Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction: Global(izing) International Relations: Studying Geo-Epistemological Divides and Diversity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Globalizing International Relations

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in International Relations ((PSIR))

Abstract

In recent years, voices calling International Relations (IR) a ‘Western-centric discipline’ have become louder and a comprehensive debate about the discipline’s (un)global character has emerged. In many aspects this debate is not very different from earlier struggles for a more pluralized and reflected discipline. Consequently, in the introduction, we promote conceptualizing the current discourse on geo-epistemological divides and diversity as a new ‘Global(izing) IR Debate’ by reviewing its evolution over the past decades and drawing parallels and differences between this and earlier ones. We subsequently locate our own book within this debate by addressing a number of common approaches and trends, for example, the turn from broad criticism toward the study of particular aspects of IR scholarship beyond the West. Starting from these approaches, and against the backdrop of defining a distinct concept of ‘geo-epistemology’ for overcoming the awkward concepts of Western/non-Western, we introduce the book’s structure along two dimensions: the terrain covered (What do ‘West’ and ‘beyond’ mean in the context of our book and each chapter?) and questions asked (What do the single chapters deal with?).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acharya, A. 2014. Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds. International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 647–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A. 2015. Outgoing ISA President Shares Thoughts on Annual Convention & Global IR. Available from: www.isanet.org/News/ID/4717/categoryId/1/Outgoing-ISA-President-Shares-Thoughts-on-Annual-Convention-Global-IR [Accessed 17 August 2015].

