Introduction
International relations theory is a discipline that focuses on international relations and forms a theoretical framework. It aims at creating a set of concepts that allow analyzing existing international relationships. A disciplinary label is based on structural and sociological aspects (Grenier, Turton & Beaulieu-Brossard 2015). It is very important for specialists in this field as it provides an opportunity for profound research. There are the three most significant theoretical models in international relations theory. These are realism, liberalism, and constructivism. All existing theories related to the subject are divided into two categories: positivism and reflectivism.
However, the former is the most relevant nowadays. This concept is mostly promoted by Western specialists, and it has the most significant impact on the international community. However, there are some non-Western theories. For example, several universities in China work on their concepts of diplomacy and international relationships, but they are not very popular yet. Also, some other non-Western states offer their visions on this subject. Nonetheless, they do not actively participate in the international discussion. Therefore, many specialists claim that the Western international relations theory is the only one that can address existing problems. The main goal of this paper is to discuss the reasons that led to the dominance of the Western international relations theory.
International Relations Theory
International relations theory is a complex subject that involves various concepts and ideas. The most accurate point of view of the theory is pluralist as it includes positivist, materialist, social, and constructivist understandings. Also, the theory focuses on systematic ideas that are aimed to improve the understanding of the social world. In addition, history is very important to international relations theory. It reveals various models of development and reflects their distinct characteristics. There are several aspects that characterize international relations theory. First, it should be accepted as a theory by the majority of specialists in the international relations community. Second, it should be self-identified by its designers as international relations theory in spite of the fact that it might not be substantially acknowledged by academic international relations community. Third, it should have a systematic structure that generalizes ideas that matter for international relations.
There are different theories related to the subject, but most of them are developed by and for the West. They are mostly based on the idea that the history of the West is the history of the world. The most prominent Western sources of international relations theory successfully distribute its subjects globally. However, many specialists claim that this theory does not exist at all. Nonetheless, all countries are now actively engaged in international relations despite many players in the periphery having much independence Â(Tickner 2013). However, different non-Western countries substantially invest in their international images and try to create their own concepts. Therefore, one might raise a question: Are there non-Western international relations concepts?
Nowadays, the generally accepted level of decent life that implies democratic tranquility, interdependence and cooperation, and institutionalized order is mainly promoted in the West. However, non-Western states hold different values. The idea that there are not non-Western international relations theories should be considered more closely in order to give it a comprehensive explanation. This concept is very complicated, and it cannot be based on only the acknowledgment of the violently controversial relationships among non-Western countries. It should not be accepted that international relations theory has to consider only the problems of survival. The explanation of this issue has to be based on concepts and ideas of pluralism, particularism, and postcolonialism (Vasilaki 2012). There is a possibility of the development of interconnection between the West and the rest of the world. However, the link between Western and non-Western theories is deeply rooted in international interactions.
Dominance of the West
The Western concept of international relations was the first in the field. It attempted to comprehend and theorize about the development of world politics. Also, there is no question that the major aspects of this theory stem from the particularities and distinct characteristics of European history, the growing power of the West, and the promotion of its political concepts throughout the world. Therefore, all non-Western attempts to design a different international relations theory are significantly influenced by the existing state of affairs. Also, in spite of the fact that international relations have become a global issue, the most academic activities in this field are located in Western countries. There are different opinions about this problem. Some people believe that this situation cannot be changed as non-Western countries are less likely to keep up with the pace of the development of the West. Other scholars claim that the theoretical position of the Western states is not very strong as the discipline is undergoing fragmentation (Kristensen 2016). However, some specialists suppose that the Western dominance is temporary.
Supporters of the former position think that the Western international relations theory demonstrates the only right way of the understanding of international relations. They neglect the potential impact of cultural characteristics. However, they encourage non-Western countries to engage themselves in ongoing theoretical debates. Such specialists promote the idea that international relations laws are unique for all regions. However, the more participants get involved in discussion, the more universal and relevant such laws become. Also, followers of the Western model insist on the fact that the development of the most prominent international relations concept should be drawn from modern Western history. However, it consequently led to the excessive emphasizing of anarchy and insufficient attention to all possible opportunities to form effective international relations systems. In addition, a scientific approach to address this issue results in limited rational choice and impartial political perceptions and strategies. Although such aspects as origin, traditions, and honor are not adequately considered, the Western international relations theory is accepted by the majority.
However, some of the supporters of the Western model agree that a more profound historical perspective can introduce many more additional possibilities for the development of this theory. This process implies deep interdependence of political and social aspects. Therefore, sociology is a very important discipline that can help to discuss the issue as it clearly demonstrates disparities in power and wealth and focuses on intellectual and political layers of international relations (Grenier & Hagmann 2016). However, such concepts as the balance of power and hegemonic stability only hinder the progress of international relationships. There are many questions regarding the imbalance between material and social factors, but materialism is still the major fuel for the development of international relations. Another noticeable attribute of the Western model is the privileged position of the United States. The idea that the world is unipolar is a foundation of the Western international relations theory. In spite of the fact that unipolarity is not an accurate and precise concept, it has a significant impact on the international community. However, there is a problem of detaching social theory from the current state of affairs that it describes.
The dominant position of the West does not necessarily imply that its concepts offer all the right paths to truth. Some specialists firmly believe that the American international relations theory has eroded (Oren 2016). However, the West’s hegemonic status indirectly affects minds of many people who neglect the effectiveness of its theory, which is actually in question. One of the main reasons for such a situation is an intellectual impact of the Western political structure and the intense promotion of its practices worldwide. The process of decolonization drastically shifted the balance of power in the world (UCL TV 2014). In addition, the European liberal society contributed to new forms of international relations. Subsequently, after gaining independence, local governments accepted the Western concept. Although many of them did it under a certain pressure, these ideas rapidly spread among non-Western states.
