Introduction
Over the last few centuries, there have appeared a plentiful of approaches to the study of international relations. The intricacy and complexity of such relations have accounted for the emergence of different schools, each of which interpreted global events from their point of view. It is argued that European schools that dealt with studying international relations have paved the way for other institutions in the same field. Despite major contributions made by such schools as the English school, the question arises as to whether these scholars might have been biased in their studies. Namely, they might have employed rather subjective judgment while holding other cultures to Western norms and worldviews.
The fact that many schools appeared in empires does not help the case, as the colonialist paradigm created a rigid hierarchy of cultures, nations, and ethnicities. Keene (2002) calls a clear order in the formation of all state structures, including an educational one, one of the components of a highly organized society.
On the other hand, some experts argue that in the modern world, schools succeeded in overcoming their tunnel Eurocentric vision and embraced cultural diversity. In this essay, the brief history of the English school and Eurocentrism in the international relations theory is discussed. Further, the paper provides arguments for and against the presence of Eurocentrism in the English school.
Brief History of the English School
The English School of International Relations is also often referred to as British Institutionalists and the International society school. According to Buzan (2014), the foundation date of the English school is rather arbitrary, as the school emerged between the mid-1950s and 1959. The flagship concept of the School is the idea of the world as an international society. The concept of the global community as a society of states does not belong solely to the English school, nor was it invented by its scholars-proponents of the view.
Buzan (2014) assumes that the English school drew heavily on the ideas of German historian Heeren who put forward the idea of a states-system as early as the 1850s (Heeren 1846). Also, Tingyang (2006) compares the system under consideration with that of the Chinese empire and notes the similarity of the educational process, for instance, the principles of punishments. At the same time, one may draw a parallel with international law where international society is a commonly used notion.
The idea of international society was developed by the English school in opposition to the prevailing concept of and the international system in the USA. It is also essential to examine the dichotomy in the context of the post-World War II reality. While the concept of international system explored relations of dominance and submission, wealth, and dependence, “international society” prioritized unity, association, and membership (Knutsen 2016, p. 24).
Yet, as Schieder and Spinder (2014) emphasized, international society consists of autonomous entities that are different from human beings. Thus, it is impossible to draw analogies between domestic society and international society, and the latter should be studied as a distinct form.
Eurocentrism in the International Relations Theory
The concept of Eurocentrism is associated with the tendency to view the culture, history, and perspectives of non-European societies from a European standpoint (Bliddal, Sylvest & Wilson 2013). In most cases, there is a list of prevailing features of Eurocentric views. These include but are not limited to the following:
- Undervaluing the role of non-European societies in the context of international relations;
- Considering non-European cultures as inferior to European (Western);
- Ignoring the contribution of Asian or African societies within their history;
- Seeing the history of non-European societies in European terms, underlining the value of the European expansion, and the consequent positive influence of such expansion (Ăapan 2017).
When discussing the presence of Eurocentrism as related to the academic discipline of International Relations (IR), it must be mentioned that the latter was developed as a result of certain historical reasons (Bellamy 2005). The relations between great powers within the international economy were grounded predominantly on the internal history of Europe as the example of classical thought (Acharya 2014a). Due to this fact, the field of IR was dominated by North American and European ideologies that separated Americans, Europeans, and, to a lesser degree, Australians, from the ‘rest’ of the world (Abbattista 2011).
The consistent othering of non-European cultures gave rise to the development of Eurocentric models that was characterized by the lack of investigation of the multi-way diffusion of ideas and norms and the absence of attention to diverse ways in which cultures and civilizations encounter and interact with each other. Therefore, the theory of International Relations does not presuppose a one-fits-all approach; instead, there is a need to recognize the importance of eliminating the limitations of Eurocentrism and elevating the diversity of culture, opinions, and viewpoints.
Evidence of Eurocentrism of the English School
The English School of International Relations theory has come under increased criticism for the evident Eurocentric bias. However, such a powerful school of thought is inevitably exposed to criticism due to the presence of grand narratives. These narratives are considered essential within the English School of thought because Bull and Watson (1984), who edited The Expansion of International Society, both recognized their narrative as the standard European view, which was not distinctive from the English School of thinking.
