non-western IR / decolonialism and postcolonialism Flashcards
How can we decolonize IR?
- not present parochial theories as universal theories (be humble, create midrange theories)
- highlight the exclusion of ideas/voices and knowledge hierarchies
- highlight the imperial, gendered, and racist origins of the discipline
- investigate multiple, diverse origins of IR
- encourage a plural and inclusive discipline, notably by decolonizing the curriculum
- foster dialogue and revisit concepts, theories and approaches at the local and international levels
two-way dialogue local and global
concepts and theories need to be able to address/explain regional phenomena, but also need to be applicable on a greater scale (balance between local and global)
the problem of IR
- parochial and Eurocentric ideas presented as universal
- IR mainly focuses on questions relevant to the West
- lack of knowledge about how IR developed in the non-western world
- IR in other parts of the world is often discussed in history or political departments
- cultural, local, institutional, economic and political obstacles in the Global South
parochial
focus only on certain regions
first mover advantage
main IR theorists in the West -> most citated -> reinforcing domination in the field
‘‘consent’’
‘‘gramscian hegemonic status of western IR’’
what changed the fact that racial inequality wasn’t seen in IR?
1955 Bandung Conference integrating national sovereignty, racialism and colonialism + demand racial equality as a fundamental human right
Anarchophilia
Western IR obsessive focus on anarchy and security dilemma
- cause: focus on Europe 16-18 century
- effect: overlooking other International systems without anarchy and balance of power
Security dilemma and anarchy aren’t natural, they seem so when looking at Europe
contrast to anarchy, balance of power and security dilemma
- Confucian Northeast Asia: balance of power isn’t automatic, hierarchical systems can co-exist: China was dominating materially and culturally, this was recognized -> stability
- medieval Islamicate Asia: asymmetry in material power didn’t lead to balance of power and security dilemma, there was order between Mughal, Safavid and Ottoman Empires, they treated each other as equal
Race and IR: Kissinger and Nixon
a lot of their thinking in the 70s about the east-Pakistan crisis (led to the Bangladesh independence) wasn’t about realpolitik, balance of power and such, it was about their dislike/racism
journal of foreign affairs old name
journal of race development
Du Bois
political thinker, stressed that realism and liberalism didn’t ‘‘transcend racism’’, they were used to justify imperialism and slavery
notes that we should look not on inter-state relations, but at states working together + who they exploited/discriminated
argues that it isn’t only states competing each other, it’s also states working together to colonize
'’the problem of the 21st century is the problem of the color line’’
argues that the international order is a racial hierarchy
limitations to decolonial and postcolonial approaches
theorizing locally can also restrain dialogue
- there have to be some common grounds, it has to apply to more than one locale (two-way dialogue)
- there can be no truly ‘‘international’‘/global theory
globalization: what/who is western and non-western
- are these categories in themselves not problematic?
- boundary-making to some degree by emphasizing non-western contribution
- shift to promoting global IR or post-western IR
difference decolonialism and postcolonialism
decolonialism = Latin American thinkers = focus on indigenous perspectives
postcolonialism = African thinkers = focus on subaltern perspectives
neo-colonialism
states are in theory independent, but in reality its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside
connection marxist theories
influenced by marxist critiques of imperialism and capitalism
e.g. Raul Prebisch: dependency theory continuing after decolonization
