Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholars, Theory

Year 2018, , 69 - 86, 16.06.2017

Deniz Kuru

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.321993

Cited By: 4

Abstract

In recent years,
the discipline of International Relations (IR) has entered another of its turns:
the homegrown turn. This new turn focuses on possible contributions to IR
theorizing using non-Western knowledge and/or scholarship. This article
deconstructs the idea of homegrown theorizing by focusing on its constitutive
part, dealing separately with the aspects of knowledge, scholar, and theory, questioning
thereby the differing meanings of homegrownness. Such an approach provides an
initial framework that accomplishes two things: First, the paper discusses today’s
core Western IR community and its disciplinary sociology in terms of the main
factors engendering present critiques of its scholarship. Second, it then
becomes possible to pay attention to peripheral non-Western IR’s position at a
time of gradual post-Westernization, both world politically and within the
discipline. Engaging with the pitfalls of Western IR and elaborating on the reasons
not only explains the emergence of IR’s homegrown turn, but also provides the
basis for understanding how scholars engaging in homegrown theorizing can learn
from the (past) mistakes of core scholarship. Dealing with the impact of
globalization, Eurocentrism, presentism, and parochialism as the main problem
areas of (Western) IR, the article concludes by providing a list of lessons to
be taken into account when engaging in homegrown theorizing within the periphery.

