General Rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognize and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

This coversheet template is made available by AU Library Version 1.0, October 2016

Coversheet This is the accepted manuscript (post-print version) of the article. Contentwise, the post-print version is identical to the final published version, but there may be differences in typography and layout. How to cite this publication Please cite the final published version: Jørgensen, K. E. (2017). Inter Alia: On Global Orders, Practices, and Theory. International Studies Review, 19(2), 283-287. https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix009

Publication metadata Title: Inter Alia: On Global Orders, Practices, and Theory Author(s): Knud Erik Jørgensen Journal: International Studies Review, 19(2), 283-287 DOI/Link: https://doi.org/10.1093/isr/vix009 Document version: Accepted manuscript (post-print)

1

Inter Alia. On Global Orders, Practices, and Theory

Knud Erik Jørgensen, Yaşar University and Aarhus University

This is a prepublication draft

In contrast to science, it is fairly common in science fiction to encounter and explore parallel

worlds. In IR, we tend to shy away from the possible existence of parallel worlds. According to a

widespread worldview in the field, there is, as Stephen Walt (1998) has put it, “one world—

many theories.” In this brief essay, I will explore three parallel worlds arguing that they are not

at all fictional but very real and should become the subject of a six continents social science

that we with a well-established misnomer call IR (Jørgensen 2003). Hence, the ‘inter’ I focus on

is thus foremost ontological and concerns relations between these parallel worlds as well as

relations between the multiple units we can identify in these worlds. More specifically, I aim at

making three points. First, I argue that the conceptual triptych (state/empire/civilization)

provides a helpful guide to the parallel worlds, their inter-relations, and how the units are

intertwined. Because conceptualization helps us to know the parallel worlds the triptych

establishes an ‘inter’ between ontological and epistemological dimensions. The extended

conceptual repertoire allows for a broader understanding of identity politics that goes beyond

default (state) understandings of self and other. Second, the triptych allows for the inclusion of

non-Western IR-theories that despite rumors about the opposite do exist and do provide

insightful guides to things inter-national/-state/-empire/-civilization. These theories are not

only insightful, but also innovative in their conceptions of global orders and thus most suitable

for global reflexive dialogues. Third, I argue that the non-Western theories demonstrate,

inadvertently, that Europe or ‘the West’ no longer enjoys monopoly of ethnocentrism,

exceptionalism, or universalism, making criticism of Eurocentrism both relatively less relevant

and—in its generic form—more relevant than ever.

A Promising Triptych: State, Empire, Civilization

2

The conceptual triangle of state, empire, and civilization is back in vogue yet characterized by a

very uneven degree of refined conceptualization and continuously slides between analytical

and political-ideological functions of the concepts. We have probably been too successful in

persuading ourselves (and our students) that the only world order of significance is the

international states system; an order where the state is considered the most successful entity

of all and where all alternatives are either absent, irrelevant, or insignificant. We developed our

specialized IR language to help us explicate the dynamics of the global order of states. However,

the vocabulary appears increasingly insufficient. About two decades ago, Lucian Pye (1992)

conceptualized China as “a civilization that pretends to be a state,” i.e., a civilization first and

foremost and only pretending to be a state. Indian scholars tend occasionally to claim a similar

identity for India. At the same time, Samuel Huntington experienced great success with his (re-

)introduction of primordial civilizations, bound to be in conflict, and prominent politicians were

keen to develop global discourses on civilization. A decade later, the George W. Bush

Administration and the Iraq War triggered a renaissance of the notion of empire as a relevant

concept for global order (Lake 2008). In addition, Hartmut Behr (2010) and Mark Langan (2015)

have suggested that the EU represents a system of imperial rule cultivating neo-colonial

relations. Finally, Janusz Onyszkiewicz (2015; see also Trenin 2011; van Herpen 2014) claims

that Putin’s Russia is “an empire that wants to be a civilization.”

While traditional conceptions of the Westphalian system of states are characterized by

simplicity, extensions with either multilateralism (Ruggie 1992), or an emerging global public

domain (Ruggie 2004a) blur simplicity. However, conceptions of global order in terms of states,

civilizations, and empires blow away simplicity by introducing dimensions of culture and

religion as well as hierarchical international orders that are outside the boundaries or comfort

zones of most IR-theories.

