. TimDunne,ABritishSchoolofInternationalRelations,inThe British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century,edsJackHayward,BrianBarryandArchieBrown(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1999),398,fn.10;AndrewLinklaterandHidemiSuganami,The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006).

25. Brunello Vigezzi, The British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (19541985): The Rediscovery of History(Milan:EdizioniUnicopli,2005).

Acharya 625

Mightone,then,beforgivenforviewingtheearlyEnglishSchoolasawayofrationalis-ing,andperhapstakingcomfortin,thedeclineofEurope,ifnotofBritainalone?

Anotherquestionthatoneconfrontshereiswhetherthedevelopmentofdistinctiveschoolsof IR theories is theexclusivepreserveofgreatpowers, forexample,China,Japan,Indiaandsoon.Thisofcoursewouldbehardlyunusualgiventhehistoricallyclosenexusbetweenpower (Britain,Europe and theUSA) and theproductionof IRknowledge.OneprobablywouldnothearmuchaboutaChineseSchoolofIRifChinawasnotarisingpower.

TheideaofaChineseSchoolofIRTisindeedofspecialinterest.AlthoughclaimstodistinctivenessinIRarenotaChineseinventionormonopoly,26nowheretodayissuchanenterprisemorepronouncedthaninChina.Whenthereformerabegan,thereweredebateswithinChinaoverwhetheranIRtheory(orasetoftheories)withChinesechar-acteristicsshouldandcouldbeestablished.27Theearlyadvocatesofsuchtheorieswererelyingon themessuchas theFivePrinciplesofPeacefulCo-Existence, anti-hege-monismandChinasindependentforeignpolicy.Butthisinvitedscepticismfromoth-erswithinChinasIRcommunitywhosawitasawayoflegitimisingtheChineseofficialinterpretationofworldaffairs.Intheend,fewsuccessfulattemptscouldbemadeindraw-ing from the classical Chinese tradition of thought and diplomacy.28 Subsequently,attemptstoconstructaChineseSchoolofIRTentailedprovidingatheoreticalbasisforChinaspeacefulrise(althoughshadesoftheearlierfocusonforeignpolicyconcernssuchasanti-hegemonism,fiveprinciples,etc.remain).Moreover,sucheffortshavebeenaccompaniedbyarevivalofselectedhistoricalideasandinstitutions,includingbutnotnotlimitedtoConfucianism.Qinarguesthatallsocialtheorymusthaveatheoreticalhardcore centredona big ideaor a bigproblematic.ForChina, it is the ideaofDatong,orUniversalGreatHarmony,keyelementsofwhicharethetributarysystemand the all under heavenworld-view (Tianxia); he does not includeConfucianism,althoughothersdo.29

JackSnyderhaswarnedthatamonolithicChineseSchoolcouldproduceastultifyinguniformity,intellectualcheerleadingforgovernmentpolicies,andanideologicaljustifica-tionforablinkeredChinesenationalismthathindersratherthanexpandsunderstanding.30ItisrevealingthatthekeyproponentsofaChineseSchoolleanheavilyonConfucianismand thepre-Confucianbuthierarchy-orientedconceptofTianxia, rather than themorepan-Asianstrandsofthinking,especiallyBuddhism(tobediscussedlater).

26. Ontheothersideofthepowershift,Africasuniqueness,albeitasamarginalisedplace,isdiscussedinKevinDunn,TalesfromtheDarkSide:AfricasChallengetoInternationalRelationsTheory,Journal of Third World Studies17,no.1(2000):6190.

27. WangJisi,InternationalRelationsStudiesinChinaToday:Achievements,TrendsandConditions,inInternational Relations Studies in China: A Review of Ford Foundation Past Grantmaking and Future Choices(Beijing:FordFoundationChinaRepresentativeOffice,2003),114.

28. Ibid.,115.29. Qin,WhyIsThereNoChineseInternationalRelationsTheory?,inNon-Western International Relations

Theory,edsAcharyaandBuzan.OnTianxia,seeWilliamA.Callahan,ChineseVisionsofWorldOrder:Post-hegemonicoraNewHegemony?,International Studies Review10,no.4(2008):74961.

30. Snyder,SomeGoodandBadReasons,2.


ThereismuchlessinterestinIndiatheotheremergingpowerfromAsiaindevel-opingaschoolofIRofitsown,31eventhoughthemoderndisciplineofIRhasalongerhistorytherethaninChina,andIndianscholarsbemoantheadvancesinIRteachingandresearchinChinawhileIndia,onceAsiasleaderinthis,hasbeenleftfurtherbehind.32ButarecentreportonthestateofIRinIndiaarguesthatakeygoalofinternationalstud-ies(IS)inIndiashouldbetoensurethatIndianISscholarshipcontributestoincreasingtheknowledgebaseonIndiasroleasaresponsiblepowerfosteringpeace,security,goodgovernance,economicdevelopment,andresolutionofawiderangeofproblemsinitsimmediateregionandtheworld.33ThisisnotacallfordevelopinganIndianschoolofIRT,butitunderscoresthepotentialforself-centrisminanysuchenterprise,adangerthatwasrecognisedbyBajpaibeforeanyonetooknoteofIndiasrise,whenhewarnedthateffortstodevelopanIRToutofIndiamightcarrythedangeroflapsingintouncriti-calnativismorseekingsomeessentialistIndianvision.34

Does progress in IR require fightingAmerican and European ethnocentrismwithChineseandIndianethnocentrism?ItisinterestingtonotethattherearefewerdemandsforanAfricanschool.PeterVale,whilebemoaningthatthereisalmostnothingintheIRcanon onAfrica, categorically rejects the case for a fullyAfrican IR, demandinginsteadagreatersensitivitytoAfricanwaysofknowingtheinternational.35FreedomofexpressionisanotherissuetokeepinmindwhenadvocatingnationalschoolsofIR.InIran,forexample,whileIslamhasemergedasamajorbasisforthinkingaboutinterna-tionalrelations,youngerscholarshavebeencautiousnottotranscendwhatistradition-allyregardedtheologicallyacceptablebymajorreligiousauthorities.36

Looking Ahead: What to Study?

