The Idea of Dialogue of Civilizations and Core-Periphery Dialogue in International Relations

Year 2020, , 211 - 228, 30.06.2020

Homeira Moshirzadeh

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.725234

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The idea of dialogue of civilizations, as was envisaged in the late 1990s and early 2000s, includes multi-layer, multi-actor dialogues. Civilization, when defined as “correspondence between material conditions of existence and intersubjective meanings,” has epistemological and ontological elements that constitute the parameters of knowledge. One may easily claim that the existing knowledge of international relations has its roots in Western civilization and, if it is to become a truly global body of knowledge, it has to be nourished by contributions from various civilizations, mostly belonging to the “periphery”. Yet, even this is not enough if we just reach an archipelago consisting of various islands of knowledge without a connection to each other. What may help bridging these islands is dialogue. Dialogues among IR scholars from different civilizational backgrounds may lead to more mutual understanding and even may lead to some common grounds found in-between. Dialogues can be conducted both at inter-civilizational and intra-civilizational levels as civilizations cannot be taken as monolithic wholes. This article seeks to clarify the meaning and implications of dialogue of civilizations in IR. Furthermore, the way in which dialogue of civilizations in the discipline can be conducted and the expectations thereof are discussed.

Keywords

IR, dialogue, core-periphery, dialogue of civilizations, post-Western IR

References

• Acharya, Amitav. “Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 4–15.
• ———. “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.” International Relations of Asia and Pacific 7 (2007): 287–312.
• ———. “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, 1–26. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
• Aning, Kwesi, and Fiffi Edu–Afful. “African Agency in R2P: Interventions by African Union and ECOWAS in Mali, Cote D’ivoire, and Libya.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 120–33.
• Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.
• Bashiriyeh, Hossein. “From Civilizational Dialectics to Civilizational Dialogue.” In Dialogue among Civilizations: Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations, edited by Bahram Mostaghimi, 237–55. Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 1384 [2005].
• Behera, Navnita Chadha. “Knowledge Production.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 153–55.
• Benhabib, Seyla. “International Law and Human Plurality in the Shadow of Totalitarianism: Hannah Arendt and Raphael Lemkin.” Constellations 16, no. 2 (2009): 331–50. Bilgin, Pinar. “Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR?” Third World Quarterly 29, no. 1 (2008): 5–23.
• Bilgin, Pinar. “’Contrapantal Reading’ as a Method, an Ethos, and a Metaphor for Global IR.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 134–46.
• Blanchard, Eric M., and Shuang Lin. “Gender and Non–Western Global IR: Where Are the Women in Chinese International Relations Theory?” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 48–61.
• Bohm, David. “On Dialogue.” Accessed Apri 17, 2019. http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Chaos-Complexity/dialogue.pdf.
• Bohm, David, Donald Factor, and Peter Garrett. “Dialogue-A Proposal.” Accessed June 23, 2019. https://www.dialogue-associates.com/files/files/DIALOGUE%20A%20PROPOSAL%2026-3-14(2).pdf.
• Buzan, Barry. “Could IR Be Different?” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 155–57.
• Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Colonial Difference. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Cox, Robert. “Civilizations and the Twenty–First Century: Some Theoretical Considerations.” In Globalization and Civilizations, edited by Mehdi Mozaffari, 1–23. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
• ———. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” Millennium 10 (1981): 126–55.
• ———. “Towards a Post–Hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun.” In Governance without Government, edited by James N. Rosenau and Ernst–Otto Czempiel: 132–59. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
• Craig, Robert T. “Arguments about ‘Dialogue’ in Practice and Theory.” Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Argumentation, International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Amsterdam, June 27–30, 2006.
• Dallmayr, Fred R. “Christianity and Civilization.” In Dialogue of Civilizations: A New Peace Agenda for a New Millennium, edited by Majid Tehranian and David W. Chappell: 125–39. London and New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2002.
• Deciancio, Melisa. “International Relations from the South: A Regional Research Agenda for Global IR.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 106–19.
• Gadamer, Hans–Georg. Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall. New York: Crossroad, 1989.
• Gilbert, Michael. “Goals in Argumentation.” Accessed June 20, 2019, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=9C6010BDE0E9CE2B7B119D9C06EFDD01?doi=10.1.1.90.2366&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
• Gryn, Naomi. “David Bohm and Group Dialogue or the Interconnectedness of Everything.” The Jewish Quarterly (2003): 93-7. Guillaume, Xavier. “Foreign Policy and the Politics of Alterity: A Dialogical Understanding of International Relations.” Millennium 31, no. 1 (2002): 1–26.
• Gunnlaugson, Olen. “Bohmian Dialogue: A Critical Retrospective of Bohm’s Approach to Dialogue as a Practice of Collective Communication.” Journal of Dialogue Studies 2, no. 1 (2014): 25–34.
• He, Jiajie. “Normative Power in the EU and ASEAN: Why They Diverge?” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 92–105.
• 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.
• Hobson, John M., and Alina Sajed. “Navigating Beyond the Eurofetishist Frontier of Critical IR Theory: Exploring the Complex Landscapes of Non–Western Agency.” International Studies Review 19 (2017): 547–72.
• Hoffman, Stanley. “International Relations: An American Social Science” Daedelus 106 (1977): 41–60.
• Holub, Robert C. Jurgen Habermas: Critic in the Public Sphere. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. Hopf, Ted. “The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory.” In International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, edited by Andrew Linklater (London and NY: Routledge, 2000), 1756–83. Originally Published in International Security 23, no. 1 (1998).
• Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
• Hurrell, Andrew. “Beyond Critique: How to Study Global IR?” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 149–51.
• ———. “Norms and Ethics in International Relations.” In Handbook of International Relations, edited by Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A. Simmons, 137–50. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage, 2002.
• Hutchings, Kimberley. “Dialogue between Whom? The Role of the West/Non–West Distinction in Promoting Global Dialogue in IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39, no. 3 (2016): 639–47.
• Inayatullah, Naeem, and David Blaney. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. New York and London: Routledge, 2004. ———. “Knowing Encounters: Beyond Parochialism in International Relations Theory.” In The Return of Culture and Identity, edited by Yosef Lapid and Friedrich Kratochwil, 65–84. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1996.
• Jackson, Robert, and Sorensen, Georg. Introduction to International Relations. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Katzenstein, Peter. “Diversity and Empathy.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 151–53.
• Khatami, Seyed Mohammad. Theoretical Foundations of Dialogue of Civilizations: Lectures by S.M. Khatami on Dialogue of Civilizations. Tehran: Sogand,1380 [2001]. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
• Kuru, Deniz. “Historicising Eurocentrism and Anti–Eurocentrism in IR: A Revisionist Account of Disciplinary Self–Reflexivity.” Review of International Studies 41 (2015): 1–26.
• Lake, David. “Why Isms Are Evil?” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2011): 465–80.
• Linklater, Andrew. “The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical–Theoretical Point of View.” In International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, edited by Andrew Linklater, 1756–83. London and NY: Routledge, 2000. Originally Published in Millennium 21, no. 1 (1992): 77–98.
• Mearsheimer, John. “A Global Discipline of IR? Benign Hegemony.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 147–49.
• Moshirzadeh, Homeira. “Critical International Theory and Dialogue of Civilizations.” In Civilizational Dialogue and Political Thought, edited by Fred Dalmayr and Abbas Manoochehri, 101–18. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007.
• ———. “Dialogue of Civilizations and International Theory.” The Iranian Journal of International Affairs 16, no. 1 (2004): 1–44.
• ———. “Intercivilizational Dialogue and Global Governance.” In Arguing Global Governance, edited by Cornellio Belluja and Markus Kornprobst, 117–40. London and New York: Routledge, 2010.