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, Amitav. 2016. Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions. International Relations Review 18(1): 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A., and B. Buzan. 2007a. Why Is There No Non-Western International Relations Theory?: An Introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7(3): 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, A., and B. Buzan. 2007b. Conclusion: On the Possibility of a Non-Western IR Theory in Asia. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 7(3): 427–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, E. 2002. Constructivism and International Relations. In Handbook of International Relations, ed. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B. Simmons, 95–118. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Agathangelou, A.M., and L.H.M. Ling. 2004. The House of IR: From Family Power Politics to the Poisies of Worldism. International Studies Review 6(4): 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agnew, J. 2007. Know-Where: Geographies of Knowledge in World Politics. International Political Sociology 1(2): 138–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alker, H.R., and T.J. Biersteker. 1984. The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for an Archeologist of International Savoir Faire. International Studies Quarterly 28(2): 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydinli, E., and J. Mathews. 2000. Are the Core and the Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations. International Studies Perspectives 1(3): 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aydinli, E., and J. Mathews. 2009. Turkey. Towards Homegrown Theorizing and Building a Disciplinary Community. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 208–222. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilgin, P. 2008. Thinking Past Western IR? Third World Quarterly 29(1): 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaney, D.L., and A.B. Tickner. 2013. Introduction: Claiming the International Beyond IR. In Claiming the International, ed. A.B. Tickner and D.L. Blaney, 1–24. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakrabarty, D. 2000. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-C. 2011. The Absence of Non-Western IR Theory in Asia Reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11(1): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-C. 2012. The Im/Possibility of Building Indigenous Theories in a Hegemonic Discipline: The Case of Japanese International Relations. Asian Perspectives 36(3): 463–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. 1986. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. In Neoliberalism and Its Critics, ed. R.O. Keohane, 204–254. New York: Colombia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, W., and K.R. Nossal. 2009. The “Crimson World”: The Anglo Core, the Post-Imperial Non-Core, and the Hegemony of American IR. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 287–307. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, R.M.A., and D.S.L. Jarvis (eds.). 2001. International Relations—Still an American Social Science?: Toward Diversity in International Thought. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • D'Aoust, A.-M. 2012. Accounting for the Politics of Language in the Sociology of IR. Journal of International Relations and Development 15(1): 120–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drulák, P., J. Karlas, and L. Königová. 2009. Central and Eastern Europe: Between Continuity and Change. In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 242–260. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J., and A. Wendt. 2002. Rationalism v. Constructivism: A Skeptical View. In Handbook of International Relations, ed. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B.A. Simmons, 52–72. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feaver, P.D. 2000. Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?: (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?). International Security 25(1): 165–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedrichs, J. (ed.). 2004. European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann, K. 1995. Im Westen Nichts Neues: International Relations Journals in 1972 and 1992. European Journal of International Relations 7(2): 245–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grenier, F., and K. McMillan. 2010. Power in Practice: Identifying Hegemony in the Global IR Discipline, 7th Pan-European Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on International Relations, 2010 Conference Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P.M. 1992. Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagmann, J., and T.J. Biersteker. 2014. Beyond the Published Discipline: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of International Studies. European Journal of International Relations 20(2): 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. (ed.). 1998. Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, G. 1994. Für eine problemorientierte Grundlagenforschung. Kritik und Perspektiven der Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, G., P.D. Feaver, J.W. Legro, A. Moravcsik, R.L. Schweller, J.W. Taliaferro, and W.C. Wohlforth. 2000. Brother, Can you Spare a Paradigm?: (Or, Was Anybody Ever a Realist?). International Security 25(1): 169–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, G., K.D. Wolf, and M. Zürn (eds.). 2003. Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen—Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, J.M. 2009. Provincializing Westphalia: The Eastern Origins of Sovereignty. International Politics 46(6): 671–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, J.M. (ed.). 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, S. 1977. An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedelus 106(3): 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, K.J. 1985. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. 1998. The Promise of Constructivism in International Relations Theory. International Security 23(1): 171–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Xiaoming. 2007. The Invisible Hand: Modern Studies of International Relations in Japan, China, and Korea. Journal of International Relations and Development 10(2): 168–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inayatullah, N., and D.L. Blaney. 2004. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jørgensen, K.E., and T.B. Knudsen (eds.). 2006. International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenstein, P.J., R.O. Keohane, and S.D. Krasner. 1998. International Organization and the Study of World Politics. International Organization 52(3): 645–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kayaoglu, T. 2010. Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review 12(2): 193–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khong, Y.F. 2013. The American Tributary System. The Chinese Journal of International Politics 6(1): 1–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr, K., and J.N. Rosenau. 1969a. Tradition and Science in the Study of International Politics. In Contending Approaches to International Politics, ed. K. Knorr and J.N. Rosenau, 3–19. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr, K., and J.N. Rosenau (eds.). 1969b. Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowert, P., and L. Jeffrey. 1996. Norms, Identity, and Their Limits: A Theoretical Reprise. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, ed. P. Katzenstein, 451–497. New York: Columbia Univesity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.M. 2012. Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations. International Studies Perspectives 14(1): 32–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.M. 2013. Revisiting the American Social Science: Mapping the Geography of International Relations. International Studies Perspectives, Online, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen, P.M., and R.T. Nielsen. 2013. Constructing a Chinese International Relations Theory: A Sociological Approach to Intellectual Innovation. International Political Sociology 7(1): 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffey, M., and J. Weldes. 1997. Beyond Belief. Ideas and Symbolic technologies in the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 3(2): 193–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffey, M., and J. Weldes. 2008. Decolonizing the Cuban Missile Crisis. International Studies Quarterly 52(3): 555–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legro, J.W., and A. Moravcsik. 1999. Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security 24(2): 5–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ling, L.H.M. 2014. Imagining World Politics: Sihar & Shenya, a Fable for Our Times. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizée, P. 2011. Introduction: Understanding the Post-Western World. In A Whole New World, ed. P. Lizée, 1–13. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Makarychev, A., and V. Morozov. 2013. Is Non-Western Theory Possible? The Idea of Multipolarity and the Trap of Epistemological Relativism in Russian IR. International Studies Review 15(3): 328–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maliniak, D., and R. Powers. 2014. Citations and Intellectual Communities in the International Relations Literature, 2014 Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mgonja, B.E., and I.A.M. Makombe. 2009. Debating International Relations and Its Relevance for the Third World. African Journal of Political Science and International Relations 3(1): 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mignolo, W.D. 2009. Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom. Theory, Culture & Society 26(7–8): 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murithi, T. 2007. A Local Response to the Global Human Rights Standard: The Ubuntu Perspective of Human Dignity. Globalisation, Society, and Education 5(3): 277–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nau, H.R. 2007. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, M., and E. Selbin. 2011a. Introduction. In Decentering International Relations, ed. M. Nayak and E. Selbin, 1–20. New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, M., and E. Selbin (eds.). 2011b. Decentering International Relations. New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, S. (ed.). 1998. International Relations and the Third World. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiander, A. 1998. Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited. International Studies Quarterly 42(3): 409–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. 2001. Can There Be National Perspectives in Inter(national) Relations? In International Relations—Still an American Social Science? ed. R.M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis, 131–147. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preston, C.J. 2003. Grounding Knowledge: Environmental Philosophy, Epistemology, and Place. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin, Y., D.L. Blaney, and A.B. Tickner. 2013. An Accidental (Chinese) International Relations Theorist. In Claiming the International, ed. A.B. Tickner and D.L. Blaney, 159–176. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T. 2002. Constructivism and International Institutions: Toward Conversations across Paradigms. In Political Science, ed. I. Katznelson and H. V. Milner, 597–623. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesch, F. 2014. Émigré Scholars and the Genesis of International Relations: A European Discipline in America? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salager-Meyer, F. 2008. Scientific Publishing in Developing Countries: Challenges for the Future. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(2): 121–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, B. 2002. On the History and Historiography of International Relations. In Handbook of International Relations, ed. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse-Kappen, and B.A. Simmons, 3–22. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schweller, R.L. 2000. Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?: (Or Was Anybody Ever a Realist?). International Security 25(1): 174–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shani, G. 2008. Toward a Post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory. International Studies Review 10(4): 722–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, D. 2010. Mapping International Relations Teaching and Research in Indian Universities. International Studies 46(1–2): 69–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharman, J.C., and J. True. 2011. Anglo-American Followers or Antipodean Iconoclasts? The 2008 TRIP Survey of International Relations in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of International Affairs 65(2): 148–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shimizu, K. 2011. Nishida Kitaro and Japan’s Interwar Foreign Policy: War Involvement and Culturalist Political Discourse. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 11(1): 157–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. 1996. Positivism and Beyond. In International Theory: Positivism & Beyond, ed. S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, 11–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. 2002. The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline. International Studies Review 4(2): 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, X. 2001. Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics. Journal of Contemporary China 10(26): 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoffle, R.W. 2013. Geo-Epistemology: Latin America and the Location of Knowledge: Book Review. Bulletin of Latin American Research 32(1): 128–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B. 2003. Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World. Millennium—Journal of International Studies 32(2): 295–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B. 2009. Latin America: Still Policy Dependent After All These Years? In International Relations Scholarship Around the World, ed. A.B. Tickner and O. Wæver, 32–52. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B. 2013. Core, Periphery and (Neo)imperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 627–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B., and D. Blaney (eds.). 2012. Thinking International Relations Differently. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B., and D.L. Blaney. 2013. Claiming the International. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, A.B., and O. Wæver (eds.). 2009. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsunoda, K. 2013. Identifying Key English School Texts and the Reasons Why They Were Cited, International Studies Association Annual Convention, 2013 Conference San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turton, H. 2015. International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. 1996. The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate. In International Theory: Positivism & Beyond, ed. S. Smith, K. Booth, and M. Zalewski, 149–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wæver, O. 1998. The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52(4): 687–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. et al. 2016. The IR of the Beholder: Examining Global IR Using the 2014 TRIP Survey. International Studies Review 18(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. 2013. Intellectual Rooting in IR: Converging Citation Patterns in Constructivist Publications Around the World, International Studies Association Annual Convention, 2013 Conference San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. 2014. Bibliometric Studies of International Relations as a Global(izing) Discipline: An Analytical Review, International Studies Association Annual Convention, 2014 Conference Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., N. Bell, M. N. Morales, and M. J. Tierney. Forthcoming. Has IR Gone Global? Insights from the 2014 TRIP Survey. Special Issue of International Studies Review.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46(2): 391–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wesley, M. 2001. Australia’s International Relations and the (IR)relevance of Theory. Australian Journal of International Affairs 55(3): 453–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zürn, M. 1994. We Can Do Much Better! Aber muß es auf Amerikanisch sein? Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 91–114.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Otto-Suhr-Institute for Political Science, Berlin Graduate School for Transnational Studies, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar

  2. Otto-Suhr-Institute for Political Science, Center for Transnational Studies Foreign and Security Policy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Ingo Peters

Authors
  1. Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ingo Peters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Ingo Peters

  2. Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Wiebke Wemheuer-Vogelaar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., Peters, I. (2016). Introduction: Global(izing) International Relations: Studying Geo-Epistemological Divides and Diversity. In: Peters, I., Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W. (eds) Globalizing International Relations. Palgrave Studies in International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-57410-7_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation