Kautilya's Mandala Theory as Constitutive Outside of Modern Realism

Year 2023, Volume: 12 Issue: 1, 211 - 232, 31.03.2023

Özkan Gökcan

https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1178937

Abstract

Criticisms of the claims that the international relations theories, which are called mainstream, have the power to explain all events and problems at the global level, have an important place in the last 40 years of disciplinary literature. The main focus of these criticisms has been the necessity of transforming the theoretical structure in the discipline of international relations from being Western-centred, parochial and hegemonic to universal, dialogue-oriented and pluralistic. From this point of view, especially in the last 20 years, the theories (non-Western theories) that have been tried to be developed by benefiting from the history and experiences of non-Western societies and states have become an important field of study in the discipline. However, attempts to develop non-Western theory have tended to create new alternative centers to the West instead of overcoming Western centrism, especially as seen in the example of Chinese IR. This situation has caused the theoretical accumulation in the discipline to develop around new centers that are scattered, parallel and disconnected from each other instead of evolving towards a pluralistic and dialogue-oriented structure. In this study, it is argued that making international relations theories truly universal by removing them from the West or any other hegemonic center can only be achieved by taking into account the historical mobility of knowledge between the West and non-Western or the rest of the world. In this sense, the main claim of the study is that the relationship between the mandala theory of Indian origin thinker and statesman Kautilya and modern realism constitutes an important example in terms of revealing the said mobility of knowledge. In the study, Kautilya's Arthashastra was used as the main source. In addition, Kautilya's works and thoughts, realist theory, Western-centrism, non-Western theory, the idea of Global International Relations, the literature review was conducted and the claim of the study was based. As tried to be done through the example of mandala theory in this study, revealing the founding-external role of non-Western thoughts and experiences on Western-centered theories in the context of the historical mobility of knowledge is the main way to make the theoretical accumulation in the discipline more pluralistic and universal. Based on this scope, in the first part the concept of "constitutive outside", which forms a conceptual basis for the study, is discussed. In the second part, firstly Kautilya and his work Arthashastra are introduced, then the roots of modern realist theory in Kautilya's mandala theory are tried to be revealed. The study ends with the conclusion part, which includes a critical evaluation of Kautilya's place in today's international relations and suggestions for solutions.

Keywords

Constitutive Outside, Kautilya, Mandala Theory, Realism, Arthashastra

Modern Realizmin Kurucu Dışı Olarak Kautilya’nın Mandala Teorisi

Abstract

Ana akım olarak adlandırılan uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerinin küresel düzeydeki tüm olay ve sorunları açıklama gücüne sahip olduğu iddialarına yönelik eleştiriler, disiplin literatürünün son 40 yıllık birikimi içerisinde önemli bir yer tutmaktadır. Bu eleştirilerin odaklandığı temel nokta, uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinindeki teorik yapıyı Batı merkezci, dar görüşlü ve hegemonik olmaktan çıkarıp evrensel, diyalog odaklı ve çoğulcu hale getirmenin gerekliliği olmuştur. Bu odak noktasından hareketle özellikle son 20 yılda Batılı olmayan toplum ve devletlerin tarih ve deneyimlerden yararlanılarak geliştirilmeye çalışılan teoriler (Batı-dışı teoriler) disiplinde önemli bir çalışma alanı haline gelmiştir. Ancak Batı-dışı teori geliştirme girişimleri, özellikle Çin örneğinde görüldüğü üzere Batı merkezciliği aşmak yerine Batı’ya alternatif yeni merkezler yaratma eğilimi sergilemiştir. Bu durum, disiplindeki teorik birikimin çoğulcu ve diyalog odaklı bir yapıya doğru evrilmek yerine dağınık, birbirine paralel ve birbirinden kopuk yeni merkezler etrafında gelişmesine neden olmuştur. Bu çalışmada uluslararası ilişkileri teorilerini Batı veya herhangi bir başka hegemonik merkezden uzaklaştırarak gerçek manada evrensel kılmanın ancak Batı ile Batı-dışı veya dünyanın geri kalanı arasında bilginin tarihsel hareketliliğini dikkate alarak gerçekleşebileceği savunulmaktadır. Bu anlamda çalışmanın temel iddiası, Hint kökenli düşünür ve devlet adamı Kautilya’nın mandala teorisi ile modern realizm arasındaki ilişkinin söz konusu bilgi hareketliliğini ortaya koyma adına önemli bir örnek teşkil ettiğidir. Çalışmada temel kaynak olarak Kautilya’nın Arthaşastra adlı eserinden yararlanılmıştır. Aynı zamanda Kautilya’nın eserleri ve düşünceleri, realist teori, Batı-merkezcilik, Batı-dışı teori, Küresel Uluslararası İlişkiler fikri üzerine literatür taraması yapılarak çalışmanın iddiası temellendirilmiştir. Bu çalışmada mandala teorisi örneği üzerinden yapılmaya çalışıldığı gibi bilginin tarihsel hareketliliği bağlamında Batılı olmayan düşünce ve deneyimlerin Batı-merkezli teoriler üzerindeki kurucu-dış rolünü ortaya koymak, disiplindeki teorik birikimi daha çoğulcu ve evrensel kılmanın temel yoludur. Bu kapsamdan hareketle birinci bölümde, çalışmaya kavramsal bir temel oluşturan “kurucu dış” kavramı ele alınmaktadır. İkinci bölümde, öncelikle Kautilya ve eseri Arthaşastra tanıtılmakta ardından Kautilya’nın mandala teorisinde modern realist teorinin kökleri ortaya konmaya çalışılmaktadır. Kautilya’nın günümüz uluslararası ilişkilerindeki yerine dair eleştirel bir değerlendirmenin ve çözüm önerilerinin yer aldığı sonuç bölümü ile çalışma sonlandırılmaktadır.