The notion of empire usually carries negative connotations and for many this function is

a sufficient reason to employ the term. Onyskiewicz’ performative act of labelling Russia ‘an

empire that wants to be a civilization’ is functioning as a message that does not need

explication. Typologies of empire or refined conceptualization come second, if at all, and

rigorous conceptual or empirical analysis is usually not on the research agenda and anathema

3

to the political agenda. Empire as an inter-state hierarchical order is largely off the research

agenda and it follows that theorizing about inter-empire relations is limited. Classical

configurations such as the European Concert are analyzed in great power balance of power

terms and thus without the disturbing factor of hierarchical relations within the involved

empires. When conceptualizing international society, English School theorists elegantly avoid

the issue (Keene 2002). Scholars typically analyze regional great powers as lesser great powers

than global great powers and not as imperial powers. Regarding the EU case, Langan goes back

to Ghanese President Kwame Nkrumah's notion of neo-colonialism and Behr (year) finds

inspiration in historical inter-empire relations, specifically relations between nineteenth century

European empires and the Ottoman Empire.

The parallel worlds that are constituted by states, civilizations, and empires are inter-

related and they interact in often complex fashions. In order to comprehend the complexity of

inter-world relations, Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein’s (2010) work on civilizations represents a

quantum leap in terms of turning civilization into an analytical concept. He elegantly balances

the controversial distinction between civilization and civilizations. He skips the notion of

primordial civilizations presenting them as malleable and characterized by internal diversity.

Moreover, as the parallel worlds are parallel, it is probably helpful to think in terms of both/and

instead of either/or. These social structures inter-act. Brzezinski and Mearsheimer might be

correct in observing how China is being socialized into the Westphalian order of states,

Ikenberry might be correct in observing how China is being socialized into the multilateral

system, but Pye might also have a point in characterizing China as a civilization-state where the

ruling elite thinks in terms of civilization yet engage in the Westphalian order. Does Russia

cultivate ‘frozen conflicts’ in Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Ukraine in order to

assert or protect a Russian civilization based on orthodox Christianity, Russian language, and

the mythological ‘Rus’? Are the conflicts in Chechnya or Dagestan the outposts of a Christian

(orthodox) civilization facing a different (Muslim) civilization or simply unruly provinces in a

Russian empire? Is the Eurasian Union a means to (re-)establish a Russian empire with an

orthodox civilizational core or simply a response by Russia facing NATO (and the EU) in the

West and a rising China in the East? Does civilization discourse guide or shape policy-making or

4

is such discourse merely being used instrumentally to justify policies that are determined by

other factors? This is obviously a general issue and as many binaries invite, the debate can go

on forever. However, we could also respond by saying, ‘It depends,’ thus abandoning the futile

search for a final solution and instead allow for both roles and essentially making it an empirical

issue.

It might be that we academics have our preferences regarding the phenomena we find

worthwhile, analyzing how we want to explain them but we do not have a monopoly on

explananda or explanans. Politicians, journalists, military folks, diplomats, and religious folks all

have their worldviews and entrenched ideas about how the world operates. They have their

vocabularies and teach students often long time before students become our students. These

conceptualizations do not make these authors IR-scholars and their worldviews are not

necessarily IR-theory. But, their thinking and worldviews might well have an impact on how the

world operates even if we, the observers refuse to accept or recognize the parallel worlds or

the cognitive practices.

Beyond the Global Northwest: Theorizing Ontological Incongruence

The conceptual triptych enables the inclusion of non-Western IR-theories and thus a better

understanding of the degree to which global IR-theories reflect contemporary global politics

practices. I argue that the ontology of the parallel worlds helps us better understand the

dynamics of contemporary conceptualization and theory building in a discipline that is in a state

of “after hegemony” (Jørgensen 2014). Chih-yu Shih and Jiwu Yin (2013, 72) employ the term

“ontological incongruence” for global orders that are constituted by different types of units—

states, civilizations, or empires—and how these units are intertwined. However, ontological

incongruence is not only about global orders constituted by different types of units, and how

these units are intertwined, but also concerns our specialized vocabularies.

It was once upon a time that Europe’s self-image was ‘the civilization,’ in the singular,

capable of setting “standards of civilization” (Gong 1984). These days, Europe shies away from

such bragging self-images, leaving it to upbeat nationalists on other continents. At the same

time, authoritarian presidents are keen to propose ‘dialogues among civilizations’ (Khatami and

5

Erdogan). While the Chinese conception of sovereignty is said to be ‘modern’ (in contrast to a

European post-modern conception), it is in potential conflict with the Confucian idea of a

harmonious society, characterized by unity and order and, based on dynastic authoritarianism,

i.e., a hierarchical mode of international politics. In Russia, the notion of ‘nova Russia’ surfaced

for a while as a cognitive frame, meaning the civilization of all Russians, no matter in which

state they live. The cognitive frame accompanies the idea that state x, y, and z not really are

states.

In non-Western IR-theory, key terms include both empire and civilization yet limited

conceptualization characterizes each term. Relations between civilizations and the states

system are not addressed in any systematic fashion, yet intriguing suggestions flourish.

Moreover, scholars promoted and critiqued both empire and civilization. While critique of

Western imperialism is to be expected, the active promotion of non-Western empires is

perhaps slightly surprising. The author of the preface to Civilizations and World Order

(Dallmayr, Kayapinar, and Yaylaci 2014), Ahmet Davutoglu, is both the former Turkish Prime

Minister and, as IR-scholar, the author of “Strategic Depth,” a blueprint for neo-Ottomanism,

i.e., a highly contested term in Turkish identity politics. In Iranian identity politics, processes of

self-image formation do not only draw on Islamic sources but also on imperial and civilizational

sources. In the China case, the harmonious world idea has striking similarities with imperial

peace. In Russia, Alexander Dugin and other neo-Eurasianists do not hide their appetite for a

new Russian empire, specifically a (re-)integrated Soviet empire without communism. Andrei

Tsygankov (2008) introduces the rich tradition of civilizational debates in Russia and situates

the civilizational perspectives along two axes: their identity—Europe/West vs. non-West—and

their degree of essentialism. In Russian civilizational debates, it is particularly the Eurasianist

current of thinking that cultivates counter-hegemonic but not anti-hegemonic ideas. Whereas

balance of power theory provides a rationale for avoiding hegemony, Eurasianists seek to

counter and replace what they see as an existing Western hegemony. Drawing on Slavophil

ideas, neo-Eurasianists are convinced that they can count the days of Western world leadership

and that Russia will replace the West.

6

Concerning India, Priya Chacko (2012) navigates brilliantly between traditional and

revisionist perspectives on Indian foreign policy, the former emphasizing Indian versions of

idealism, the latter emphasizing why India need to ‘grow up’ by means of adopting power-

oriented perspectives. Her own approach is to consider foreign policy “a self-reflexive ethico-

political project of identity construction.” She emphasizes the deep ambivalences in Indian

discourses on foreign policy and analyses the meta-narratives that present India as a

civilization-state embedded in civilizational exceptionalism. Unhappy with the tendency to keep

analysis at a general level she explores how ideas about civilization inform policy-making and

the conduct of foreign relations including the role of civilization discourse in reasons for action,

i.e., in strategies of justification.

Ever more states are thus lining up for a status as a civilization state and/or empire and

political discourses related to inter-civilization relations are thriving. Among the main initiatives,

we find the ‘Dialogue among Civilizations’ (former Iranian president Khatami) and the UN-

sponsored ‘Alliance of Civilizations’. Given the global material power shifts and the sustained

debates about normative global orders, it is increasingly clear that IR is moving towards an after

hegemony phase (Jørgensen 2014). Theoretical perspectives and debates on global order have

become de-centric, are conducted in several languages, and constitute different discursive

structures with nodal points around the key terms state, empire, and civilization. The

traditionally close relationship between discourses of practice and discourses of theory is

maintained, yet with the twist that global IR-theory seems to reflect more than shape practices.

Beyond European Eurocentrism

The inclusion of non-Western theoretical perspectives on civilizational and imperial global

orders is not without problems. The employment of distinctly non-Western concepts is

obviously a notable challenge to lazy Western minds and a highly disquieting factor in the (de-

)construction of our worldviews and globalizing discipline. Yet it is an even bigger cognitive

challenge to acknowledge that non-Western theoretical reflections on things ‘inter’

predominantly tend to be primed by features that critical IR aims at problematizing. The

7

following three challenges for a sound six continents IR-discipline therefore amount to a

mission nearly impossible.

It is in the first place not particularly exceptional to think in terms of exceptionalism.

Scholarship on Eurocentrism, orientalism, and European integration documents, despite

notable differences and sometimes unintendedly how Europeans in practice and theory are no

strangers to thinking in terms of exceptionalism. However, it is well known that American

exceptionalism is also a phenomenon of considerable consequence (Ruggie 2004b; Holsti 2010).