DebatesanddialoguesoverthenumerouswaysinwhichIRTasitstandstodaydomi-natesandexcludesnon-Westernactorsandexperiencesareimportant.Butwealsoneedtomoveontodiscovery,byidentifyingcomplementaryandalternativesourcesoftheo-risingthatareinclusiveofnon-Westernvoicesandexperiences.BelowIdiscussafewofthese(notunrelated)sources:(1)thegenealogyofinternationalsystems,(2)thequestionofagencyoftheSouth,(3)bringingthehumandimensiontoIR,(4)theroleofareastudies,and(5)thestudyofregionsandregionalism.Asixthsource,perhapsthemostimportant one, concerns the epistemology of IR knowledge,which is addressed in a

31. NavnitaChaddhaBehera,ReimaginingIRinIndia,inNon-Western International Relations Theory,edsAcharyaandBuzan,92116.

32. ForrecentdiscussionsonthestateofIRTinIndia,seethespecialissueofInternational Studies46,nos12(2009).

33. ReportoftheWorkshoponInternationalStudiesinIndia(Singapore:LeeKuanYewSchoolofPublicPolicy,NationalUniversityofSingapore,2009),12.

34. KantiBajpai,InternationalRelationsinIndia:BringingTheory(back)Home,in International Relations in India: Bringing Theory back Home,edsKantiBajpaiandSiddharthMallavarapu(NewDelhi:OrientLongman,2001),31.

35. PeterVale, IRandtheGlobalSouth:FinalConfessionsofaSchizophrenicTeacher,30October2009,availableat:http://www.e-ir.info/?p=2644(accessed15January2011).

36. HomeiraMoshirzadeh, A HegemonicDiscipline in an Anti-Hegemonic Country, International Political Sociology3,no.3(2009):345.

Acharya 627

separatesectionlaterinthearticle.Althoughthelistisfarfromexhaustive,itdoespointtosomeimportantwaysofthinkingabouthowtobringnon-WesternperspectivesandexperiencesintoIRtheory.

Genealogy of International Systems

AgoodstartingpointisourprevailingWestphalic37viewofinternationalsystems.AsBuzanandLittleputit:Westphalia-basedIRtheoryisnotonlyincapableofunderstand-ingpremoderninternationalsystems,butalsoitslackofhistoricalperspectivemakesitunabletoanswer,inmanyinstancesaddress,themostimportantquestionsaboutthemoderninternationalsystem.38

EarlyEnglishSchooltheoristssuchasBullandWatsontooktheviewthatthecontem-poraryinternationalsystemresultedfromaworldwideacceptancebynon-Westernsoci-etiesoftherulesandnormsofEuropeaninternationalsociety,leadingtowhatmightbecalledWestphaliawrit large.Theprocess of expansionof theEuropean internationalsociety resulted from the failure of non-Western rulers to conduct themselves on thebasisofequalityandreciprocity.(WhetherthefailuremighthavebeentheresultoftheuseofcoercionorforcebyWesternpowersissidestepped.39)Yet,C.H.AlexandrowiczsanalysisoftheoriginaltreatiesbetweenEuropeanEastIndiacompanies(asrepresenta-tives ofEuropean sovereigns inwhose name theywere contracted) andAsian rulersquestions the view that the Europeans always regarded the non-Western societies asunequalanddealtwiththemonthebasisofthestandardsofcivilisationthesistodis-misstheirclaimtosovereigntyandexcludethemfromthesocietyofstates.Instead,theencounterbetweenthetwoworldstookplaceonafootingofequalityandtheensuingcommercialandpoliticaltransactions,farfrombeinginalegalvacuum,weregovernedbythelawofnationsasadjustedtolocalinter-statecustom.40

But such work and our explorations into pre-Westphalian international systemsremain severely limited. The literature on pre-Westphalian international systemsfocuses heavily onmilitarysecurity interactions, and the types of relationships thatapproximate to either anarchy, that is, theGreek city-statesor theWarring statesof

37. Bajpai,InternationalRelationsinIndia,32.38. BuzanandLittle,International Systems in World History,3.39. Whileconcedingthat thestandardsofcivilisationthesisiscounteredbythemoreglobalconception

ofnaturallawtheoristssuchasStThomasAquinas,Bullnonethelessargued:itcouldhardlyhavebeenexpectedthatEuropeanstatescouldhaveextendedthefullbenefitsofmembershipofthesocietyofstatestopoliticalentitiesthatwereinnopositiontoenterintorelationshipsonabasisofreciprocity.HedleyBull,TheEmergenceofaUniversalInternationalSociety,inThe Expansion of International Society,edsBullandWatson,122.

40. C.H.Alexandrowicz,An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1967),225.Alexandrowicz,onthebasisoffarmoredetailedempiricalresearchthanBullcouldeverundertake,notes(p.224):ThoughtheEuropeanshadsailedtotheEastIndiessincetheendofthefifteenthcenturyequippedwithlegaltitlesofaunilateralcharacterandthoughtheyhadatfirstintendedtodiscoverandtooccupylands,and,wherenecessary,toestablishtheirterritorialpossessionsbyconquest,theyhadinpracticetofallbackonnegotiationandtreatymakinginpreferencetoresortingtowar.InfacttheyfoundthemselvesinthemiddleofanetworkofStatesandinter-Staterelationsbasedon traditionswhichweremoreancient than theirownand innoway inferior tonotionsofEuropeancivilization.


China, or empires and hegemonic systems (Rome,Maurya India, etc.). Interactionsanchoredon trade, ideas(includingpolitical ideas)andculture,whereempire,hege-mony or explicit and continuous power balancing is absent, have been ignored.41Internationalsystemscoulddevelopoutofideationalinteractionsasmuchasmaterialonessuchaswarandconquest.42Forexample,South-eastAsiaandtheIndianOcean,withalonghistoryofcommerceandflowofideas,butwithoutunitybyconquest,areseldomstudiedasinternationalsystems,whiletheMediterraneanunderpax Romanahasbeenanarchetypicalcase.