Keywords

Kurucu Dış, Mandala Teorisi, Kautilya, Realizm, Arthaşastra

References

• Acharya, A. ve Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? an introduction. International Relations Of The Asia-Pacific, 7 (3), 287–312.
• Acharya, A. (2011). Dialogue and discovery: In search of international relations theories beyond the West, Millennium: Journal Of International Studies, 39 (3), 619-637.
• Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies, International Studies Quarterly, 58 (4), 647-659.
• Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing global IR: Challenges, contentions, and contributions. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 4-15.
• Agarwal, A. (2021). Going beyond the add-and-stir critique: Tracing the hybrid masculinist legacies of the performative state. Uluslararasi Iliskiler, 18 (70), 63-83.
• Alker, H. ve Biersteker, T. (1984). The dialectics of world order: Notes for a future archeologist of international savoir faire. International Studies Quarterly, 28 (2), 121–142.
• Andrews, N. (2020). International relations (ir) pedagogy, dialogue and diversity: Taking the ir course syllabus seriously. All Azimuth, 9 (2), 267-281.
• Aydınlı, E. ve Mathews, J. (2000). Are the core and the periphery irreconcilable? The curious world of publishing in contemporary international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 1 (3), 289–303.
• Aydınlı, E. ve Erpul, O. (2021). The false promise of global IR: exposing the paradox of dependent development. International Theory, 1–41.
• Babones, S. (2020), From Tianxia to Tianxia: The generalization of a concept, Chinese Political Science Review, 5 (2), 131-147.
• Baipaj, K. (2003). Indian conceptions of order and justice: Nehruvian, Gandhian, Hindutva, and neo-liberal. R. Foot, J. Gaddis ve A. Hurrell (Yay. haz.). Order and justice in international relations içinde (s. 236-261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bandyopadhyaya, J. (1993). A general theory of international relations. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
• Baylis, J. (2008). Uluslararası ilişkilerde güvenlik kuramı. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 5 (18), 69-85.
• Behera, N. C. (2007). Re–imagining ir in India. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 7 (3), 341–68.
• Behera N. C. (2009). Re-imagining ir in India. A. Acharya ve B. Buzan (Yay. haz.). Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia içinde (s. 92-116). New York: Routledge
• Bhambra, G. K. (2010). Historical sociology, international relations and connected histories. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 23 (1), 127-143.
• Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking past Western ir. Third World Quarterly, 29 (1), 5-23.
• Bilgin, P. (2020). Opening up international relations, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love non-Western ir. S. C. Roach (Yay. haz.). Handbook of Critical International Relations içinde (s. 12-28). London: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Bilgin, P. (2021). How not to globalise ir: ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’ as constitutive of ‘the international’. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18 (70), 13-27.
• Bilgin, P. ve Çapan, Z. G. (2021). Introduction to the special issue regional international relations and global worlds: globalising international relations. Uluslararası İlişkiler, 18 (70), 1-11.
• Biltekin, G. (2015). Özgün teori inşası ve Batı-dışı uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri. R. Gözen (Yay. haz.). Uluslararası ilişkiler teorileri içinde (s. 517-564). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
• Blaney, D. L. ve Inayatullah, N. (2008). International relations from below. C. Reus-Smit ve D. Snidal (Yay. haz.). The Oxford handbook of international relations içinde (s. 663-674). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Boesche, R. (2002). The First great political realist Kautilya and his Arthashastra. Oxford: Lexington Books.
• Boesche, R. (2003). Kautilya’s Atrhasastra on war and diplomacy in Ancient India. The Journal of Military History, (67) 1, 9-38.
• Breuning, M., Bredehoft, J. ve Walton, E. (2005). Promise and performance: An evaluation of journals in international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6 (4), 447-461.
• Callahan, W. A. (2008). Chinese visions of world order: post-hegemonic or a new hegemony?. International Studies Review, 10 (4), 749-761.
