|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
183217
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores how International Studies as a scientific discipline emerged and developed in China, against the background of a Sinocentric world order that had predominated in East Asia for a long time. The argument of this article is threefold. First, the discipline relied heavily on historical, legal, and political studies, and placed a heavy focus on the investigation of China's integration into the Westphalian system. Second, studies of International Relations were grounded in a problem-solving approach to various issues China was facing at various times in the course of modernisation. Third, the historical development of International Studies in China has had a profound impact on the current IR scholarship in both the PRC and Taiwan, including the recent surge of attempts to establish a Chinese School of IR theory in China and the voluntary acceptance of Western IR in Taiwan. By way of conclusion, the article suggests that there is still an indigenous Chinese site of agency with regards to developing IR. This agency exists despite the fact that in the course of the disciplinary institutionalisation of IR Chinese scholars have largely absorbed Western knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
177074
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article addresses ongoing discussions across the English School (ES) of International Relations (IR) theory and IR theory drawing on Chinese philosophical traditions and Chinese history as exemplifying a “Global IR” approach. However, common interests in long-run history, non-material forms of power, and an international social structure have not yet led to sustained discussion of normative issues important to both approaches. Showing how analytical commonalities between ES and “Chinese” IR accounts of international societies and concepts of order and harmony focus on elite-level perspectives and priorities, I draw on critical and decolonial aspects of Global IR to argue for alternative accounts. Unexplored potential for this exists within the distinct methodological bases of ES and “Chinese IR,” opening space for normative engagement that can provide a model for other inter-tradition encounters in Global IR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
145119
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Recent interest in Global international relations (IR) theory has prompted efforts to give voice to non-Western approaches to international politics, accentuating how cultures and their specific local problems contribute to distinct scholarly practices, and how this in turn challenges the hegemony of taken-for-granted, “universalized” Anglo-American IR theory. Encouraged by the overtures of Western academics, Chinese scholars have begun to articulate the role of “traditional” mindsets in Chinese thinking about world politics, proposing avenues toward the development of an IR theory “with Chinese characteristics.” Although these efforts are a laudable attempt to break through ethnocentrism, broaden the relevance of IR theory, and legitimate non-Western knowledge, we argue that the fact that gender seems to be entirely absent from the China-centered portion of this collaborative “West/non-West” project results in a partial and problematic approach: It fails to engage Chinese feminist theorizing by relying upon unexamined gendered concepts. This article uses the results of a series of interviews with mainland scholars to spotlight the challenges faced by existing Chinese IR feminists whose work is overlooked in mainstream Chinese IR’s holistic, Confucian approach to international society. We suggest ways gender sensitivity might inform debates about “Chinese IR” and how to improve Western efforts to engage non-Western IR more broadly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
192317
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
While proponents of Chinese IR pursue a national school based on the identification of Chineseness with the Chinese national culture, its critics find a limited value in the ‘Chinese’ school as a mere temporary site for non-Western agencies. In contrast, I argue a distinctive and enduring Chinese IR is possible if it adopts a non-national and non-essentialised transcultural conception of Chineseness. This transcultural Chinese IR is based first on the contested and transcultural conception of Chineseness and second on the ontology of Chineseness as immanent humanity. Chineseness has been a fiction of a privileged descent from antiquity, which various contestants claimed by redefining the meaning of Chineseness. The shi elites, in particular, developed Chineseness as an aspirational ethos that propelled it to transcend its cultural boundary by incorporating foreign influences and thereby rendered Chineseness transcultural. Also, drawing on the ontological turn and Roy Wagner's work in anthropology, I show how Chineseness as immanent humanity transcends the category of culture, transforming the division of innate nature and constructed culture. The transcultural Chinese IR, with its own complexity and universal aspiration, uses its history and ontology to complexify both its tradition internally and other IR traditions externally, promoting the pluralisation of IR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|