| Summary/Abstract |
This article makes its case against the reliance on binaries that is pervading our analytical and political conceptual universe under a variety of labels—Western vs Non-Western, West vs Rest, and Occident vs. Orient. These reductions are misleading as analytical short-cuts and pernicious as political projects. Theoretical complementarity provides us instead with an opportunity to divide our labor, extend our causal arguments, and show a measure of humility as we advance unavoidably limited theoretical claims. This argument is presented in two steps. In the first section, this article inquires into the distinction between Western and Non-Western International Relations Theory. In the second section, it discusses common knowledge and theories and tacit knowledge and world views. In both sections, the article argues for an approach to the two types of knowledge that is complementary, not binary.
|