Likewise, scholarship on Russia, India, and China demonstrates the existence and significance of

exceptionalism with Russian, Indian, and Chinese characteristics. Analysts report and/or

represent conceptions of unique and/or primordial Russian, Indian, and Chinese (state-)

civilizations (Pye 1992; Shlapentokh 2007; Tsygankov 2008; Chacko 2012; Dugin 2014). Indeed,

exceptionalist thinking seems predominant around the world, making it somewhat hard to find

exceptions to this seemingly universal way of thinking.

Moreover, it is not particularly exceptional to think in terms of ethnocentrism. In the

Russian case, ethnocentrism is among the key characteristics of the neo-Eurasionist conception

of global order, with notions of Russian cultural superiority, accompanied by prescriptions of

power maximization and territorial advances. Being perpetually torn between Western and

Eastern civilizations, it seems Russia has to choose. Yet neo-Eurasionists reject the dilemma by

claiming a distinct Russian civilizational status thus using in-betweenness as a source of identity.

In Global South perspectives, cultural or moral superiority claims are ubiquitous and cherished.

As a leading Muslim Brotherhood social theorist, Sayed Qutb (2006) claims a moral superiority

based on Islamic faith. Confucianism is characterized by a significant degree of ethnocentrism,

Han Chinese ethnocentrism to be precise. This version of ethnocentrism comes as a full

package, including ideas about non-Han races being barbarians. In India, it is a widespread idea

that the Indian state-civilization is more peaceful than most and certainly morally superior

(Chacko 2012).

Finally, it is not particularly European or Western to cultivate universal ideas. Similar to

Western liberalism, Confucianism is universalistic, cf. notions like tianxia and expectations

about a global order with Chinese characteristics, beginning with China’s peaceful rise. Yet

8

contending universal ideologies are bound to cause diplomatic challenges. It is hardly surprising

that relations between China and the EU are characterized by “conceptual gaps” (Pan 2012;

Jørgensen and Wong 2015), i.e. concepts that are shared globally but with contending

meanings or key terms that only are known or have meaning in parts of the world. In Chinese

nationalist discourse, the notion of ‘a century of humiliation’ is routinely cultivated whereas a

European version e.g., ‘a century of decline,’ hardly exists in nationalist discourse. Likewise,

concepts that Europeans take for granted, e.g. ‘Renaissance’ or ‘the Enlightenment,’ might

understandably provoke cognitive turbulence elsewhere.

In a genuine six continents IR-discipline, it will be difficult to acknowledge that Europe

(or the West) does not enjoy a monopoly of exceptionalism, ethnocentrism, and universalism,

for which reason criticism of Eurocentrism appears increasingly to be a critique of yesterday’s

state of affairs. While it is well documented that the discipline in the West has been and is

heavily Eurocentric (Hobson 2012), the persistent exclusion of non-Western concepts and

theories has contributed to produce this state of affairs. The way forward might be a continued

critique of this version of centrism while at the same time critically considering non-Western

conceptualizations, thereby eventually redefining what Ted Hopf (2002) calls a particular well-

known consensually foundational literature. Moreover, the mega-trend of European relative

decline and the related global power shifts make a universal critique of centric perspectives of

all sorts more relevant than ever.

9

References

Acharya, Amitav. 2011. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories Beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 619–37.

———. 2014. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 647–59.

———. 2016. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18 (1): 4–15.

Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. 2007. “Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7 (3): 287–312.

Agnew, John. 2007. “Know-Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics.” International Political Sociology 1 (2): 138–48.

Alagappa, Muthiah. 2011. “International Relations Studies in Asia.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11 (2): 193–230.

Ashley, Richard K. 1986. “The Poverty of Neorealism.” In Neorealism and its Critics, edited by Robert O. Keohane, 255–300. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ashley, Richard K., and R. B.J. Walker. 1990. “Speaking the Language of Exile.” International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 259–68.

Assmann, Jan. 1995. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” New German Critique 65 (#): 125–33.

Augé, Marc. 1995. Non-Places. Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London: Verso.

Ayyash, Mark Muhannad. 2010. “Hamas and the Israeli State: A ‘Violent Dialogue.’” European Journal of International Relations 16 (1): 103–23.

Barkawi, Tarak, and Mark Laffey. 2006. “The Postcolonial Moment in Security Studies.” Review of International Studies 32 (2): 329–52.

Basrur, Rajesh M. 2009. “Scholarship on India’s International Relations: Some Disciplinary Shortcomings.” International Studies 46 (1–2): 89–108.

Behera, Navnita Chadha. 2007. “Re-imagining IR in India.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7 (3): 341–68.

