Suchergebnisse

This book shows that identity studies in IR generally cohere around two discrete understandings of being, substantialism and correlationism, and that their analytical, theoretical, and epistemological orientations are split along those lines. The author argues that the best way to step outside that binary is to re-ground identity in ontology of immanence. Yong-Soo Eun is Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Hanyang University, Seoul, South Korea.

"International Relations (IR), as a discipline, is a western dominated enterprise. This has led to calls to broaden the scope and vision of the discipline by embracing a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives - particularly those outside the Anglo-American core of the West. The ongoing 'broadening IR projects' - be they 'non-Western IR', 'post-Western IR', or 'Global IR' - are making contributions in this regard. However, some careful thinking is needed here in that these attempts could also lead to a national or regional 'inwardness' that works to reproduce the very parochialism that is being challenged. The main intellectual concerns of this edited volume are problematising Western parochialism in IR; giving theoretical and epistemological substance to pluralism in the field of IR based on both Western and non-Western thoughts and experiences; and working out ways to move the discipline of IR one step closer to a dialogic community. A key issue that cuts across all contributions in the volume is to go beyond both parochialism and fragmentation in international studies. In order to address the manifold and contested implications of pluralism in in the field of IR, the volume draws on the wealth of experience and research of prominent and emerging IR scholars whose contributions make up the work, with a mixture of theoretical analysis and case studies. This book will appeal to scholars and students interested in Global IR and promoting dialogue in a pluralist IR"--

This book identifies and addresses subtle but important questions and issues associated with the configuration of International Relations as a discipline. Starting with a much-needed discussion of manifold implications and issues associated with pluralism, the book raises important questions, such as where does the field of IR stand in terms of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological diversity. The book also carries out a comparative analysis of the present status of post-positivist IR scholarship in the United States and China. Eun discusses these questions through a close reading of the key texts in the field and by undertaking a critical survey of publishing and teaching practices in IR communities. IR scholars will gravitate to this text that fills many gaps in international political theory. Yong-Soo Eun is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Hanyang University and the Editor-in-Chief of the Routledge series,IR Theory and Practice in Asia. His work has been published in journals including Review of International Studies; PS: Political Science and Politics;International Studies Perspectives; and International Political Science Review. He has also written and edited books, including Regionalizing Global Crises. Yong-Soo is broadly interested in IR theory, philosophy of social science, Foreign Policy Analysis, and the international politics of the Asia-Pacific region

This book identifies and addresses subtle but important questions and issues associated with the configuration of International Relations as a discipline. Starting with a much-needed discussion of manifold implications and issues associated with pluralism, the book raises important questions, such as where does the field of IR stand in terms of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological diversity. The book also carries out a comparative analysis of the present status of post-positivist IR scholarship in the United States and China. Eun discusses these questions through a close reading of the key texts in the field and by undertaking a critical survey of publishing and teaching practices in IR communities. IR scholars will gravitate to this text that fills many gaps in international political theory. Yong-Soo Eun is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at Hanyang University and the Editor-in-Chief of the Routledge series, IR Theory and Practice in Asia. His work has been published in journals including Review of International Studies; PS: Political Science and Politics;International Studies Perspectives; and International Political Science Review. He has also written and edited books, including Regionalizing Global Crises. Yong-Soo is broadly interested in IR theory, philosophy of social science, Foreign Policy Analysis, and the international politics of the Asia-Pacific region.

Will a desirable apparatus always return a desirable end? This short engagement expresses my hope for Karin M. Fierke's Snapshots from Home: Mind, Action, and Strategy in an Uncertain World (Bristol University Press, 2022).

The primary purpose of this article is to advance the ongoing global international relations (Global IR) debate and to offer some possible paths toward Global IR 2.0. To this end, this article first analyzes how Global IR has emerged, what contributions it makes to giving new impetus to IR knowledge (production), and, more importantly, what charges are leveled against Global IR. Although Global IR has produced an important body of scholarship, contributing substantially to identifying West-centrism as a key point of contention in IR and nudging the discipline toward theoretical pluralism, Global IR in its current form still carries the risk of reinforcing the old hierarchical and essentialized structure of knowledge production in ways that are analytic, epistemological, and ontological. Following this critical mapping exercise, I argue that while Global IR can serve as a key signifier of challenge to West-centrism, this important signifier needs to be redefined in terms of what it indicates and means - thereby becoming Global IR 2.0. In onto-epistemological terms, Global IR 2.0 relates more directly to questioning and dissolving essentialized ways of knowing in the discipline. In the final section of this article, I elaborate on how to realize this idea and harness it in practice.

