Global IR Research Programme: From Perplexities to Progressions

Year 2024, , 1 - 22, 24.01.2024

Deepshika Shahi

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1331851

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Our basic expectations vis-à-vis ‘the international’ have turned our phenomenal
existence into two seemingly irreconcilable cognitive prisons: ‘one world’ with
homogenizing propensities (dominated by the West) and ‘many worlds’ with
heterogenizing predispositions (embodied by the non-West). Every so often, these
cognitive prisons—oscillating between the extreme homogenizing propensities of
the West and heterogenizing predispositions of the non-West— become obstacles
in implementing effective global partnerships that are required to tackle the
challenges thrown by global crisis-situations, e.g., the likelihoods of world
war, financial crisis, climate change, pandemic, and the like. The agenda of
the ‘Global IR research programme’ has emerged to demolish these cognitive
prisons. To this end, this agenda finds rational support from multiple auxiliary
theories that derive stimulus from hitherto denigrated knowledge-forms thriving
in different corners of the world: e.g., Tianxia (all-under-heaven) from China,
Advaita (non-duality) from India, and Mu No Basho (place of nothingness) from
Japan. Nevertheless, the conditioned reflexes of many IR researchers compel
them to receive the emergent knowledge-forms by correlating their ‘source’ and
‘scope’: generally, the knowledge-forms having their source in the West are
granted a global scope, whereas the knowledge-forms having their source in the
non-West are given a local scope; it is often suspected that the local non-Western
knowledge-forms cannot grasp the larger global scenario. Philosophically, these
conditioned reflexes emanate from Kantian dualism, which forms disconnected
opposites of phenomena-noumena, science-metaphysics, West–non-West etc. This
article reveals how the Global IR research programme—inspired by the Chinese,
Indian and Japanese cosmovisions—strives to demolish the cognitive prisons of
‘one world versus many worlds’, thereby ensuring the prospective progressions
of this research programme.