ThedominantWesternsourceofthinkingaboutIRconceptsandtheoriesisnotjustWestphalia,butalsotheclassicalMediterranean.Agoodmanyoftheideasthatweusein IR theory todaycomedirectlyor indirectly from theworld thatGreeceandRomemade(butnotthePhoenicians,EgyptiansorPersians).Thisrefersnotonlytoestablishedtheories,butalsotomorerecentvariationsandformulations.RealistshavelongtracedtheirlineagetoThucydides,butReus-Smithaswrittenafascinatingworkontheconsti-tutiveprinciplesof internationalsocietyfromtheGraeco-Romanworld,Deudneyhaschallenged both realism and liberalismwith a republican security theory originatingfromtheRomanRepublic,andNedLebowhasderivedaculturaltheoryofinternationalrelationsfromtheGreekconceptofhonour.43WeareyettoseesuchgrandtheorisingfromtheSumerian,44Egyptian,ChineseorIndianpasts,stuckaswearewiththeideaofKautilyabeinganIndianMachiavelli,ratherthanMachiavellibeingaEuro-MediterraneanKautilya.

Agency

Theissueofgenealogyiscloselylinkedtothequestionofagency.Whenthepositivistnotionofstandardsofcivilisationreplacednaturallaw,whichhadrecognisedthestatusofallnationsunderinternationallaw,itdeniedtheagencyofnon-Westernpolitiesand

41. WallersteinsWorldSystemstheoryfocusesoneconomicinteractionsbutgoestotheotherextreme.Ithasbeencriticisedforregardingpoliticalsecurityinteractionsasepiphenomenal,forfocusingonlyonthepost-1500periodandforleavingoutmanypartsoftheworld.

42. OneexamplemightbewhatSheldonPollockcallsSanskritCosmopolisinAsia(especiallySouth-eastAsia).This refers to largely hierarchised societies, administered by a corps of functionaries,scribes, tax collectors, living in grand agrarian cities geometrically planned in orientation to thecardinalpointsandsetwithinimaginarygeographies thatrecapitulatedthegeographyofIndia.Yet,theSanskritCosmopoliswasnottheresultofanyIndianmilitaryconquestinAsia.AsPollackwrites:Constitutedbynoimperialpowerorchurchbut inlargepartbyacommunicativesystem,theSanskritCosmopoliswascharacterisedbya trans-regionallysharedsetofassumptionsaboutthe basics of power. Sheldon Pollock, The Sanskrit Cosmopolis, 3001300: Transculturation,Vernacularization, and theQuestionof Ideology, in Ideology and Status of Sanskrit, ed. JanE.M.Houben(Leiden:E.J.Brill,1996),1415.

43. Christian Reus-Smit, The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); DanielDeudney,Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2007);RichardNedLebow,A Cultural Theory of International Relations (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).

44. AnimportanteffortisRaymondCohenandRaymondWestbrook,Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2002).

Acharya 629

societies in international affairs. The latter could not play the positive game ofsovereignty,45 including theall important gameofpowerbalancing.Yet, ifwedefineagency in bothmaterial and ideational dimensions, then non-Western societies havemuchtoclaim,eveninthemoderneraofWesterndominance.Acaseinpoint,discussedbyAlexandrowicz,isGrotiusconceptofMare Liberum.Widelycreditedasthefounderofthedoctrine,Grotiusisnowbelievedtohavebeendeeplyinformedandinfluencedbythe outstandingprecedent formaritime freedomofferedby the regime in the IndianOceanincontrasttomaritimepracticeinEurope[mare clausum].46

Theroleofnon-Westerncountriesintheinternationalsystemhasbeenconceptualisedasoneofdissentandrebellion,somemorablydescribedbyBullasarevoltagainsttheWest.ButasAyoobnotes,theThirdWorldduringtheColdWaralsoplayedaconformistandsupportiverole.47Onecouldextendtheargumentfurtherandsaythattheso-calledThirdWorldhasbeena makerofinternationalrulesandnorms.Theseincludesignificantmodificationsto,andadaptationsof,Europeannormsofsovereigntyonthebasisofpre-existinglocalbeliefsandpractices,aswellasthecreationofnewrulesinthelocalcon-textandexportingthemtothewiderregionalandgloballevelstoinfluenceandshaperelationswithintheThirdWorldandbetweentheThirdWorldandtheWest.48TheLatinAmericanandAfricannormsofinviolabilityofpost-colonialboundaries,LatinAmericasstrengtheningand institutionalisationofnon-intervention,normsofArabismfromtheMiddleEast,andtheAsianconstructionandmodificationofthenon-interventionnormtodelegitimisegreatpoweralliancesandpowerbalancingaresomeexamplesofsuchnormativeagency.AlthoughsomeofthesenormsareofWesternorigin,theircreativeadaptationandrepatriationare importantexamplesofagencythatcannotbedeniedaplaceinIRtheory.

Humanising IRT

OneofthekeyissuesinrecentdebatesaboutIRT,especiallythepost-positivistchallengeto theneorealistneoliberal synthesis, is thecentralityof the state inmainstreamIRT(whetherrealism,liberalismorWendtianconstructivism).Hence,aconceptthatputstheindividualatthecentreofIRTisrichlyappealinginthinkingaboutalternativeIRTs.The emergence andgrowingprominence of approaches to various sub-fields of IRwith the human prefix, such as human development, human security, humanitarianintervention and humane globalisation, along with the earlier and ongoing study ofhumanrights,arethereforedevelopmentsoffundamentalimportance.

TheseconceptsandunderstandingscapturemanyofthekeychallengesthathavebeenexcludedfrommainstreamIRT.Thereferentobjectinhumandevelopment/securityisnotnecessarilytheindividualperson(hence,makingitseemlikealiberalinnovation),

45. RobertH.Jackson,Quasi-states: Sovereignty, International Relations and the Third World (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1990).