Many scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to the problems of West-centrism and American parochialism in the scholarly discipline of International Relations (IR). Few scholars today would dispute the importance of the Global IR project in this regard. Although this intellectual exercise comprises a variety of approaches, the common unifying concern is to promote "greater diversity" in IR knowledge and knowledge production by embracing a wide range of histories, experiences and perspectives, particularly from outside the West. A key question remains: to what extent do we practise what we preach? Accordingly, this special issue takes a self-reflexive stock of contemporary IR research and teaching trends in Southeast Asia. More specifically, it brings together critical scholars living in six Southeast Asian countries—Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines and Cambodia—who have conducted nationwide surveys of their own IR communities and identified how IR is researched and taught in their own countries. Based on the findings of this novel survey, the contributors discuss opportunities and challenges in continuing to encourage greater diversity in the knowledge production of the IR communities of which they are also members. In this way, this special issue presents not only social contexts and institutional constraints, but also autobiographical encounters, both positive (achievements) and negative (frustrations), that the contributors have had in their own IR communities. (Contemp Southeast Asia/GIGA)

Abstract
This article takes reflexive stock on the current state of the discipline of international relations (IR) in order to catalyze a robust debate on diversity in IR knowledge and knowledge production. IR has witnessed a theoretical explosion and proliferation since the 1980s, and pluralism is acknowledged as a legitimate position for producing IR knowledge and theory. As a result, we have now arrived at "a plural, and pluralist," field, and several IR scholars have observed that the discipline is much healthier as a result. On closer inspection, however, what we find in IR is quantitative (i.e., representational) diversity and closed territoriality, as opposed to qualitative (i.e., ontological) diversity and open territoriality. By reviewing what defines the nature of diversity in artifacts, including the field of knowledge we know as IR, this article shows that territories and codes of knowledge production in IR remain narrowly confined within a few lines of articulation and strata. Furthermore, although IR is often regarded as a plural, and pluralist, field, the article demonstrates that this is true only in terms of actualized knowledge assemblages (e.g., approaches, theories, or research programs), and not the kinds and movement of territories and codes of knowledge production through which those assemblages are actualized. How can we ensure qualitative diversity and open territoriality in the production of IR knowledge? This article takes preliminary steps in addressing this question by calling for IR as "becoming-rhizomatic."

ABSTRACTDavid Lake wrote that International Relations (IR)1 will be a more diverse and better field of study if we embrace varied "life experiences and intuitions," especially those of "marginalized" scholars, about politics and how the world works. Although concurring with his admonition, I also believe that his call for "greater diversity" in IR and his approach to realizing it need to be subject to critical scrutiny, being reconsidered in terms of reflexivity—more specifically, self-reflection by "marginalized" scholars. For this reason, as a "non-white" scholar working in a "non-Western" (or, in Lake's words, "underrepresented") IR community, I want to make my own confession to better understand what is at stake in promoting diversity in the academy from a different angle.

This opening article maps the terrain of the ongoing debate over various forms of 'non-Western' International Relations (IR) theory-building enterprise with the aim not only of providing contextual background for the Special Section, but also, and more importantly, of identifying what is missing in the overall debate. It is often pointed out that IR as a discipline is 'too Western centric', and that much of mainstream IR theory is 'simply an abstraction of Western history'. In this respect, many IR scholars have called for 'broadening' the theoretical horizon of IR while problematising the Western parochialism of the discipline, and it is increasingly acknowledged that IR needs to embrace a wider range of histories, experiences, and theoretical perspectives, particularly those outside of the West. However, despite such a meaningful debate over non-Western IR theorisation and its recent contributions, several critical questions and issues still remain unclear and under-explored. I suggest that there are (at least) three sets of questions that require more careful attention in our discussion. First, does IR need to embrace theoretical pluralism? Second, to what extent has contemporary IR become pluralistic? Third, should IR pursue the promotion of dialogue and engagement across theoretical and spatial divides? Of course, each of these questions invites several subsequent questions. This discussion will serve as a useful point from which more substantial and exciting bearings may be taken in enriching the ongoing debate and moving IR towards becoming a more pluralistic discipline.