Keywords

Global IR, Lakatosian research programme, Chinese IR, Indian IR, Japanese IR

References

• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. The Making of Global International Relations. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
• Acharya, Amitav. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 4-15.
• Acharya, Amitav.“Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 30 (2011): 619-637.
• Acharya, Amitav.“Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647-659.
• Alejandro, Audrey. “The National and The International.” In Western Dominance in International Relations? The Internationalization of IR in Brazil and India, 105-136. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Alejandro, Audrey. “The Recursive Paradox.” In Western Dominance in International Relations? The Internationalization of IR in Brazil and India, 168-195. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Allan, Bentley B. “From Subjects to Objects: Knowledge in International Relations Theory.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13, no. 1 (2023): 1-24.
• Allzén, Simon. “Against methodological Continuity and Metaphysical Knowledge.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13, no. 1: 1-20.
• Anderl, Felix, and Antonia Witt. “Problematising the Global in Global IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 49, no. 1 (2020): 32-57.
• Andreucci, Diego, and Christos Zografos. “Between Improvement and Sacrifice: Othering and the (Bio)Political Ecology of Climate Change.” Political Geography 92 (2022): 1-11.
• Arias, Jordi Q. “Towards a Truly Global IR Theory?: The Middle East and the Upcoming Debate.” Insight Turkey 18, no. 2 (2016): 183-188.
• Barnett, Michael N., and Kathryn Sikkink. “From International Relations to Global Society.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, edited by Robert E. Godin, 748-768. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2011.
• Barnett, Michael N., and Kathryn Sikkink. “SIS Global IR Dialogues, Session 1.” School of International Service, AU. February 24, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5v0PbJFjGE Accessed date July 1, 2023.
• Chernoff, Fred. “International Relations and Scientific Criteria for Choosing a Theory.” In Theory and Metatheory in International Relations: Concepts and Contending Accounts, 79-130. New York City, New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2007.
• Chowdhry, Geeta. “Edward Said and Contrapuntal Reading: Implications for Critical Interventions in International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 36, no. 1 (2007): 101-116.
• Christensen, Thøger Kersting. “Joining the Club: The Place of a Chinese School in the Global IR Academy.” Asia in Focus 7 (2019): 2-11.
• Chu, Sinan. “Fantastic Theories and Where to Find Them: Rethinking Interlocutors in Global IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 50, no. 3 (2022): 700-729.
• Cocks, Joan. “A New Cosmopolitanism? V.S. Naipaul and Edward Said.” Constellations 7, no. 1 (2000): 46-63.
• Collingwood, R. G. An Essay on Metaphysics. London, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1940.
• Coomaraswamy, Ananda Kentish. What Is Civilization? And Other Essays. Great Barrington, Massachusetts: Lindisfarne Press, 1989.
• Cunningham-Cross, Linsay, and William A. Callahan, “Ancient Chinese Power, Modern Chinese Thought.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 4, no. 4 (2011): 349-374.
• Elden, Stuart, and Luiza Bialasiewicz. “The New Geopolitics of Division and the Problem of a Kantian Europe.” Review of International Studies 32, no. 4 (2006): 623-644.
• Elshakry, Marwa. “When Science Became Western: Historiographical Reflections.” ISIS 101, no. 1 (2010): 98-109.
• Fehige, Yiftach. “Introduction.” In Science and Religion: East and West, edited by Yiftach Fehige, 1-30. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2016.
• Gebhard, Carmen. “One Word, Many Actors: Levels of Analysis in International Relations.” In International Relations, edited by Stephen McGlinchey, 32-45. Bristol, United Kingdom: E-International Relations Publishing, 2017.
• Hofmänner, Alexandra, and Elisio Macamo. “The Science Policy Script, Revised.” Minerva 59 (2021): 331-354.
• Hojo, K.O. “The Philosophy of Kitaro Nishida and Current Concepts of the Origin of Life.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 988, no. 1 (2009): 353-358.
• Hurrell, Andrew. “One World? Many Worlds? The Place of Regions in the Study of International Society.” International Affairs 83, no. 1 (2007): 127-146.
• Inada, Kenneth K. “A Review of Metaphysics: East and West.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 4, no. 7 (1991): 361-378.
• Inoue, Christina, and Arlene B. Tickner. “Many Worlds, Many Theories?” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-4.
• Ivanova, Milena, and Matt Farr. “Methods in Science and Metaphysics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Metametaphysics, edited by Ricki Bliss and J. T. M. Millet, 447-458. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2021.
• Iwaniszewski, Stanislaw. “Did I Say Cosmology? On Modern Cosmologies and Ancient World-Views.” Cosmology Across Cultures 409, (2009): 100-106.
• Jackson, Patrick T. “SIS Global IR Dialogues, Session 1.” School of International Service, AU. February 24, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5v0PbJFjGE Accessed date July 1, 2023.
• Kasai A. “Tosaka Jun Ni Okeru Kagaku Dotoku To Gijutsu Seisin [Scientific Morality and Technological Spirit of Tosaka Jun].” Fukushima Kosen Kenkyu Kiyo 52 (2011): 63-68.
• Kratochwil, Friedrich V. “Politics, Norms and Peaceful Change.” Review of International Studies 24, no. 5 (1998): 193-218.
• Lakatos, Imre. “History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions.” In The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers – Volume 1, edited by John Worrall and Gregory Currie, 102-138. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
• Lakatos, Imre.“Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers – Volume 1, edited by John Worrall and Gregory Currie, 8-93. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
• Lakatos, Imre. “Introduction: Science and Pseudoscience.” In The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers – Volume 1, edited by John Worrall and Gregory Currie, 1-7. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
• Lebow, Richard Ned. “Reason, Cause, and Cultural Arrogance.” E-International Relations. April 11, 2023. https://www.e-ir.info/2023/04/11/reason-cause-and-cultural-arrogance/ Accessed date July 1, 2023.
• Li, Xiaoting. “Saving National IR from Exceptionalism: The Dialogic Spirit and Self-Reflection in Chinese IR Theory.” International Studies Review 23, no. 4 (2021): 1399-1423.