Behr, Hartmut. 2007. “The European Union in the Legacies of Imperial Rule?” European Journal of International Relations 13 (2): 239–-62.

Behr, Hartmut. 2010. A History of International Political Theory: Ontologies of the International. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

———. 2014. Politics of Difference: Epistemologies of Peace. London: Routledge.

10

Berenskoetter, Felix. 2007. “Friends, there are no Friends? An Intimate Reframing of the International.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35 (3): 647–76.

Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. “Thinking past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29 (1): 5–23.

———. 2012. “Civilisation, Dialogue, Security: the Challenge of post-Secularism and the Limits of Civilisational Dialogue.” Review of International Studies 38 (5): 1099–1115.

Bleiker, Roland. 2009. Aesthetics and World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bohm, David. 1996. On Dialogue. London: Routledge.

Booth, Ken. 2010. “Realism Redux. Contexts, Concepts, Contests.” In Realism and World Politics, edited by Ken Booth, 1–14. London: Routledge.

Bourbeau, Philippe. 2015. Security: Dialogue Across Disciplines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Breitenbauch, Henrik Ø. 2013. International Relations in France: Writing between Discipline and State. London: Routledge.

Brown, Chris. 2001. “Fog in Channel: Continental IR Theory Isolated.” In International Relations Still an American Social Science? Towards Diversity in International Thought, edited by Robert Crawford and Darryl Jarvis, 203–19. Albany: SUNY Press.

———. 2012. “The ‘Practice Turn,’ Phronesis, and Classical Realism.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 (3): 439–56.

Burbules Nicholas. 2000. “The Limits of Dialogue as a Critical Pedagogy.” In Revolutionary Pedagogies, edited by Peter Trifonas, 251–73. London: Routledge.

Buzan, Barry. 2016. “Could IR be Different?” International Studies Review 18 (1): 155–57.

Camic, Charles, and Hans Joas. 2004. The Dialogical Turn. New Roles for Sociology in the Postdisciplinary Age. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Chacko, Priya. 2013. Indian Foreign Policy: The Politics of Postcolonial Identity from 1947 to 2004. London: Routledge.

Chan, Stephen. 2001. “Seven Types of Ambiguity in Western International Relations Theory and Painful steps towards Right Ethics.” In The Zen of International Relations, edited by Stephen Chan, Peter Mandaville, and Roland Bleiker, 69–78. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chernilo, Daniel. 2006. “Methodological Nationalism and its Critique.” In The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism, edited by Gerard Delant and Krishan Kumar, 129–40. London: Sage.

Chernoff, Fred. 2002. “Scientific Realism as a Meta-Theory of International Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 46 (2): 189–207.

———. 2007. Theory and Metatheory in International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chernoff, Fred. 2009. “Conventionalism as an Adequate Basis for Policy-Relevant IR Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 15 (1): 157–94.

11

Collins, Randall. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Cornut, Jérémie, and Dario Battistella. 2013. “Des RI Françaises en Emergence? Les Internationalistes Français Dans Le Sondage TRIP 2011.” Revue Française de Science Politique 63 (2): 303–36.

Cox, Robert W. 1986. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” In Neorealism and its Critics, edited by Robert O. Keohane, 204–54. New York: Columbia University Press.

Crawford, Robert, and Darryl Jarvis. 2001. International Relations Still an American Social Science? Albany: SUNY Press.

Dallmayr, Fred. 2002. Dialogue among Civilizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dallmayr, Fred, M. Akif Kayapinar, and Ismail Yaylaci. 2014. Civilizations and World Order: Geopolitics and Cultural Difference. Lanham: Lexington.

Daniels, Inge. 2010. The Japanese House. Material Culture in the Modern Home. Oxford: Berg.

Davidson, Donald. 2001. Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Clarendon.

———. 2004. Problems of Rationality. Oxford: Clarendon.

Der Derian, James, and Michael Shapiro. 1989. International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics. Lanham: Lexington.

Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1996. Imperial Encounters: The Politics of Representation in North-South Relations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Dugin, Alexander. 2014. “Alexander Dugin on Eurasianism, the Geopolitics of Land and Sea, and a Russian Theory of Multipolarity.” Theory Talks, December 7. http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/12/theory-talk-66.html.

Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wright. 2013. “The End of International Relations Theory?” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 405–25.

Esposito, John, and John O. Voll. 2000. “Islam and the West: Muslim Voices of Dialogue.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29 (3): 613–39.

