Conceptual Cultivation and Homegrown Theorizing: The Case of/for the Concept of Influence

Year 2018, , 47 - 64, 13.06.2018

Eyüp Ersoy

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.334964

Abstract

The absence of theoretical perspectives in International Relations originating

in the worldviews and experiences of human geographies outside the West has

elicited persistent calls in the discipline for homegrown theoretical frameworks

based on indigenous practices and intellectual sensibilities. Responding to the

veritable marginalization of non-Western viewpoints in the discipline belying

the plurality of global experiences, a diverse range of studies on homegrown

theorizing has ensued. Inasmuch as the initial step in any social theorizing

is pertinent to concepts, studies of homegrown theorizing have necessarily

engaged conceptual cultivation by drawing on local conceptual resources. Most

of these studies, nonetheless, have evinced an analytical proclivity to forge an

exclusive and immutable semantic affiliation between concepts and what they

signify. Transmuting conceptual indigeneity into conceptional idiosyncrasy,

this insular practice of homegrown theorizing can incur manifold degenerative

shortcomings. On the other hand, in the lexicon of international relations,

influence is a ubiquitous word which is yet to be rigorously conceptualized. By

virtue of imparting indigenous properties, a systematic conceptual cultivation of

influence is propounded in this study, which arguably transcends the prohibitive

semantic inflexibility and associated shortcomings of conceptual exclusivity in

homegrown theorizing.

Keywords

Conceptual cultivation, homegrown theorizing, influence, power, conceptual exclusivity