However, they adjusted them and came up with their own suggestions regarding such aspects as political economy, sovereignty, and nationalism. Although the ideas of democracy, human rights, and market were not welcome among these countries, they still became widespread and highly influential. In addition, most third-world countries accepted the main aspects of Westphalian sovereignty and subsequently applied them to even a greater extent. One of the most striking examples is the non-intervention doctrine. The principles of this doctrine are vigorously debated among Western states and even have become less significant, though in the Third World they are still highly supported. However, non-intervention tendencies are much stronger in the West. Many specialists disagree that the hegemonic status of the Western international relations theory is based on its rightness. They believe that the main reason for its dominance is simply the power of the West, and they try to promote the development of non-Western concepts. The West’s overwhelming influence suppressed local traditions and knowledge, changing historical frames. Consequently, it lessened the enthusiasm of many third-world states to accept Western rules of diplomacy as it exposed them to risk.
Non-Western International Relations Theories
There are different non-Western international relations theories, but they are not widespread. To open this discussion, it is necessary to focus on Asia as its economy and politics are remotely comparable to the West’s, and also, because it has a long history of relationships that are very different from what is conventional in Western countries. There are various non-Western contributors living in Asia who provide different points of view and suggestions regarding the subject. However, they rarely meet the criteria for a solid theory. They mostly focus on concepts and ideas that do not address the most relevant problems. Asian contributors base their implications on classical religious, political, and military figures. Although they make great efforts to accomplish their academic goals, it very seldom results in a comprehensive and pertinent theory.
There are many other reasons that impede the development of non-Western theories. However, the main barrier is language. Although English is an international language, it is not widely spoken in the most countries. Also, such theories are mostly located outside the Western-defined international relations realm. Therefore, they are not often brought up for international discussion. Non-Western theories are hidden from developed countries due to language and cultural barriers. However, such concepts are not spread among third-world states for the same reasons. Debates that are conducted, for example, in China do not attract much interest in Brasilia or Iraq. However, a similar situation takes place in Europe where the diversity of languages does not allow European specialists to fully participate in English language debates. There are plenty of materials regarding the topic, but the lack of the language skills also hinders the process of in-depth investigation for some specialists. Those who have sufficient English language skills are mostly located in regional studies, and they focus on the unique characteristics of the area under study. Therefore, there is not enough interest in general concepts.
Other reasons for non-Western theories being hidden are intended barriers that do not allow joining the international discussion. The ethnocentrism of Western scholarship results in the impartial assessment of suggestions offered by others (Spivak 2010). Such assumptions of superiority of the Western concepts often do not provide space for constructive debates. It creates hierarchies of knowledge in the discipline in which non-Western sources are perceived to be less important. In addition, there is a misleading notion among Anglo-American specialists that the English language makes access easier for all. Although it is partially true, people whose native tongue is different and who have to work with English sources perceive their dominance to be an additional impediment. Such individuals contribute much time and energy to publish their works in the most prominent international relations journals.
They are also faced with a high rejection rate. Anglophones often do not take these problems into consideration, thus great international relations communities in such countries as Japan, India, or China are not paid sufficient attention. Therefore, non-Western concepts do exist, though they are often marginalized both deliberately and unintentionally. Consequently, these factors led to the prevalence of the Western international relations theory. Hence, it is necessary to engage many more specialists to make international relations community more diverse. It is also important to introduce the non-Western traditions to the Western audience as it will help the discipline continue to pluralize theoretically. The development of non-Western concepts will complement and enhance the existing international relations theory as they will make it more universal and, therefore, effective (Acharya 2016). However, historically, leading publications in this field are usually inclined to prioritize Western authors. Meanwhile, non-Western specialists are published quite rarely in such journals, and most of those who could make it live in the West.
Conclusion
The dominant position of the Western international relations theory is rooted in modern history. The active promotion of concepts, methods, and values that it offers plays a significant role as well. However, non-Western states make vigorous attempts to develop their models. There are many specialists working in this field who live in the Third World. However, they cannot attract adequate attention, and thus, it diminishes the importance of their achievements. The acceptance of existing political conditions associated with the development of the world demonstrates that there is the demand for a theory that explains the problems in international relations. Therefore, in order to address this issue, it is necessary to continue in-depth research in this field.
Reference List
Acharya, A 2016, ‘Advancing global IR: challenges, contentions, and contributions’, International Studies Review, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 4-15.
Grenier, F & Hagmann, J 2016, ‘Sites of knowledge (re-) production: toward an institutional sociology of international relations scholarship’, International Studies Review, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 333-365.
Grenier, F, Turton, H & Beaulieu-Brossard, P 2015, ‘The struggle over the identity of IR: what is at stake in the disciplinary debate within and beyond academia?’, International Relations, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 242-244.
Kristensen, P 2016, ‘Discipline admonished: on international relations fragmentation and the disciplinary politics of stocktaking’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 243-267.
Oren, I 2016, ‘A sociological analysis of the decline of American IR theory’, International Studies Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 571-596.
Spivak, G 2010, ‘Can the subaltern speak?’, in R Morris (ed), Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 21–78.
Tickner, A 2013, ‘Core, periphery and (neo) imperialist international relations’, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 627-646.
UCL TV, 2014, Why is my curriculum white? online video, Web.
Vasilaki, R 2012, ‘Provincialising IR? Deadlocks and prospects in post-Western IR theory’, Millennium, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 3-22.