Friedrichs, Jörg. 2001. “International Relations Theory in France.” Journal of International Relations and Development 2 (4): 118–37.

Friedrichs, Jörg, and Friedrich Kratochwil. 2009. “On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology.” International Organization 63 (4): 701–31.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1998. Praise of Theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gallie, W.B. 1956. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (): 167–220.

12

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gong, Gerrit W. 1984. The Standard of Civilization in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gruffydd Jones, Branwen, ed. 2006. Decolonising International Relations. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Guillaume, Xavier. 2011. International Relations and Identity: A Dialogical Approach. London: Routledge.

Guzzini, Stefano. 2013. “The Ends of International Relations Theory: Stages of Reflexivity and Modes of Theorizing.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 521–41.

Heidegger, Martin. 1954. Was heißt denken? Tübingen: Martin Niemeyer.

Hellmann, Gunther et al. 2003. “Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?” International Studies Review 5 (1): 123–53.

Hellmann, Gunther et al. 2009. “Pragmatism and International Relations.” International Studies Review 11 (3): 638–62.

Herborth, Benjamin. 2013. “Methodologische Aufklärung?: Perspektiven Rekonstruktiver Weltpolitikforschung.” In Rekonstruktive Weltpolitikforschung, edited by Ulrich Franke and Ulrich Roos, 349–70. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Hobson, John M. 2007. “Is Critical Theory always for the White West and for Western Imperialism?” Review of International Studies 33 (S1): 91–116.

———. 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106: 41–60.

Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. 1990. Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford: Clarendon.

Holsti, Kalevi J. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Winchester: Allen and Unwin.

———. 2010. “Exceptionalism in American Foreign Policy: Is it Exceptional?” European Journal of International Relations 17 (3): 381–404.

Hopf, Ted. 2002. Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Horvath, Agnes, Bjørn Thomassen, and Harald Wydra. 2015. “Introduction. Liminality and the Search for Boundaries.” In Breaking Boundaries. Varieties of Liminality, edited by Agnes Horvath, Bjørn Thomassen, and Harald Wydra, 1–8. Oxford: Berghahn.

13

Hutchings, Kimberly. 2011. “Dialogue between Whom? The Role of the West/Non-West Distinction in Promoting Global Dialogue in IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 639–47.

Inayatullah, Naeem, and David Blaney. 2004. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. London: Routledge.

Inoguchi, Takashi. 2007. “Are there any Theories of International Relations in Japan?” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7 (3): 369–90.

Jackson, Patrick T. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge.

Jackson, Patrick T., and Daniel Nexon. 1999. “Relations before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 5 (3): 291–332.

Jeacle, Ingrid, and Chris Carter. 2011. “In TripAdvisor We Trust.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 36 (4–5): 293–309.

Jenco, Leigh. 2007. “‘What Does Heaven Ever Say?’ A Methods-centered Approach to Cross-cultural Engagement.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 741–55.

———. 2015. Changing Referents. Learning across Space and Time in China and the West. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jiménez, Alberto Corsín. 2003. “On Space as a Capacity.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 9 (1): 137–53.

Joas, Hans. 1992. Die Kreativität des Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Jørgensen, Knud Erik. 2000. “Continental IR Theory: the Best Kept Secret.” European Journal of International Relations 6 (1): 9–42.

———. 2003. “Towards a Six Continents Social Science: International Relations.” Journal of International Relations and Development 6 (4): 330–43.

———. 2014. “After Hegemony in International Relations, or, the Persistent Myth of American Disciplinary Hegemony.” European Review of International Studies 1 (1): 57–64.

Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Tonny Brems Knudsen, eds. 2006. International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations. London: Routledge.

Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Morten Valbjørn. 2012. “Four Dialogues and the Funeral of a Beautiful Relationship: European Studies and New Regionalism.” Cooperation & Conflict 47 (1): 3–27.

Jørgensen, Knud Erik, and Ruben Wong. 2015. “Social Constructivist Perspectives on China-EU Relations.” In China, the European Union, and International Politics of Global Governance, edited by Jianwei Wang and Weiqing Song, 51–74. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kaiser, Karl. 1971. “Transnational Politics: Toward a Theory of Multinational Politics.” International Organization 25 (4): 790–817.

14

Keene, Edward. 2002. Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keohane, Robert O. 1988. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International Studies Quarterly 32 (4): 379–96.

Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. 2013. “Political Realism in International Relations.” The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, April 2. http://ow.ly/IEOBG.

Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2015. “Revisiting the ‘American Social Science.’ Mapping the Geography of International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 16 (3): 246-69.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1990. “Dubbing and Redubbing: The Vulnerability of Rigid Designation.” In Scientific Theories, edited by C.W. Savage, 198–218. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

———. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 91–195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lake, David A. 2008. “The New American Empire?” International Studies Perspectives 9 (3): 281–89.

Langan, Mark. 2015. “Budget Support and Africa–European Union Relations: Free Market Reform and Neo-Colonialism?” European Journal of International Relations 21 (1): 101–21.

Lapid, Yosef. 1996. “Culture’s Ship: Returns and Departures in International Relations Theory.” In The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, edited by Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil, 3–20. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Ling, L.H.M. 2007. “Said’s Exile: Strategic Insights for Postcolonial Feminists.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 36 (1): 135–45.

Linklater, Andrew. 2011. The Problem of Harm in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mälksoo, Maria. 2012. “The Challenge of Liminality for International Relations Theory.” Review of International Studies 38 (2): 481–94.

Mallavarapu, Siddarth. 2010. “Development of International Relations Theory in India: Traditions, Contemporary Perspectives and Trajectories.” International Studies 46 (1–2): 165–83.

Mandaville, Peter. 2001. Transnational Muslim Politics: Reimagining the Umma. London: Routledge.

———. 2003. “Toward a Different Cosmopolitanism—Or, the 'I' Dislocated.” Global Society 17 (2): 209–21.

Mannheim, Karl. 1985. Ideology & Utopia. An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. San Diego: Harcourt.

15

Mayall James. 2011. “Non-Western International Relations Theory.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11 (2): 331–35.

Mitchell, Timothy. 2003. “Deterritorialization and the Crises of Social Science.” In Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World. Recasting the Area Studies Debate, edited by Ali Mirsepassi et al., 148–70. New York: Syracuse University Press.

Mouritzen, Hans. 1997. “Kenneth Waltz: a Critical Rationalist between International Politics and Foreign Policy. In The Future of International Relations. Masters in the Making?, edited by Iver B. Neumann and Ole Wæver, 71–95. London: Routledge.

Neumann, Iver B. 2012. “Introduction to the Forum on Liminality.” Review of International Studies 38 (2): 473–79.

Nielsen, Ras T., and Peter M. Kristensen. 2014. “‘You Need to Do Something that the Westerners Cannot Understand: The Innovation of a Chinese School of IR.” In Chinese Politics and International Relations, edited by Nicola Horsburgh, Astrid Nordin, and Shaun Breslin, 97–118. London: Routledge.

Onyszkiewicz, Janusz. 2015. “Putin's Russia: an Empire that wants to be a Civilization.” European Leadership Network, March 2. http://ow.ly/AAeh304s0HP.

Osterhammel, Jürgen. 2009. Die Verwandlung der Welt. Munich: C.H. Beck.

Pan, Zhongqi. 2012. Conceptual Gaps in China-EU Relations: Global Governance, Human Rights and Strategic Partnerships. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Petito, Fabio. 2011. “In Defence of Dialogue of Civilisations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 759–79.

Pettman, Ralph. 2005. “Taoism and the Concept of Global Security.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 5 (1): 59–83.

Price, Lucien. 1954. Dialogues of Alfred North Whitehead. New York: Mentor.

Prügl, Elisabeth. 2012. “Feminism and the Figure of Man.” International Studies Review 14 (4): 656–60.

Pye, Lucien W. 1992. The Spirit of Chinese Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Qin, Yaqing. 2011. “Rule, Rules, and Relations: Towards a Synthetic Approach to Governance.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 4 (2): 117–45.

———. 2016. “A Relational Theory of World Politics.” International Studies Review 18 (1): 33–47.

Quine, Willard van Orman. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Qutb, Sayyid. 2006. Milestones. New Delhi: Islamic Book Service.

Radtke, Frank-Olaf. 2011. Kulturen sprechen nicht. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition.

16

Rösch, Felix, and Atsuko Watanabe. 2016. “Approaching the Unsynthesizable in International Politics: Giving Substance to Security Discourses through basso ostinato?” European Journal of International Relations. Published electronically July 13. doi: 10.1177/1354066116656764.

Rorty, Richard. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism. Essays: 1972–1980. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

———. 1989. Irony, Contingency and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenau, James N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics. A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Ruggie, John G. 1992. “Multilateralism: the Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46 (3): 561–98.

———. 2004a. “Reconstituting the Global Public Domain-Issues, Actors, and Practices.” European Journal of International Relations 10 (4): 499–531.