46. Alexandrowicz,An Introduction,65.47. MohammedAyoob, TheThirdWorldintheSystemofStates:AcuteSchizophreniaorGrowingPains?,

International Studies Quarterly33(1989):6779.48. AmitavAcharya,NormSubsidiarityandRegionalOrders:Sovereignty,RegionalismandRule-Making

intheThirdWorld,International Studies Quarterly55(2011):95123.


butpeople(morepluralandmoreinclusivelysocietal).WhilecriticalIRtheories(includ-ingpostmodern,post-structural,feministandMarxisttheory)sharessomeofthesameconcernsasthesehuman-orientedapproaches,asChenoyandTadjbakhshargue,thelat-tercanbeconceptualisedoutsideofthestandardcriticaltheories.49Indeed,theideasofhumandevelopmentandhumansecurityweredevelopedbyeconomistslikeMahbub-ulHaqofPakistanandAmartyaSenfromIndia,eventhoughtheywereappropriatedbyWesterngovernmentssuchasCanadaandNorway.50Hence,ahumanperspectiveonIRTisanaturalandindispensablecompaniontoanymeaningfulsearchfornon-WesternIRT.

Butmuchmoreworkneedstobedonehere.Thereareunresolveddebatesoverthesehuman-prefixedconcepts,especiallywhat theymean,whoseagenda theyserve,howtheyaretobeadvancedandwhethertheyare(especiallyhumansecurity)toobroadtobeanalyticallymeaningfulandtooidealistictoserveanypolicypurpose. Theseques-tionsmirrorquestionsaboutthecurrentIRTposedbycriticalapproaches.Butthelink-ages between various human-prefixed concepts are not sufficiently understood andoftencontested.Forexample,howishumandevelopment(freedomfromwant)relatedtohumansecurity(freedomfromfear)?Thisisespeciallyinterestingfromtheperspec-tiveofnon-WesternIRTsinceitevokesaNorthSouthdivide,althoughthereisnowagrowingacceptancethathumansecurityisbothfreedomfromfearandfreedomfromwant.Moreover,thehuman-prefixedconcepts,whileattractinggrowinginterest,havenotbeenadvancedtothepointwheretheychallengethecentralityofthestate,ortheinternationalinstitutionscontrolledbystates,inanyofthemainstreamtheories,includ-ing realism, liberalism and constructivism.Howmany college textbooks on interna-tionalrelationsincludeachapteronhumansecurity?

Bringing Area Studies back in

Therewasatimenotsolongagowhen,inmostpartsofthenon-Westernworld,IRbeganandendedwithareaspecialisation.Oneinterestingfeature,andpotentialdanger,oftherecentconversationsaboutIRTbeyondtheWestisthatmostofthemareoccurringwith-outreferenceto,orseriousengagementwith,theareastudiestradition.Althoughareastudies,orinternationalstudies,lurksbeneaththeseconversations,thereseemstobeazealouseffortandunduehastetomovebeyondareastudiesanddifferentiateitfromIR.Somehow,areastudiesseemsoutdated,unfashionable.Tosomeextent,theatheoreticalnatureofareastudiesgeneratestheneedtodistinguishIRfromit,especiallythosewhofocusontheory.Anotherreasonisaperception,unjustifiedinmyview,thatthewholeideaofareastudiesisbecomingobsolete,whetherthroughglobalisationorthroughlackofdemandfrompolicymakers,whichiscrucialtofundingandsustenance.Thisview,whilepopular in the1990s, is evermorequestionable today. Itwillbe ironic ifnon-Westernscholarsmoveawayfromareastudies,withinwhichthestudyofIRbeyondtheWesthadbeentraditionallyanchored(asinIndia),atatimewhenintheWestthereisgrowingconfirmationoftheneedtobringareastudiesbackin,andwhenthetraditional

49. Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh andAnuradha Chenoy,Human Security, Concept and Principles (London:Routledge,2007).

50. AmitavAcharya,HumanSecurity:EastversusWest,International JournalLVI,no.3(2001):44260.

Acharya 631

conceptionofareastudiesisitselfchanging,especiallywiththeadventofwhatmightbecalledtransnationalstudies,byscholarswhoareprimarilytrainedinregionalaffairsbut who are increasingly interested and involved in comparative research on trans-regionalphenomena,withorwithoutthehelpofthetheoryofaparticulardiscipline.51

Contemporary Regional Worlds

Followingonfromtheabove,weoftenforgetthattheorisingaboutIRoccursinafunda-mentallylocal/regionalcontext.StephenWalt,whoreformulatedbalanceofpowerthe-orybyrelyingprincipallyonMiddleEasterndiplomatichistory,defendedhisapproachthus:TheargumentthattheMiddleEastissui generisapplieswithequalforcetoanyotherregion.Yet,internationalrelationsscholarshavelongreliedonhistoricalcasesandquantitativedatadrawnfromEuropeandiplomatichistorywithoutbeingaccusedofanarrowgeographic,temporal,orculturalfocus.52Hispointisclearandpersuasive,sinceEurope is the sourceof somuchof IRTandnoonecomplainsabout it,whynot theMiddleEast,Asia,AfricaorLatinAmerica?

ThegrowingworldwideinterestinthecomparativestudyofregionalismandregionalordersoffersarichsourceofIRtheory,althoughitspotentialisyettobefullyrealised.ItiscommonplacetoseehowIRscholarsgravitatetowardslocalandregionalcontextsand concerns of their time.Theoretical discourse is thus effectively regionalised: forAsia,itmaybeaboutgrowth(andnowrise);forAfrica,ithasbeenaboutmarginalisa-tion;forLatinAmerica,itisdependence,hegemonyanddefenceofdemocracy,andsoon.JustasthemeaningoftheoryvariesbetweentheUSandEurope,53sothestudyofIRmeansdifferentthingsindifferentregions.54Butaddedtogethertheymakeasignifi-cantcontributiontoIRT.