The authors were transparent about the Eurocentric character of their work: “it is not our perspective, but the historical record itself that can be called Eurocentric” (Bull & Watson 1984, p. 2). Due to this perspective, a question arises whether the members of the English school were convinced that the future of international society depended on the spread of Western values. At the same time, Callahan (2004) notes the role of the national idea as one of the fundamental factors determining the nature of the state educational policy and key trends in this area.
Bull and Watson (1984) were Western-trained and therefore had a specific interest in the way in which European countries participated in international relations. The reflections on the history of Western external politics rather than the interest in wider global affairs was in the center of the authorsâ analysis. Also, Bull and Watson (1984) were conscious of their theory and underlined the fact that the international society was not only developed by Europeans but rather an arrangement of procedures that worked in favor of the dominant powers, which were from the West.
The English School of International Relations presupposes the existence of a “Western club” that may need to be reformed to establish legitimacy in the global arena (Linklater 2010). Nevertheless, in his article “The International Anarchy in the 1980s,” Bull (1983) criticized the failure of Western superpowers to address the aspirations and needs of Third-World societies in the 1970s. The international society could have been strengthened if the Western superpowers had overcome their anxieties of reinforcing international policies.
The approach to IR as dictated by the English School can be considered Eurocentric because of its orientation on the rationalist conception of the global society (Bull 1966). Rationalism is such a context that is seen as the middle ground between revolutionism and realism, maintaining that countries, especially developed super-states, are involved in the struggle for power with no chance to escape as long as countries provide for their security (Linklater 2010).
Nevertheless, it must be mentioned that within the English School of thought, states are not condemned for their competition for power and security (Bull, Alderson & Hurrell 2000). According to Ayson (2012), international cooperation may be seen as a complex system of interaction where each participant seeks to benefit. Indeed, within the context of such competition, states can develop societies that can preserve high levels of order that are less possible in countries that lack international power.
The English School has been challenged for its Eurocentrism in multiple ways. For instance, Acharya and Buzan (2010, p. 209) wrote, “the English School [âŚ] made a serious attempt to work from a world history perspective [âŚ]. However, when we look at the English School’s account of the expansion of international society the analysis once again becomes resolutely Eurocentric.” Therefore, despite the intentions of the English Schools to look at International Relations from a world history perspective, the underlying tendencies to support the Western view contributed to its Eurocentrism.
Evidence Against Eurocentrism of the English School
Some of the points of criticism in regards to the English School of International Relations have been addressed to some extent by more recent scholarship. In the revisionist approach to IR, much greater attention has been given to world history in comparison with the initial ideas. For instance, Adam Watson, who was one of the pioneers of the original English School completed a historical work that accounted for the deficiencies of the early approach (Acharya 2014b).
More and more attention of the school is now placed on regionalism and the needs of developing states that do not have the same level of power as Western countries. The ideas of Western dominance are slowly replaced by enhancing the diversity of opinion and the elimination of Europe-based biased opinions of the latter’s prevalence over other countries, cultures, and societies.
The presence of scholars of non-European origins is evidence that the English School has approached the allegations of Eurocentrism with firm intentions. As non-Western scholars began challenging the status quo within the IR theory, more and more proponents of the English School emerged to support the approach. For instance, Suganami (2010) explored this approach to International Relations within the context of the degree of justice, the formal structure, mechanism of communication, and international law, as well as diplomatic institutions. The fact that non-European scholars explored the English School perspectives granted the emergence of different approaches to the ideology. This is shown by the rejection of idealist-realist dualism (Jørgensen & Knudsen 2006).
The rejection of the hierarchical outlook on the discipline of International Relations is another point used for illustrating the argument that the English school is not Eurocentric. According to Gong (1984), the standards of the past have indeed influenced the shaping of the nature of relations between states, especially given the impact of Christian ideologies prevalent in European society. However, with the age of secularisation, religious notions have become irrelevant along with the ideas of hierarchy.
Instead of focusing on the differentiation between countries based on a hierarchical structure, the English School is focused on the valuing of cognitive developments as the norms of orientation on cultural-artistic, and intellectual conditions (Baker 2008).