Keywords

Homegrown theorizing, disciplinary sociology, non-Western IR, post-Western IR

References

• Acharya, Amitav. “Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 58, no. 4 (2014): 647-59.
• Anderson, Greg. “Retrieving the Lost Worlds of the Past: The Case for an Ontological Turn.” The American Historical Review 120, no. 3 (2015): 787-810.
• Appadurai, Arjun. Modernity at Large. Indianapolis: University of Indiana Press, 1996.
• Aydınlı, Ersel, and Gonca Biltekin. “Widening the World of IR: A typology of homegrown theorizing.” All Azimuth 7, no. 1 (forthcoming).
• Aydınlı, Ersel, and Julie Matthews. “Periphery Theorizing for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34, no. 4 (2008): 693-712.
• Barkawi, Tarak. “On the pedagogy of ‘small wars’.” International Affairs 80, no. 1 (2004): 19-37.
• Beck, Ulrich. What is Globalization? London: Polity, 2000.
• Bilgin, Pınar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5-23.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. “Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées.” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 5 (2002): 3-8.
• Buzan, Barry, and George Lawson. “Theory, History, and the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8, no. 3 (2016): 502-22.
• Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. International Systems in World History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Callahan, William A. “Nationalising International Theory: Race, Class and the English School.” Global Society 18, no. 4 (2004): 305-23.
• Cervo, Amado Luiz. “Conceptos en Relaciones Internacionales,” Relaciones Internacionales 22 (2013): 149-66.
• Dal, Emel Parlar. “On Turkey's Trail as a ‘Rising Middle Power’ in the Network of Global Governance: Preferences, Capabilities, and Strategies.” Perceptions: Journal of International Affairs 19, no. 4 (2014): 107-36.
• De Carvalho, Benjamin, Halvard Leira, and John M. Hobson. “The Big Bangs of IR: The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919.” Millennium 39, no. 3 (2011): 735-58.
• Doyle, Michael. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, no. 3 (1983): 205-35. –––– . “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs: Part II.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 12, no. 4 (1983): 323-53.
• Dunne, Timothy. “Mythology or Methodology? Traditions in international theory.” Review of International Studies 19, no. 3 (1993): 305-18.
• Falaky, Fayçal. “A Forsaken And Foreclosed Utopia: Rousseau and international relations.” European Journal of Political Theory 15, no. 1 (2014): 61-76.
• Gallie, W. B. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series 56 (1955-1965): 167-98.
• Guilhot, Nicolas. “The First Modern Realist: Felix Gilbert’s Machiavelli and the Realist Tradition in International Thought.” Modern Intellectual History 13, no. 3 (2016): 681-711.
• Hale, William. Turkish Foreign Policy 1774-2000. London: Routledge, 2000. Hobson, John M. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Holbraad, Carsten. Middle Powers in International Politics. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1984.
• Inayatullah, Naeem, ed. Autobiographical International Relations: I, IR. New York: Routledge, 2011.
• Jackson, Michael, and Thomas Moore. “Machiavelli’s Walls: The legacy of realism in international relations theory.” International Politics 53, no. 4 (2016): 447-65.
• Jenco, Leigh. “Introduction: Thinking with the past: Political thought in and from the ‘non-West’.” European Journal of Political Theory 15, no. 4 (2016): 377-81.
• Kahler, Miles. “Investing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945.” In New Thinking in International Relations Theory, edited by Michael Doyle and G. John Ikenberry, 20-53. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
• Krippendorff, Ekkehart, ed. Internationale Beziehungen. Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1973.
• Krishna, Sankaran. “Race, Amnesia and Education of International Relations.” Alternatives 26 (1993): 401-24.
• Kwon, Heonik. The Other Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
• Lebow, Richard Ned, Peer Schouten, and Hidemi Suganami, eds. The Return of the Theorists – Dialogues with Great Thinkers in International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
• Lizée, Pierre. A Whole New World: Reinventing International Studies for the Post-Western World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
• Long, David, and Brian C. Schmidt, eds. Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2005.
• Moshirzadeh, Homeira. “Iranian Scholars and Theorizing International Relations: Achievements and Challenges.” All Azimuth 7, no. 1 (forthcoming).
• Moyn, Samuel, and Andrew Sartori, eds. Global Intellectual History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013.
• Novo, Andrew R. “Where We Get Thucydides Wrong: The Fallacies of History’s First ‘Hegemonic’ War.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 27, no. 1 (2016): 1-21.
• Onuf, Nicholas. “Center-Periphery Relations: What Kind of Rule, and Does It Matter?” All Azimuth 6, no. 1 (2017): 5-16.
• Oran, Baskın, ed. Türk Dış Politikası. İstanbul: İletişim, 2001.
• Paipais, Vassilios. “Between Politics and the Political: Reading Hans J. Morgenthau’s Double Critique of Depoliticisation.” Millennium 42, no. 2 (2014): 354-75.
• Parmar, Inderjeet. “The ‘Knowledge Politics’ of Democratic Peace Theory.” International Politics 50, no. 2 (2013): 231- 56.
• Rathbun, Brian. “Politics and Paradigm Preferences: The Implicit Ideology of International Relations Scholars.” International Studies Quarterly 56, no. 3 (2012): 607- 22.
• Reus-Smit, Christian. “Theory, History, and Great Transformations.” International Theory 8, no. 3 (2016): 422- 35.
• Rösch, Felix. “Realism as Social Criticism: The thinking partnership of Hannah Arendt and Hans Morgenthau.” International Politics 50, no. 6 (2013): 815-29.
• Rosenau, James. Distant Proximities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.
• Sandal, Nükhet Ahu. “Middle Powerhood as a Legitimation Strategy in the Developing World: The cases of Brazil and Turkey.” International Politics 51, no. 6 (2014): 693-708.
• Scheuerman, William E. “The Realist Revival in Political Philosophy, or: Why new is not always improved.” International Politics 50, no. 6 (2013): 798-814.
• Schmidt, Brian C. The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998.
• Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. “Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions.” Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (2010): 411-31.
• Smith, Karen. “Has Africa Got Anything to Say? African Contributions to the Theoretical Development of International Relations.” The Round Table 98, no. 402 (2009): 269-94.
• Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. “All Hail to the Chief: Liberal IR Theory in the New World Order.” International Studies Perspectives 16, no. 1 (2015): 40-9.
• Swedberg, Richard. The Art of Social Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014.
• ––– . “Theorizing in Sociology and Social Science.” Theory and Society 41, no. 1 (2012): 1-40.
• Sylvester, Christine. “Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations/Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 609-26.
• Thakur, Vineet. “Africa and the Theoretical Peace in IR.” International Political Sociology 9, no. 3 (2015): 213-29.
• Tickner, Arlene. “Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies.” International Studies Perspectives 4, no. 4 (2003): 325-50.
• ––– . “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World.” Millennium 32, no. 2 (2003): 295-324.
• Tickner, Arlene, and Ole Wæver, eds. International Relations Scholarship around the World. New York: Routledge, 2009.
• Todorova, Maria. Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Tsai, Lily L. “Bringing in China: Insights for Building Comparative Political Theory.” Comparative Political Studies 50, no. 3 (2016): 295-328. doi: 10.1177/0010414016672236.
• Turton, Helen Louise, and Lucas G. Freire. “Peripheral Possibilities: Revealing originality and encouraging dialogue through a reconsideration of ‘marginal’ IR scholarship.” Journal of International Relations and Development 19, no. 4 (2014): 535-57.
• Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World System I. New York: Academic Press, 1976.
• Wang, Yiwei. “Between Science and Art: Questionable International Relations Theories.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 8, no. 2 (2007): 191-208.
• Wight, Martin. International theory: The three traditions. Edited by Gabriele Wight and Brian Porter. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1991.
• Williams, Michael C. “In the Beginning: The International Relations enlightenment and the ends of International Relations theory.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 647-65.
• Wolff, Larry. Inventing Eastern Europe: The Map of Civilization on the Mind of the Enlightenment. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994.
• Vitalis, Robert. White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015.