Letmenotethreecontributions,althoughthislistisnotexhaustive.AfricaoffersastrikingexampleofthedisjuncturebetweenthemoreuniversalisticclaimsofWesternIRTandtherealityofthepoliticsandsecurityofregionsandregionaldis/ordersinthenon-Westernworlds.Asnoted,AfricasplaceinIRThasbeenfamouslyframedintermsofjuridicalversusempiricalsovereignty,buttherealchallengeAfricaposestoIRTliessomewhereelse.AccordingtoDunn,Africachallenges(1)neorealisms(Waltzs)anar-chyhierarchydivide,giventhatthereisnohierarchyintheWaltziansensewithinstatesthat are tooweak to police themselves; and (2), IRs domesticinternational divide,giventheprominentroleofinternationalactorsinkeepingAfricasfragilestatesgoing,andmoregenerallythecentralityofthestateinIRT,becausethestatetherehasgivenwayto,oratleastcompeteswith,multipleotherformsofauthority.Thedevelopmentof

51. Forfurtherdiscussion,seeAmitavAcharya,InternationalRelationsandAreaStudies:TowardsaNewSynthesis?,PaperpresentedtotheWorkshopontheFutureofInterdisciplinaryAreaStudiesintheUK,StAntonysCollege,OxfordUniversity,67December2005.

52. StephenWalt,The Origin of Alliances (Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1987),1415.53. AmitavAcharyaandBarryBuzan,WhyIsThereNoNon-WesternInternationalRelationsTheory?An

Introduction,inNon-Western International Relations Theory,edsAcharyaandBuzan.54. IttyAbraham,ReviewofInternational Relations Scholarship around the World,editedbyArleneTickner

andOleWaever,International Studies Review12(2010):471.


warlordisminsomeAfricanstatesshouldnotbeviewedastemporaryaberrations,butasalternativestructuresandpracticestothedominantWestphalianstatesystems.55

LatinAmericashowsthatregionalpoliticalandeconomicresistancetohegemonycanbeafruitfulbasisofdevelopingtheory.Haluani identifiesseveral theorieswithstrongLatinAmerican roots, includingdependency theory,populism, liberation theologyandCepalism.Cepalism,ComisionEconomicaparaAmericaLatin(CEPAL),theUNseco-nomiccommissionforLatinAmerica,challengedtheIMFandWorldBanksdevelopmentandreformstrategywithsomethingthatcametobeknownasCepalismo,whichsoughttoworkonindigenousmodels,basedonlocalcapabilitiesandpriorities.56EconomistsincludingRaulPrebischcriticisedthetechnocraticismintheIMFandtheWorldBank.AsHaluanipointsout,theircriticismofinternationalfinancialanddevelopmentinstitutionsfortheirsociallyandculturallyinsensitivepoliciesalsoheldthatglobalisationandthefreemarketbenefitedmainlyWesterncountries.57ThiskindofCepalismalsohasequiva-lentsinotherregions,includingAfricaandAsia,therebycreatingamoreuniversalbase.

Asiaiskeytoourgrowinginterestinunderstandinghowandwhyregionalinstitu-tionsdiffer,andwhattheimplicationsofthesedifferencesarefortheoriesofinterna-tionalrelations.ThedifferencebetweenEuropeanregionalismandthatinotherpartsoftheworld,especiallyAsia,hasemergedasamajorareaofcontentionthathasunder-mined the hitherto paradigmatic status of European regionalism.58 DifferencesbetweenAsian and European institutions, such as the formers soft, informal, net-worked-typeregionalismversusthelattersheavilyinstitutionalisedandlegalisedvari-ety,nolongerautomaticallyleadonetoconsiderthelatterasamoredesirableuniversalmodel.59MoreworkonthedistinctivenessofdifferentregionsanddifferencesinthedesignandperformanceofregionalinstitutionsisimportantinaddingdiversitytoIRTandallowsustofocusonthelocalconstructionofglobalorderanecessarycountertothehyper-globalisationperspective.

Somescholarsmaybeuncomfortablewithmycallforgivingmorespacetothestudyof regions, regionalisms and regional orders as a pathway for advancing IR studiesbeyond theWest.To clarify, I am not asking for regionalising the discipline at theexpenseofuniversalism.Thiswouldbegoingtoofar.Theconceptofwhatconstitutesaregionremainscontested,althoughthereseemstobegreateragreementthatregionsaresociallyconstructedratherthangeographicallyorculturallypreordained.60Ihavealreadypointedtothedangersofparochialismandexceptionalisminherentinprovincialising

55. Dunn,TalesfromtheDarkSide.56. MakramHaluani,HowInternationalAreTheoriesinInternationalRelations?TheViewfromLatin

America, PaperpresentedattheAnnualMeetingoftheInternationalStudiesAssociation,SanDiego,California,USA,22March2006,p.8.

57. The phrase socially and culturally insensitive is presumably from Raul Prebisch. Haluani, HowInternationalAreTheoriesinInternationalRelations?,89.

58. RichardHiggott,TheTheoryandPracticeofRegion,inRegional Integration in East Asia and Europe: Convergence or Divergence,edsBertrandFortandDouglasWebber(London:Routledge,2006),23.

59. Peter J. Katzenstein,A World of Regions: Asia and Europe in the American Imperium (Ithaca, NY:CornellUniversityPress, 2005);AmitavAcharya,Whose Ideas Matter? Agency and Power in Asian Regionalism(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,2009).

