| Summary/Abstract |
Since the publication a decade ago of Acharya and Buzan’s seminal forum, ‘Why is there no non-Western IR theory?’, voluminous studies have attempted to ameliorate the Western parochialism of international relations (IR) studies. This trend includes a strong and increasing commitment among non-Western (in particular, Chinese) IR scholars to the development of ‘national schools’. However, Acharya and Buzan point out that non-Western IR theory-building enterprise ‘cannot be a conversation among the likeminded’. They add: the project ‘is more likely to fail if it does not draw in the broadest group of scholars, including those in the Western mainstream’. In a related vein, Peter Katzenstein writes that the diversity and heterogeneity of world politics cannot be captured by binary distinctions between Western and non-Western IR theory. Rather, our focus, he notes, should be on interactions between different types of knowledge. In short, we need a two-way ‘dialogue’ across ‘the West/non-West divide’ to transform the current Western-centric IR into a global discipline. A critical question, then, is how we can ensure such a dialogue without descending into a narcissistic turf war. This article tackles the how-question head-on in its discussions of the diverse kinds and properties of dialogue.
|