———. 2004b. “American Exceptionalism, Exemptionalism and Global Governance.” KSG Working Paper No. RWP04-006. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.517642

Rumelili, Bahar. 2003. “Liminality and Perpetuation of Conflicts: Turkish-Greek Relations in the Context of Community-Building by the EU.” European Journal of International Relations 9 (2): 213–48.

Sapio, Joseph de. 2013. “Transient Communities: Travel, Knowledge, and the Victorian Railway Carriage, 1840–90.” Mobilities 8 (2): 201–19.

Schmidt, Brian C. 2002. “On the History and Historiography of International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons, 3–22. London: Sage.

Shani, Giorgio. 2008. “Toward a Post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 10 (4): 722–34.

Sheikh, Mona Kanwal. 2015. “Sociotheology: The Significance of Religious Worldviews.” In Nations under God, edited by Luke M. Herrington, Alasdair McKay, and Jeffrey Haynes, 134–43. Bristol: E-International Relations.

Shih, Chih-yu, and Jiwu Yin. 2013. “Between Core National Interest and a Harmonious World: Reconciling Self-Role Conceptions in Chinese Foreign Policy.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 6 (1): 59–84.

Shlapentokh, Dmitry. 2007. “Dugin’s Eurasianism: A Window on the Minds of the Russian Elite or an Intellectual Ploy?” Studies in East European Thought 59 (3): 215–36.

Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. Beyond Paradigms: Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sjoberg, Laura. 2012. “Toward Trans-Gendering International Relations?” International Political Sociology 6 (4): 337–54.

17

Sylvester, Christine. 2002. Feminist International Relations. An Unfinished Journey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, Caroline, and Peter Wilkin. 2004. “Still Waiting after All These Years: ‘The Third World’ on the Periphery of International Relations.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (2): 241–58.

Thomassen, Bjørn. 2009. “The Uses and Meanings of Liminality.” International Political Anthropology 2 (1): 5–27.

———. 2012. “Revisiting Liminality.” In Liminal Landscapes: Travel, Experience and Spaces In-between, edited by Hazel Andrews and Les Roberts, 21–35. London: Routledge.

Tickner, Arlene B. 2003. “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 32 (2): 295–324.

Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Waever. eds. 2009. International Relations Scholarship around the World. London: Routledge.

Tickner, Arlene B., and David L. Blaney, eds. 2012. Thinking International Relations Differently. London: Routledge.

Tickner, J. Ann. 1997. “You Just Don’t Understand: Troubled Engagements Between Feminists and IR Theorists.” International Studies Quarterly 41 (4): 611–32.

Tickner, J. Ann. 2011. “Dealing with Difference: Problems and Possibilities for Dialogue in International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39 (3): 607–18.

Trenin, Dmitri. 2011. Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story. Washington D.C.: Carnegie.

Tsygankov, Andrei. 2008. “Self and Other in International Relations Theory: Learning from Russian Civilizational Debates.” International Studies Review 10 (4): 762–75.

Turton, Helen. 2016. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. London: Routledge.

Van Herpen, Marcel H. 2014. Putin’s Wars: The Rise of Russia’s New Imperialism. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Valbjørn, Morten. 2004. “Toward a ‘Mesopotamian Turn:’ Disciplinarity and the Study of the International Relations of the Middle East.” Journal of Mediterranean Studies 14 (1–2): 47–75.

———. 2008. “Before, During and After the Cultural Turn. A ‘Baedeker’ to IR's Cultural Journey.” International Review of Sociology 18 (1): 55–82.

Vrasti, Wanda. 2008. “The Strange Case of Ethnography and International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37 (2): 279–301.

Walt, Stephen. 1998. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy 110 (#): 29–46.

Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

18

Wæver, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52 (4): 687–727.

———. 2009. “Waltz’s Theory of Theory.” International Relations 23 (2): 201–22.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System. London: Academic.

Weldes, Jutta, et al. 1999. “Introduction: Constructing Insecurity.” In The Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, edited by Jutta Weldes, et al., 1–33. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Wendt, Alexander E. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.” International Organization 41 (3): 335–70.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Xinning, Song. 2001. “Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics.” Journal of Contemporary China 10 (26): 61–74.

Yom, Sean, and Mohammad H. Al-Momani. 2008. “The International Dimensions of Authoritarian Regime Stability: Jordan in the Post-Cold War Era.” Arab Studies Quarterly 30 (1): 39–60.