60. AmitavAcharya,ReviewEssay:TheEmergingRegionalArchitectureofWorldPolitics,World Politics59,no.4(2007):62952.

Acharya 633

IR(e.g.ChineseSchoolorIndianSchool),althoughIsupportitundercertainconditions.Butthestudyofregions,andregionalperspectivesonIR,areextremelyimportantforthedevelopmentofthediscipline.ThisviewisconfirmedandIamsuremanyotherswillhavethesameexperiencebymyencounterswiththeexpectationsoffellowIRscholarsfromallaroundtheworld.Thestudyofregionsbringsgreaterrichnessanddiversitytothediscipline.ItalsooffersausefulpathwayforintegratingareastudiesandIRtothebenefitofboth.Regionalperspectivesarenotantitheticaltouniversalism,astheregionalworldapproachdevelopedattheUniversityofChicagoattests.61

How to Study IR: The Question of Epistemology

AcolleagueatAmericanUniversitycontendsthat,tobegenuinelynon-Western,weneedwaysofgeneratingtheorythatarenotpronetoKing,Keohane,andVerbatypeofgenerat-ingtheory.62Whatis,then,importantisnotjustthecontentofIR,butthewaysofdoingIR.PartoftheanswerliesinbroadeningourconceptionofwhatthephilosophyofsciencebehindIRactuallymeans,asJacksoninarecentcontributionhassoadmirablytriedtodo.PatrickThaddeusJacksonmakesapowerfulcaseforpluralisminIR,particularlyinsofarasourunderstandingofwhatconstitutesscienceisconcerned.63Insodoing,hestrikesapowerfulblowagainsttheclaimsofthosewhohavefounditconvenienttodismissnon-Westernexperiencesandvoicesasthestuffofareastudiesorasunscientific.

ButJacksonalsoinsiststhatputtingthesciencequestiontorestcertainlydoesnotmeanthatweenterarealmwhereanythinggoes.64Scientificknowledgeforhimhasthreeindispensableconstituentcomponents:itmustbesystematic,itmustbecapableof taking (and one presumes tackling successfully) public criticism and it must beintendedtoproduceworldlyknowledge.65Butonehastobecarefulhere.AgooddealofwhatonemightbringintoIRTfromthenon-Westernworldmayindeedbeworldlyknowledge.Butothersourcescouldbereligionandculturalandspiritualknowledgethatmightnotstrictlyqualifyasthis-worldly.Theymaylieatsomevagueintersectionbetweenscienceandspiritualityorcombinethematerialwiththespiritual.Thus,Shanisuggests the Sikh Khalsa Panth or Islamic Ummah as sources of post-Western IRT,becausetheseconceptsofferanalternativeconceptionofuniversalityandapoten-tiallymoresolidaristconceptionofinternationalsocietythanthatofferedbywesternWestphalianIR.66

61. Sita Ranchod-Nilsson, RegionalWorlds: Transforming Pedagogy inArea Studies and InternationalStudies,availableat:http://regionalworlds.uchicago.edu/transformingpedagogy.pdf;ArjunAppadurai,Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1996).

62. CommentsatthelaunchofNon-Western International Relations TheorybyAmitavAcharyaandBarryBuzan,AmericanUniversity,Washington,DC,3May2010.Thereferencewasto:GaryKing,RobertO.KeohaneandSidneyVerba, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994).

63. PatrickThaddeusJackson,The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics (Oxford:Routledge,2010).

64. Ibid.,196.65. Ibid.,193.66. Shani,TowardaPost-WesternIR,Abstract.


The worlds oldest religion, Hinduism, presents another example. The Hindu epicMahabharata,whichdescribesafratricidalconflictbetweentheKauravasandthePandavas,shouldbearewardingsourceofconceptsandtheoriesofIR;itisafterallameta-narrativeofjustandunjustwars,alliancesandbetrayals,self-interestandmorality,andgoodandbadgovernance.67TheBhagavadGita, Hinduismsmost sacred text, is acomponentof theMahabharata.ItsopeningdescribesArjuna,thePandavacampsmostcelebratedwarrior,haltingattheedgeofthebattlefield,overcomewithremorseattheprospectofslayinghisownrelativeswhoarearrayedontheoppositeside.LordKrishna,Arjunasgod-charioteer,counselshimtofightonbecausedeathonlydestroysthemortalbody,whilethesoul(atman)ispermanent:Ourbodiesareknowntoend,buttheembodiedselfisenduring,indestruc-tibleand immeasurable, therefore,Arjuna, fight thebattle.68KrishnaalsogivesArjunaseveralotherreasonsfornotabstainingfromwarjustcause,personalhonour,shamefromenemiesandtheopportunitytorule.ThefollowingpassagesfromGitaareespeciallynote-worthy:Ifyourefusetofightthisrighteouswar,then[youwouldbe]shirkingyourdutyandlosingyourreputation(Chapter2,passage33);thewarriorchiefswhothoughthighlyofyou,willnowdespiseyou,thinkingthatitwasfearwhichdroveyoufrombattle(Chapter2,passage35);andDie,andyouwillwinheaven;conquer,andyouwillenjoysovereigntyoftheearth;thereforestandup,Arjuna,determined[sic]tofight(Chapter2,passage37).69Inotherwords,LordKrishnaspleadingswiththewarriorArjunanottoabstainfromwarresonatewiththelogicofrighteousactionwhichisboththis-worldly(honour,shame,power)andother-worldly(theindestructibilityofthesoulortheatman).

CanwebringtheseinsightsintoIRknowledgeifweinsistonaconductofenquirythatdemandsastrictseparationbetweenthis-andother-worldliness,andbetweenthematerialandthespiritual?Wecouldofcourseself-consciouslyincludeelementssuchasscripturalknowledgewhichmaynoteasilypassthetestofthis-worldliness,andcallthemthenon-scientificelementsofIRT.Butthatmightmeanconsigningthemtosecond-classstatus,since,asJacksonpointsout,thelabelscientificcarriesmuchprestigeanddisci-pliningimpactinIRT.OurinsistenceonsciencethusrisksfurthermarginalisingagoodmanyofthesourcesofIRknowledgewhicharewhollyorpartiallyunscientificorwhoseaffinitywithsciencecannotbeclearlyestablished.

ToillustratethecomplexitiesanddilemmasinvolvedindrawingIRknowledgefromnon-Westernphilosophies,Iwillgiveoneimportantexample,takenfromBuddhistphi-losophy,whichhasreceivedpracticallynoattentionfromscholarsofIR.70Ichoosethisbecause,asnotedearlier,itisatransnationalreligion,havingspreadfromIndiatoChina,Japan,KoreaandSouth-eastAsia.Itspan-Asiannatureisnotunimportantinourpresentquestfornon-Westernorpost-WesternIRTs,sinceAsiaissupposedlytherisingconti-nent,andIRThasoftenbeensubservienttopower.

Inafascinatingstudy,thepresentDalaiLamaexplorestherelationshipbetweensci-enceandBuddhistphilosophy.Buddhistphilosophyacceptsandemploystheempiricism

67. OnemightalsolookatRaymondWestbrookandRaymondCohen, Isaiahs Vision of Peace in Biblical and Modern International Relations: Swords into Plowshares(Houndmills:PalgraveMacmillan,2008).

68. Chapter 2, passage 18,The Bhagavad-Gita, trans.Barbara StolerMiller (NewYork:BantamDell,1986),34.

69. Srimad Bhagavad Gita, ed.Ashok Kaushik, English trans. Janak Datta, 7th edn (New Delhi: StarPublications,2007),557.

70. WiththeadmirableexceptionofChan,MandavilleandBleikersThe Zen of International Relations.

Acharya 635

ofscience,especiallydirectobservationandreasonedinference(i.e.knowledgecanbephenomenallygivenoritcanbeinferred),butpartscompanywithsciencewhenitcomestoathirdway,reliableauthority.Buddhistphilosophybelievesinafurtherlevelofreality,whichmayremainobscuretotheunenlightenedmind.Thisincludeslawofkarma,scripturecitedasaparticularlycorrectsourceofauthorityandtheteachingofBuddha,which,forBuddhists,hasproventobereliableintheexaminationofthenatureofexistenceandpathtoliberation.71AlthoughPoppersfalsificationthesiswouldrenderthegapbetweenthescientificmethodandBuddhismwiderbyexcludingmanyquestionsthatpertaintoourhumanexistence,includingethicsandspirituality,falsificationreso-nateswithTibetanBuddhismsprincipleofthescopeofnegation,whichunderscoresthedifferencebetweenthatwhichisnotfoundandthatwhichisfoundnottoexist.72

Itisnotdifficulttoseethatthefurtherlevelofrealitymaywellapplytomostotherreligiousdoctrines,suchastheIslamicSunnahandHadith,ortheHinduBhagavadGita.WhiletheDalaiLamaarguesthatscienceexcludesquestionsofmetaphysicsandethics,73notallIRtheory(althoughsomeversionsmoresothanothers)doeswhichjustifieskeepingsomedistancebetweenthem(i.e.scienceandIR).

In comparing scientific enquirywithBuddhist philosophy, theDalai Lama bringsparticularlytoattentionthedoctrineofemptiness,orsunyata,originatingfromtheIndianBuddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (2nd century), which is the source of the BuddhistschoolsofMadhymika(MiddleWay)andYogacara.Thecoreargumentofsunyataisthefundamentaldisparitybetweenthewayweperceivetheworld,includingourownexpe-rienceinit,andthewaythingsactuallyare.Sunyatarejectsthetendencytoperceivetheworld,includingallthingsandevents,whethermaterial,mentalorevenabstractcon-ceptsliketime,asiftheypossessself-enclosed,definable,discrete,andenduringreal-ity,orasifthereisanessentialcoretoourbeing,whichcharacterisesourindividualityandidentityasadiscreetego,independentofthephysicalandmentalelementsthatcon-stituteourexistence.But:

Tointrinsicallypossesssuchindependentexistencewouldmeanthatnothinghasthecapacityto interactwith or exert influence on any other phenomena In the theory of emptiness,everythingisarguedasmerelybeingcomposedofdependentlyrelatedevents;ofcontinuouslyinteractingphenomenawithnofixed,immutableessence,whicharethemselvesindynamicandconstantlychangingrelations.Thus,thingsandeventsareemptyinthattheycanneverpossessanyimmutableessence,intrinsicrealityorabsolutebeingthataffordsindependence.74

Inthedoctrineofemptiness,changeistheorderofthings:nothingcanpossessunchang-ingessence,nothingeveris,forallissubjecttochangeandisintheprocessofbecomingwhichneverbecomes.Importantly,theself,too,isultimatelyofthesamechangeable,non-permanentnature.75TheDalaiLamafinds anunmistakable resonancebetween

71. DalaiLama,The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality(NewYork:MorganRoadBooks,2005),289.

72. DalaiLama, Universe in a Single Atom,35.73. DalaiLama, Universe in a Single Atom,35.74. DalaiLama,Universe in a Single Atom,467.SeealsoGajinM.Nagao,Mdhyamika and Yogcra:

A Study of Mahyna Philosophies. Collected Papers, trans.LeslieS.Kawamura(Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,1991),1745.

75. MervFowler,Buddhism: Religious Practices and Beliefs(NewDelhi:AdarshBooks,2000),85.


theseBuddhistideasofemptinessandinterdependenceandthenewquantumphysicsofrelativity,whichchallengedtheoldNewtonianphysics,withitsmechanisticworld-viewinwhichcertainuniversalphysicallaws,includinggravityandthelawsofmechan-ics,effectivelydeterminedthepatternofnaturalactions,andclaimedmattertobelesssolidanddefinablethanitappears.76

SomemaybetemptedtocomparetheabovetenetsofBuddhistphilosophywithsomeof the core ideas of constructivism (and to some extent postmodernism), especiallyclaimsthatinterestsandidentities(selfandtheother)areneverpermanent,orfixed,butconstantly changing and evolving through theirmutual interdependence and interac-tions.Thiswould seem to some as amethodological sin, that is, projectingmodernconceptsbackwardstoclassicalwisdom.ButWesternIRtheoristshavenotshiedawayfromattachinglabelslikerealismandliberalismtopastwriterssuchasThucydides,StThomasAquinas,Machiavelli,HobbesandKant.Canwedismissthetheoryofempti-nessandideas likeself-nature, dependentoriginationandstoreconsciousnessastoounscientificorother-worldlytodeserveaplaceinIR?Inmyview,suchknowledgeshouldhaveitsplaceinIR,especiallywhereithelpsusunderstandthecontexts,motiva-tions and outcomes of the behaviour of actors embedded within these beliefs andapproaches. This fits well with Moshirzadehs call for understanding the contextswithinwhichnon-WesternIRsaredeveloped.77Therearelotsofalienwaysofproduc-ingknowledgeoutthere,includingthewisdomsofothercivilisationsandclassicalandmoderninternationalandregionalsystemswhicharewonderfullyandcreativelyunsci-entific.IRcanignorethematitsownperil,especiallyinitsmomentofliberationfromthedisciplininghandsofanAmericansocialsciencenowbeingresistedfromwithin.