• Chaturvedy R. R. (2014). India’s neighborhood policy under Modi. FPRC Journal (1), 89–95.
• Chen, C. C. (2011). The absence of non–Western IR theory in Asia reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 11 (1), 1–23.
• Chen, C. C. (2012). The im/possibility of building indigenous theories in a hegemonic discipline: the case of Japanese international relations”, Asian Perspective, 36 (3), 463-492.
• Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10 (2), 126-155.
• Crawford, R.M.A. ve Jarvis, D.S.L. (2001). International relations—still An American social science? toward diversity in international thought. Alybany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Dankbaar, S. (2012). The U.S. monopoly in international relations and history: a comparative analysis of leading academic journals. Groningen: University of Groningen Press.
• Dar, I. A. (2021). Beyond Eurocentrism: Kautilya’s realism and India’s regional diplomacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8, 1-7.
• Dirlik, A. (2011). Culture in contemporary ir theory: the Chinese provocation. R. Shilliam (Yay. haz.). International relations and Non-Western thought: Imperialism, colonialism and investigations of global modernity içinde (s. 139-156). New York: Routledge.
• Elik, S. ve Uslu, S. (2021). Kautilya’nın dış politika kuramı çerçevesinde Hindistan’ın
• Orta Asya ile ilişkileri, 1991-2019. Bilig, (98), 99-122.
• Eun, Y. S. (2018). Beyond ‘the West/non-West divide’ in IR: How to ensure dialogue as mutual learning. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11 (4), 435-449.
• Eun, Y. S. (2019). Opening up the debate over ‘Non-Western’ international relations. Politics, 39 (1), 4-17.
• Eun, Y. S. (2022). Reflexive solidarity: toward a broadening of what it means to be “scientific” in global ir knowledge. All Azimuth, 11 (1), 107-122.
• Friedrichs, J. (2004). European approaches to international relations theory: A house with many mansions. London ve New York: Routledge.
• Gautam, P. K. (2013). One hundred years of Kautilya's Arthasastra. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses Publicatons.
• Goh, E. (2019). US dominance and American bias in international relations scholarship: A view from the outside. Journal of Global Security Studies, 4 (3), 402–410.
• Gowen, H. H. (1929). "The Indian Machiavelli" or political theory in India two thousand years ago. Political Science Quarterly, 44 (2), 173-192.
• Grieco, J. M. (1988). Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. International Organization, 42 (3), 485-507.
• Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric conception of world politics Western international theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hoffman, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations”, Daedalus, 106 (3), 41-60.
• Hutchings, K. (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), 639-647.
• Ikenberry, G. J. ve Mastanduno, M. (2003). Conclusion: Images of order in the Asia- Pacific and the role of the United States. G. J. Ikenberry ve M. Mastanduno (Yay. haz.). International relations theory and the Asia- Pacific içinde (s. 421-439). New York: Columbia University Press.
• Grosser, A. (1956). L'étude des relations internationales, spécialité américaine?. Revue Française de Science Politique, 6 (3), 634-651.
• Holsti, K. J. (1985). The dividing discipline: Hegemony and diversity in international theory. London: Allen & Unwin Press.
• Katzenstein, P. J. (2018). The second coming? Reflections on a global theory of international relations”, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 11 (4), 373–390.
• Kissinger H. (2014). World order. New York: Penguin Books.
• Küçükler, A. (2001). Kautilya’nın Arthaşastra’sı (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• Lake, D. (2011). Why ‘Isms’ are evil: Theory, epistemology, and academic sects as impediments to understanding and progress. International Studies Quarterly, 55 (2), 465–480.
• Lake, D. (2013). Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the great debates and the rise of eclecticism. European Journal of International Relations, 19 (3), 567–587.
• Liebig M. (2013). Kautilya’s relevance for India today. India Quarterly, 69 (2), 99–116.
• Malinak, D., Peterson, S., Powers, R. ve Tierney, M. J. (2018). Is international relations a global discipline? Hegemony, insularity, and diversity in the field. Security Studies, 27 (3), 448-484.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2016). Benign hegemony. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 147-149.