References

• Abdelkader, Deina, Nassef Manabilang Adiong, and Raffaele Mauriello, eds. Islam and International Relations: Contributions to Theory and Practice. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
• Acharya, Amitav. “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the West.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2011): 619-37.
• Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory? An Introduction.” In Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia, edited by Amitav Acharya and Barry Buzan, 1-25. Oxon: Routledge, 2010.
• Aron, Raymond. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. New York: Frederick A.Praeger, 1968.
• Aydınlı, Ersel, and Julie Mathews. “Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia.” Review of International Studies 34 (2008): 693-712.
• Ayoob, Muhammed. “Inequality and Theorizing in International Relations: The Case for Subaltern Realism.” International Studies Review 4, no. 3 (2002): 27-48.
• Baldwin, David A. “The Concept of Security.” Review of International Studies 23, no. 1 (1997): 5-26.
• ———. “Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old Tendencies.” World Politics 31, no. 2 (1979): 161-94.
• Biltekin, Gonca. “Özgün teori inşasi ve bati-dişi uluslararasi ilişkiler teorileri [Homegrown theorizing and non-western international relations theories].” In Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri [International relations theories], edited by Ramazan Gözen, 517-64. İstanbul: İletişim Yayıncılık, 2014.
• Briggs, Asa, and Patricia Clavin. Modern Europe, 1789-Present. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
• Boening, Astrid et al., eds. Global Power Europe-Vol. 2: Policies, Actions, and Influence of the EU’s External Relations. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.
• Booth, Ken. Theory of World Security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
• Buzan, Barry. People, States, and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Problems. Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, 1983.
• Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• Caballero-Anthony, Mely, Ralf Emmers, and Amitav Acharya, eds. Non-Traditional Security in Asia: Dilemmas in Securitisation. Oxon: Routledge, 2016.
• Callahan, William A. “Chinese Visions of World Order: Post-Hegemonic or a New Hegemony?” International Studies Review 10 (2008): 749-61.
• Carlson, Allen. “Moving Beyond Sovereignty? A Brief Consideration of Recent Changes in China’s Approach to International Order and the Emergence of the Tianxia Concept.” Journal of Contemporary China 20, no. 68 (2011): 89-102.
• Chaulia, Sreeram S. “BJP, India’s Foreign Policy and the ‘Realist Alternative’ to the Nehruvian Tradition.” International Politics 39, no. 2 (2002): 215-34.
• Chen, Ching-Chang. “The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11, no. 1 (2011): 1-23.
• Collins, Alan, ed. Contemporary Security Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Cox, Robert W. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 10, no. 2 (1981): 126-55.
• de Lange, Deborah E. Power and Influence: The Embeddedness of Nations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Dowding, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Power. California: SAGE, 2011.
• Fawn, Rick. “Alliance Behavior, the Absentee Liberator and the Influence of Soft Power: Post- communist State Positions over the Iraq War in 2003.” Cambridge Review of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2006): 465-80.
• Fierke, Karin M. Critical Approaches to International Security. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015.
• Forest, James J. F., ed. Influence Warfare: How Terrorists and Governments Fight to Shape Perceptions in a War of Ideas. Westport: Praeger Security International, 2009.
• Forsberg, Tuomas, and Antti Seppo. “Power without Influence? The EU and Trade Disputed with Russia.” Europe-Asia Studies 61, no. 10 (2009): 1805-23.
• Freedman, Amy. “Rice Security in Southeast Asia: Beggar Thy Neighbor or Cooperation.” The Pacific Review 26, no. 5 (2013): 433-54.
• Gardner, Lloyd C. Spheres of Influence: The Great Powers Partition Europe, from Munich to Yalta. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1993.
• Gautam, P. K. “Relevance of Kautilya’s Arhasastra.” Strategic Analysis 37, no. 1 (2013): 21-8.
• Gerring, John. “What Makes a Concept Good? A Critical Framework for Understanding Concept Formation in the Social Sciences.” Polity 31 (1999): 357-93.
• Goertz, Gary. Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2006.
• Goh, Evelyn. “Great Powers and Hierarchical Order in Southeast Asia: Analyzing Regional Security Strategies.” International Security 32, no. 3 (2007-08): 113-57.
• Halperin, Sandra. “International Relations Theory and the Hegemony of Western Conceptions of Modernity.” In Decolonizing International Relations, edited by Branwen Gruffydd Jones, 43-63. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2006.
• Hart, Jeffrey. “Three Approaches to the Measurement of Power in International Relations.” International Organization 30, no. 2 (1976): 289-305.
• Hartmann, Frederick H. The Relations of Nations. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1969.
• Hast, Susanna. Spheres of Influence in International Relations: History, Theory and Politics. Surrey: Ashgate, 2014.
• Henderson, Errol A. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism in International Relations Theory.” Cambridge Review of International Relations 26, no. 1 (2013): 71-92.
• Hobson, John M. “Is Critical Theory Always for the White West and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphalian towards a Post-racist Critical IR.” Review of International Studies 33 (2007): 91-116.
• Hough, Peter et al., eds. International Security Studies: Theory and Practice. Oxon: Routledge, 2015.
• Hui, Victoria Tin-bor. War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Hunter, Robert E. Integrating Instruments of Power and Influence: Lessons Learned and Best Practices. Santa Monica: RAND, 2008.
• Kaarbo, Juliet. “Power and Influence in Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Role of Junior Coalition Partners in German and Israeli Foreign Policy.” International Studies Quarterly 40, no. 4 (1996): 501-30.
• Kalpakian, Jack. “Ibn Khaldun’s Influence on Current International Relations Theory.” The Journal of North African Studies 13, no. 3 (2008): 363-76.
• Kamel, Lorenzo. Imperial Perceptions of Palestine: British Influence and Power in Late Ottoman Times. New York: I. B. Tauris, 2015.
• Kang, David C. “Hierarchy and Legitimacy in International Systems: The Tribute System in Early Modern East Asia.” Security Studies 19, no. 4 (2010): 591-622.
• Kavalski, Emilian. “Guanxi and Relational International Relations.” Paper presented at the 2nd All Azimuth Widening The World of IR Theorizing Workshop, Ankara, Turkey, September 23- 24, 2016.
• Kautilya. The Arthashastra. New Delhi: Penguin Books, 1992.
• Kayaoglu, Turan. “Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 12 (2010): 193-217.
• Kinnvall, Catarin. Globalization and Religious Nationalism in India: The Search for Ontological Security. Oxon: Routledge, 2006.
• Kousoulas, Dimitrios G. Power and Influence: An Introduction to International Relations. Monterey: Wadsworth Publishing, 1985.
• Mckale, Donald M. “Influence without Power: The Last Khedive of Egypt and the Great Powers, 1914-1918.” Middle Eastern Studies 33, no. 1 (1997): 20-39.
• Mahan, Alfred Thayer. Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1918.
• Mahnken, Thomas G., and Dan Blumenthal, eds. Strategy in Asia: The Past, Present, and Future of Regional Security. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014.
• Malik, Ahmed Ijaz. US Foreign Policy and the Gulf Wars: Decision Making and International Relations. London: I. B. Tauris, 2015.
• Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
• Miller, Benjamin. “The Concept of Security: Should it be Redefined?” Journal of Strategic Studies 24, no. 2 (2001): 13-42.
• Mitzen, Jennifer. “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma.” European Journal of International Relations 12, no. 3 (2006): 341-70.
• Monroe, Alice V., ed. China’s Foreign Policy and Soft Power Influence. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2010.
• Neuman, Stephanie G. “International Relations Theory and the Third World: An Oxymoron?” In International Relations Theory and the Third World, edited by Stephanie G. Neuman, 1-30. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
• Noesselt, Nele. “Mapping the World from a Chinese Perspective? The Debate on Constructing an IR Theory with Chinese Characteristics.” In Constructing a Chinese School of International Relations: Ongoing Debates and Sociological Realities, edited by Yongjin Zhang and Teng-chi Chang, 98-112. Oxon: Routledge, 2016.
• Norwitz, Jeffrey H., ed. Pirates, Terrorists, and Warlords: The History, Influence, and Future of Armed Groups around the World. New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2009.
• Nye, Jr., Joseph S. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go it Alone. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
• ——— . Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization. Oxon: Routledge, 2004.
• Pansardi, Pamela. “Power to and Power over: Two Distinct Concepts of Power.” Journal of Political Power 5, no. 1 (2012): 73-89.
• Petersen, Tore T. Anglo-American Policy toward the Persian Gulf, 1978-1985: Power, Influence, and Restraint. Eastbourne: Sussex University Press, 2015.
• Phillips, Ann L. Power and Influence after the Cold War: Germany in East Central Europe. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
• Podliska, Bradley F. Acting Alone: A Scientific Study of American Hegemony and Unilateral Use- of-Force Decision Making. Plymouth: Lexington Books, 2010.
• Pourmokhtari, Navid. “A Postcolonial Critique of State Sovereignty in IR: The Contradictory Legacy of a ‘West-centric’ Discipline.” Third World Quarterly 34, no. 10 (2013): 1767-93.
• Pressman, Jeremy. “Power without Influence: The Bush Administration’s Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East.” International Security 33, no. 4 (2009): 149-79.
• Rana, Aspy P. The Imperatives of Nonalignment: A Conceptual Study of India’s Foreign Policy Strategy in the Nehru Period. Delhi: Macmillan, 1976.
• Ripsman, Norrin M., and T. V. Paul. Globalization and the National Security State. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
• Roe, Paul. Ethnic Violence and the Societal Security Dilemma. Oxon: Routledge, 2005.
• Rotberg, Robert I., ed. China into Africa: Trade, Aid, and Influence. Baltimore: Brookings Institution Press, 2008.
• Rothgeb, John M. Defining Power: Influence & Force in the Contemporary International System. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.
• Salaman, Redcliffe. The History and Social Influence of the Potato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
• Schelling, Thomas C. Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
• Schrogl, Kai-Uwe et al., eds. Handbook of Space Security: Policies, Applications and Programs. New York: Springer, 2015.
• Schweller, Randall L. Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008.
• Shih, Chih-yu. Sinicizing International Relations: Self, Civilization, Intellectual Politics in Subaltern East Asia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
• ——— . “Transforming Hegemonic International Relations Theorization: Nothingness, Worlding, and Balance of Relationships.” Paper presented at the 2nd All Azimuth Widening the World of IR Theorizing Workshop, Ankara, Turkey, September 23-24, 2016.
• Steele, Brent J. Ontological Security in International Relations: Self-Identity and the IR State. Oxon: Routledge, 2008.
• Sullivan III, Michael J. American Adventurism Abroad:30 Invasions, Interventions, and Regime Changes since World War II. Westport: Praeger, 2004.
• Tadjbakhsh, Shahrbanou, and Anuradha Chenoy. Human Security: Concepts and Implications. Oxon: Routledge, 2007.
• Tickner, Arlene B. “Core, Periphery and (Neo)Imperialist International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 3 (2013): 627-46.
• Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Waever, eds. International Relations Scholarship around the World. Oxon: Routledge, 2009.
• Tsilipakos, Leonidas. Clarity and Confusion in Social Theory: Taking Concepts Seriously. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, 2015.
• Turton, Helen Louise. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. Oxon: Routledge, 2016.
• Ungerer, Carr. “Influence without Power: Middle Powers and Arms Control Diplomacy during the Cold War.” Diplomacy and Statecraft 18, no. 2 (2007): 393-414.
• Vasilaki, Rosa. “Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post-Western IR Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41, no. 1 (2012): 3-22.
• Viotti, Paul R., and Mark V. Kauppi. International Relations Theory: Realism, Pluralism, Globalism, and Beyond. Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon, 1999.
• Vreeland, James Raymond, and Axel Dreher. The Political Economy of the United Nations Security Council: Money and Influence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
• Wagemakers, Joas. A Quietist Jihadi: The Ideology and Influence of Abu Muhammad al- Maqdisi. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove: Waveland Press, 2010.
• Wang, Cho-yun Yuan-Kang. Harmony and War: Confucian Culture and Chinese Power Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.
• Warleigh, Alex, and Jenny Fairbrass, eds. Influence and Interests in the European Union: The New Politics of Persuasion and Advocacy. London: Europa Publications, 2002.
• Williams, Paul D., ed. Security Studies: An Introduction. Oxon: Routledge, 2013.
• Xuetong, Yan. Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2011.
• ——— . “Xun Zi’s [Sun Tzu] Thoughts on International Politics and Their Implications.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 2, no. 1 (2008): 135-65.
• Yiwei, Wang, and Han Xueqing. “Why is There No Chinese IR Theory? A Cultural Perspective.” In Constructing a Chinese School of International Relations: Ongoing Debates and Sociological Realities, edited by Yongjin Zhang and Teng-chi Chang, 52-67. Oxon: Routledge, 2016.
• Zimmerling, Ruth. Influence and Power: Variations on a Messy Theme. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.
• Zhang, Feng. “Confucian Foreign Policy Traditions in Chinese History.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 8, no. 2 (2015): 197-218.
• ——— . “The Rise of Chinese Exceptionalism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19, no. 2 (2011): 305-28.