Conclusion

ThepathwaystoamoreuniversaldisciplineofIRthatincorporatestheideas,voicesandexperiencesoftheworldbeyondtheWestareneithersingularnoridentical.Thereremainimportantdifferencesbetween the structural conditions for the studyof IR in thenon-WesternworldandthoseintheWest,whichshouldberecognised.Atthesametime,boththeWestandtherestareincreasinglydiversewithinthemselvesandtherearecross-cuttingcleavages,interestsandidentitiesbetweenthesecategories.Therecanbelittledoubt,asMoshirzadehnotes,thatstudiesdonefromaThirdWorldperspectivehavesimilaritiestoanddifferencesfromthosedonebyWesternscholars.78IagreewithKnudErik-Jorgensenthat, inmoving the discipline forward, one should acknowledge the actually existingglobaldiversityofpracticingthediscipline.Butwhilediversityshouldprobablynotbecherishedforitsownsake,thechallengeistotakethesteamoutofseveralclaimsaboutuniversalvalidityinexisting,WesterncentricIR,andalsotoraisetheimportantissueoftherelativemeritsofthedifferentwaysofknowingtheinternational.79

OneofthekeychallengesfacingIRisourcollectivefailuretounderstandandfosteritsdevelopment as a two-way dialogue. Power structures and intellectual predispositions,

76. DalaiLama,Universe in a Single Atom,50.77. Moshirzadeh,AHegemonicDiscipline,343.78. Moshirzadeh,AHegemonicDiscipline,342.79. KnudErikJorgensen,TheWorld(s)ofIR:ContinentalPerspectives,28April2010,availableat:http://

www.e-ir.info/?p=3991.

Acharya 637

shapedbyhistoryandidentity,standinthewayofacknowledgingtheagencyandcontribu-tionofothervoices,evenwhenoneknowsthemtobeoutthere.Inherdiscussionoftwopowerfultraditionsofdialogue,SocraticandHabermasian,ProfessorHutchingsexposeshowtheconceptofWestinrelationtodialogueisnot,andhasneverbeen,aneutraldescriptiveterm.80Since Western politicalphilosophyisonemajorsourceofcontemporaryIRtheory,herdiscussionhelpsustobetterunderstandoneofthemorepowerfulreasonsbehindWesterncentrismininternationalrelationsstudies.Forexample,ProfessorHutchingssaysthattheidentificationofthethoughtandpracticeofAncientGreecewiththeWestis,ofcourse,highlycontested.AncientGreekthoughtdidnotemergeinavacuum,butwasshapedby,aswellasinfluencing,traditionsofAfricanandAsianthought.ItisnomoreWesternthannon-Western.Yet,howmanyscholars,especiallyIRtheorists,recognisethatfirstelementoftheproposition,thatis,thatGreekthoughtmightindeedhavebeenshapedbyAfricanandAsianthought?Otherwise,ourIRtextbookswouldhavebeenwrittenverydifferently.Similarly,thedevelopmentofIRtheoryhasrarelybeenseenasatwo-wayprocesswiththeinfusionoftheideasandexperiencesofothersocietiesandpeoples.

Inessence,therefore,whatIarguehereisforthedisciplineofIR,itstheoryinparticu-lar, to acknowledge itsglobalheritage.Here,AmartyaSenspoint about the rootsofdemocraticdialogueinIndia is instructive. IndiscussinghisbookThe Argumentative Indian,81SenfirstpointsoutthattheIndianpracticeofdemocracyisnotjustaboutelec-tions,butalsoaboutcivicdiscourse,includingawillingnesstolistentodifferentpointsof view.Thisupholds the long andwritten-up argumentative tradition in India.Toillustratehispoint,SeninvokestheargumentinBhagavad GitabetweenLordKrishnaandthewarriorArjunaaboutthenecessityandmoralityofwar(whichIhavealsodis-cussedinthisarticle,beforeIactuallyheardSensinterview).ButSenalsopointsoutthatthistraditionofdialogueisnotuniquetoIndia,butactuallyaglobalheritage.Toquotehisownwords:Thereisaglobaltraditionhere,thewholeideathatitisallWesternisquitemistaken.He rejects theunderlyingassumption that this tradition somehowbelongs to theWestand then it is for theWest todecidewhether to impose itornotimposeit,ratherthanrecognizingtheglobalbackground.82

Yet,IRtheoryhasbeenwrittenandpresented,andisstillbeingwrittenandpresented,asifitspringsalmostentirelyfromanexclusivelyWesternheritage.OnlybyuncoveringtheassumptionsandpowerstructuresthatobscureIRtheorysglobalheritagecanwemovefromdissenttodialogueandthendialoguetodiscovery.Thisindeedisthecentralpointofmyarticle.

Author Biography

Amitav AcharyaisProfessorofInternationalRelations,SchoolofInternationalService,AmericanUniversity,Washington,DC,USA.

80. Hutchings,DialoguebetweenWhom?.81. AmartyaSen,The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity(NewYork:

Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2005).82. SensinterviewwithNationalPublicRadiointheUnitedStates:AmartyaSen,TheArgumentativeIndian,

aired13October2005,availableat:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4957424.

amitav acharya in search of ir theories beyond the west

Documents