• Misra, A. (2016). Rajamandala theory and India’s international relations. Nação e Defesa, 142, 10-27.
• Mitchell, T. (2002). Rule of experts: Egypt, techno-politics, modernity. California: University of California Press.
• Modelski, G. (1964). Kautilya: Foreign policy and international system in the ancient Hindu world. The American Political Science Rewiev, 58 (3), 549-560.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1946). Scientific man versus power politics. Chiago: University of Chiago Press.
• Morgenthau, H. J. (1949). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace (4th ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knoph Publishing.
• Narain, S. (2020). International Relations Theory: Still a White Man’s Burden. Erişim adresi: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/05/29/international-relations-theory-still-a-white-mans-burden/.
• Nye Jr., J. S. (2010). Responding to my critics and concluding thoughts. I. Parmar ve Michael Cox (Yay. haz.). Soft power and US foreign policy: theoretical, historical, and contemporary perspectives
• içinde (s. 215-227). London ve New York: Routledge.
• Por, S. S. (2020). Tianxia: China’s concept of international order. Global Asia, 15 (2), 43-50.
• Puchala, Donald J. (1997). Some non-Western perspectives on international relations. Journal of Peace Research, 34 (2), 129-134.
• Rangarajan, L. N. (1992). Kautilya: The Arthashastra. New York: Penguin Books.
• Said, E. W. (1993). Culture and imperialism. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.
• Said, E. W. (2013). Şarkiyatçılık: Batı’nın Şark anlayışları. (Berna Ülner Çev.). İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
• Sethy, S. C. ve Ranjan C. P. (2022). Foreign policy in Kautilya’s Arthashastra: A critical analysis of the importance of Rajamandal theory in India’s foreign policy in the 21st century. International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts, 10 (5), 330-335.
• Shahi, D. (2014). Arthashastra beyond realpolitik: The 'eclectic' face of Kautilya. Economic and Political Weekly, 49 (41), 68-74.
• Shahi, D. (2018). Kautilya and non-Western IR theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Sil, R. ve Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Analytical eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8 (2), 411–423.
• Smith, S. (2000). The discipline of international relations: Still an American social science?. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 2 (3), 374–402.
• Sarkar, B. K. (1918). Hindu political philosophy. Political Science Quarterly, 33 (4), 482-500.
• Sarkar, B. K. (1919). Hindu theory of international relations. The American Political Science Review, 13 (3), 400-414.
• Sarkar, B. K. (1921). The Hindu theory of the state. Political Science Quarterly, 36 (1), 79-90.
• Tickner, A. B. (2003). Seeing IR differently: Notes from the third World. Millennium, 32 (2), 295–324.
• Turton, H. L. (2016). International relations and American dominance: A diverse discipline. London ve New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
• Turton, H. L. (2020). Locating a multifaceted and stratified disciplinary core. All Azimuth, 9 (2), 177-209.
• Waever, O. (1998). The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in international relations. International Organization, 52 (4), 687–727.
• Wang, H. (2011). The politics of imagining Asia. Cambridge, Massachusetts, ve London, England: Harvard University Press.
• Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
• Weber, M. (2006). Meslek olarak siyaset. (A. Timuçin ve M. Sert, Çev.). Chiviyazıları Yayınevi.
• Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., Bell, N. J., Morales, M. N. ve Tierney, M. J. (2016). The IR of the beholder: Examining global IR using the 2014 TRIP survey. International Studies Review, 18 (1), 16–32.
• Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., Kristensen, P. M., ve Lohaus, M. (2022). The global division of labor in a not so global discipline. All Azimuth, 11 (1), 3-27.
• Xuetomg, Y. (2010). The instability of China–US relations. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 3 (3), 263-292.
• Zaman, R. U. (2007). Kautilya: The Indian strategic thinker and Indian strategic culture. Comparative Strategy, 25 (3), 231-247.