• Mallavarapu, Siddharth. “Theory Talk #63: Siddharth Mallavarapu – Siddharth Mallavarapu on International Asymmetries, Ethnocentrism, and a View on IR from India.” Theory Talks. February 09, 2014. http://www.theory-talks.org/2014/02/theory-talk-63.html Accessed date July 1, 2023.
• Massey, Doreen. “Part Two: Unpromising Associations.” In For Space, 17-60. London, United Kingdom: SAGE, 2005.
• McDougall, James. “Reterritorializations: Localizing Global Studies in South China.” Global-E. March 23, 2017. https://globalejournal.org/print/pdf/node/2761 Accessed date July 1, 2023.
• Mearsheimer, John J. “Benign Hegemony.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 147-149.
• Mumford, Stephen, and Matthew Tugby. “Introduction: What is Metaphysics of Science?” In Metaphysics and Science, edited by Stephen Mumford and Matthew Tugby, 3-28. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Ong, Graham Gerard. “Building an IR Theory with ‘Japanese Characteristics’: Nishida Kitaro and ‘Emptiness.’” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 33, no. 1: 35-58.
• Patomäki, Heikki, and Colin Wight. “After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism.” International Studies Quarterly 44, no. 2 (2000): 213-237.
• Querejazu, Amaya. “Encountering the Pluriverse: Looking for Alternatives in Other Worlds.” Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional 59, no. 2 (2016): 1-16.
• Riberio, Lucas Vollet. “The Transcendental Problem of Space and Time.” Studia Kantiana 11, no. 15 (2013): 135-152.
• Rieu, Alain-Marc. “The Kantian Model: Confucianism and the Modern Divide.” In Cultivating Personhood: Kant and Asian Philosophy, edited by Stephen R. Palmquist, 741-752. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter, 2011.
• Rosenberg, Justin. “Globalization Theory: A Post Mortem.” International Politics 42 (2005): 2-74.
• Shah, Nisha. “The Territorial Trap of the Territorial Trap: Global Transformation and the Problem of the State’s Two Territories.” International Political Sociology 6, no. 1 (2012): 57-76.
• Shahi, Deepshikha, and Gennaro Ascione. “Rethinking the Absence of Non-Western International Relations Theory in India: ‘Advaitic Monism’ as an Alternative Epistemological Resource.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 2 (2016): 313-334.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. “Advaita in International Relations: A Philosophical Restoration.” In Advaita as a Global International Relations Theory, 21-50. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. “Conclusion.” In Advaita as a Global International Relations Theory, 143-164. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. “Introduction.” In Advaita as a Global International Relations Theory, 1-20. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. “Reality, Appearance and Unreality of International Politics: An Advaitic Review.” In Advaita as a Global International Relations Theory, 51-79. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2019.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. “The Advaitic Theory of International Relations: Reconciling Dualism and Monism in the Pursuit of the ‘Global.’” In Advaita as a Global International Relations Theory, 109-142.
• Shahi, Deepshikha. Sufism: A Theoretical Intervention in Global International Relations. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2020.
• Shimizu, Kosuke. “A Non-Western Attempt at Hegemony: Lessons from the Second-Generation Kyoto School for International Pluralism and Its Discontents.” Global Studies Quarterly 2, no. 4 (2022): 1-8.
• Shimizu, Kosuke. “Buddhism and the Question of Relationality in International Relations.” Uluslararası İlişkiler Dergisi 18, no. 70 (2021): 29-44.
• Shimizu, Kosuke. “Do Time and Language Matter in IR?: Nishida Kitaro’s Non-Western Discourse of Philosophy and Politics.” The Korean Journal of International Studies Vol 16, no. 1 (2018): 501-521.
• Shimizu, Kosuke.The Kyoto School and International Relations: Non-Western Attempts for a New World Order. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2022.
• Taylor, Lucy. “Decolonizing International Relations: Perspectives from Latin America.” International Studies Review 14, no. 3 (2012): 386-400.
• Tickner, Arlene B., and David Blaney. Claiming the International. New York City, New York: Routledge, 2013.
• Tingyang, Zhao. All Under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order, translated by Joseph E. Harroff. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2021.
• Tingyang, Zhao. “Introduction – A Redefinition of Tianxia as a Political Concept: Problems, Conditions, and Methods.” In All Under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order, translated by Joseph E. Harroff, 1-38. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2021.
• Tingyang, Zhao. “Rethinking Empire from a Chinese Concept of ‘All-Under-Heaven’ (Tian-xia).” Social Identities 12, no. 1 (2006): 29-41.
• Tingyang, Zhao. “The Encompassing Tianxia of China.” In All Under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order, translated by Joseph E. Harroff, 119-182. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2021.
• Tingyang, Zhao. “The Future of Tianxia Order.” In All Under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order, translated by Joseph E. Harroff, 183-248. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2021.
• Tingyang, Zhao “The Tianxia Conceptual Story.” In All Under Heaven: The Tianxia System for a Possible World Order, translated by Joseph E. Harroff, 39-118. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2021.
• Tripathi, Sudhanshu. “Chapter 1: Introduction.” In India’s Foreign Policy Dilemma Over Non-Alignment 2.0, 1-45. New Delhi, India: SAGE, 2020.
• Valbjørn, Morten. “Before, During, and After the Cultural Turn: A ‘Baedeker’ to IR’s Cultural Journey.” International Review of Sociology 18, no. 1 (2013): 55-82.
• Vieira, Marco. “The Decolonial Subject and the Problem of Non-Western Authenticity.” Postcolonial Studies 22, no. 2 (2019): 150-167.
• Walt, Stephen M. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Affairs, no. 110 (1998): 29-46.
• Ward, Andrew. Kant: The Three Critiques. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Polity Press, 2006.
• Watanabe, Atsuko, and Felix Rösch. “Introduction: Japan as Potential: Communicating across Boundaries for a Global International Relations.” in Modern Japanese Political Thought and International Relations, edited by Atsuko Watanabe and Felix Rösch, 1-20. London, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield, 2018.
• Zambernardi, Lorenzo. “Politics Is Too Important to Be Left to Political Scientists: A Critique of the Theory-Policy Nexus in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 22, no. 1 (2016): 3-23.