This results in the increased role of ethnocentrism since some cultures produce more prominent pieces of artistic and intellectual value and therefore are considered more impactful and powerful in the sphere of International Relations. In discussing the rejection of hierarchies, it must be mentioned that the English School has drawn attention to the exclusionary differentiation of countries. It is stated that hierarchies cannot be legitimized because they merely indicate the prestige of numbers (Murray 2013). For instance, the exclusion of India from the UN Security Council despite the country being the largest democracy of the world is a testament to the negative impact of the hierarchical structures (Murray 2013).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it must be mentioned that there is more evidence to suggest that the English School of International Relations is Eurocentric rather than not. Most proponents of the view hold the opinion that Western cultures have more power in the global arena of relations. Despite the recent increased attention to the non-Western context, the prevalence of opinions regarding the power of Western countries rather than regional sub-systems is supported by academic researchers (Suganami 2010).
The presumption of universality and superiority of the Western way of knowing and prevailing within the English School that imposes itself as the only way in which relations among counties may be maintained.
Within the approach, Western education plays an integral role in establishing the hegemony of the possibilities to perceive and conceive the world within the context of reproducing the Eurocentric political and social geographic culture. To conclude, the English School of International Relations suggests that there is a lot of room for further improvement. The needs and perspectives of non-Western cultures require the attention of English School scholars despite their ideological affiliations in International Relations studies.
Reference List
Abbattista, G 2011, European encounters in the age of expansion. Web.
Acharya, A & Buzan, B 2010, Non-Western international relations theory: perspectives on and beyond Asia, Routledge, New York.
Acharya, A 2014a, âGlobal international relations (IR) and regional worlds: a new agenda for international studiesâ, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 647-659.
Acharya, A 2014b, Rethinking power, institutions, and ideas in world politics: whose IR? Routledge, New York.
Ayson, R 2012, Hedley Bull and the accommodation of power, Springer, New York.
Baker, M 2008, Teaching and learning about and beyond Eurocentrism: a proposal for the creation of an other school. Web.
Bellamy, A 2005, International society and its critics, Oxford University Press, London.
Bliddal, H & Sylvest, C & Wilson, P 2013, Classics of international relations: essays in criticism, Routledge, New York.
Bull, H 1966, âInternational theory: the case for a classical approachâ, World politics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 361-377.
Bull, H 1983, âThe international anarchy in the 1980sâ, Australian Outlook, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 127-131.
Bull, H, Alderson, K & Hurrell, A 2000, Hedley Bull on international society, Macmillan, London.
Bull, H & Watson, A 1984, The expansion of international society, Oxford University Press, London.
Buzan, B 2014, An introduction to the English School of International Relations: the societal approach, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Callahan, WA 2004, âNationalising international theory: race, class and the English schoolâ, Global Society, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 305-323.
Ăapan, Z 2017, âEnacting the international/reproducing Eurocentrismâ, Contexto Internacional, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 655-672.
Gong, G 1984, The standard of âcivilizationâ in international society, Oxford University Press, London.
Heeren, AHL 1846, The historical works of Arnold H.L. Heeren: politics, intercourse and trade of the Asiatic nations, H. G. Bohn, London.
Jørgensen, K & Knudsen, T 2006, International relations in Europe: traditions, perspectives and destinations, Routledge, New York.
Keene, E 2002, Beyond the anarchical society: Grotius, colonialism and order in world politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Knutsen, TL 2016, A history of international relations theory, Oxford University Press, London.
Linklater, A 2010, âThe English School conception of international society: reflections on Western and non-Western perspectivesâ, Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, vol. 9, pp. 1-13.
Murray, R 2013, System, society & the world, E-International Relations, Bristol.
Schieder, S & Spindler, M 2014, Theories of international relations, Routledge, London and NY.
Suganami, H 2010, âThe English School in a nutshellâ, Ritsumeikan Annual Review of International Studies, vol. 9, pp. 15-28.
Tingyang, Z 2006, âRethinking empire from a Chinese conceptâ, Social Identities, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 29-41.