• Nau, Henry. “No Alternatives to Isms.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2011): 487–91.
• Paya, Ali. “Dialogue of Civilizations: Theoretical Foundations and the Realization of an Idea in Practice.” In Dialogue among Civilizations: Conceptual and Theoretical Foundations, edited by Bahram Mostaghimi, 215–36. Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 1384 [2005].
• Petito, Fabio. “Dialogue of Civilizations in a Multipolar World: Toward a Multicivilizational–Multiplex World Order.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 78–91.
• Phillips, Andrew. “Global IR Meets Global History: Sovereignty, Modernity, and the International System of Expansion in the Indian Ocean Region.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 62–77.
• Pieczara, Kamila. “Two Modes of Dialogue in IR: Testing on Western versus Non–Western Engagement with IR Theory. Paper presented at Millennium Annual Conference, London School of Economics, London: 2010, http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/52391.
• Puchala, Donald. “Some Non–Western Perspectives on International Relations.” Journal of Peace Research 34, no. 2 (1997): 129–34.
• Qin, Yaqing. “A Relational Theory of World Politics.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 33–47.
• Rai, Shirin M. “One Everyday Step at a Time.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 164–66.
• Reeves, Julie. Culture and International Relations. New York and London: Routledge, 2004.
• Risse, Thomas. “Global Governance and Communicative Action.” Government and Opposition 39, no. 2 (2004): 288–313.
• Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vantage Book, 1979.
• Shani, Giorgio. “Toward a Post–Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory.” International Studies Review 10 (2008): 722–34.
• Smith, Steve. “The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2, no. 3 (2000): 374–402.
• ———. “The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: ‘Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline.’” International Studies Review 4, no. 2 (2002): 67–85.
• Spivak, Gayatri C. “Can the Subaltern Speak?’ In Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, edited by Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg, 271–314. London: Macmillan, 1988.
• Tajik, Mohammad Reza. Secure Society in Khatami’s Discourse. Tehran: Nashr Ney, 1379 [2000].
• Tang, Shiping. “Practical Concerns and Power Considerations.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 162–64.
• Tansel, Cemal Burak. “Deafening Silence? Marxism, International Historical Sociology and the Specter of Eurocentrism.” European Journal of International Relations 21, no. 1 (2015): 76–100.
• Tehranian, Majid. “Informatic Civilizations: Promises, Perils, Prospects.” In Dialogue of Civilizations: A New Peace Agenda for a New Millennium, edited by Majid Tehranian and David W. Chappell: 1–16. London and New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2002.
• Tickner, Ann J. “Knowledge Is Power: Challenging IR’s Eurocentric Narrative.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 157–59.
• Tickner, Arlene, and Ole Wæver, eds. International Relations Scholarship around the World. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Tsutsumibayashi, Ken. “Fusion of Horizons or Confusion of Horizons: Intercultural Dialogue and Its Risks.” Global Governance 11, no. 1 (2005): 103–14.
• Vale, Peter. “Inclusion and Exclusion.” International Studies Review 18, no. 1 (2016): 159–62.
• Vasilaki, Rosa. “Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and Prospects in Post–Western IR Theory.” Millennium 41, 1 (2012): 3–22.
• Violatti, Cristian. “Civilization.” Ancient History Encyclopedia. 2014. Accessed April 25, 2019. https://wwww.ancient.eu/amp/1-10175. Wæver, Ole, and Arlene Tickner. “Introduction: Geocultural Epistemologies.” In International Relations Scholarship around the World, edited by Arlene Tickner and Ole Wæver, 1–31. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.
• Watson, Adam. The Evolution of International Society. London: Routledge, 1992.
• Weiss, Timothy. “’The Gods Must Be Crazy’: The Challenge of the Intercultural.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 7, no. 2 (1993): 196–217.
• Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Wiebke, et al. “The IR of the Beholder: Examining Global IR Using the 2014 TRIP Survey.” International Studies Review 18 (2016): 16–32.
• Wierzbicka, Anna. “The Concept of ‘Dialogue’ in Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Paper Presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, New York, May 29, 2005.