Non Western Global Theories of International Relations 1St Edition Samantha Cooke Full Chapter

Non-Western Global Theories of
International Relations 1st Edition

Samantha Cooke
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/non-western-global-theories-of-international-relations-
1st-edition-samantha-cooke/
PSIR · PALGRAVE STUDIES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Non-Western Global Theories

of International Relations
Edited by
Samantha Cooke
Palgrave Studies in International Relations
Series Editors
Mai’a K. Davis Cross, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA
Benjamin de Carvalho, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs,
Oslo, Norway
Shahar Hameiri, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia
Knud Erik Jørgensen, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark
Ole Jacob Sending, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, Oslo,
Norway
Ayşe Zarakol, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Palgrave Studies in International Relations (the EISA book series),
published in association with European International Studies Associ-
ation, provides scholars with the best theoretically-informed scholar-
ship on the global issues of our time. The series includes cutting-
edge monographs and edited collections which bridge schools of
thought and cross the boundaries of conventional fields of study. EISA
members can access a 50% discount to PSIR, the EISA book series,
here http://www.eisa-net.org/sitecore/content/be-bruga/mci-registrat
ions/eisa/login/landing.aspx.
Mai’a K. Davis Cross is the Edward W. Brooke Professor of Political
Science at Northeastern University, USA, and Senior Researcher at the
ARENA Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Norway.
Benjamin de Carvalho is a Senior Research Fellow at the Norwegian
Institute of International Affairs (NUPI), Norway.
Shahar Hameiri is Associate Professor of International Politics and
Associate Director of the Graduate Centre in Governance and Inter-
national Affairs, School of Political Science and International Studies,
University of Queensland, Australia.
Knud Erik Jørgensen is Professor of International Relations at Aarhus
University, Denmark, and at Yaşar University, Izmir, Turkey.
Ole Jacob Sending is the Research Director at the Norwegian Institute
of International Affairs (NUPI), Norway.
Ayşe Zarakol is Reader in International Relations at the University of
Cambridge and a fellow at Emmanuel College, UK.
More information about this series at

https://link.springer.com/bookseries/14619
Samantha Cooke
Editor
Non-Western Global
Theories
of International
Relations
Editor
Samantha Cooke
Natural and Social Sciences
University of Gloucestershire
Cheltenham, UK
Palgrave Studies in International Relations

ISBN 978-3-030-84937-5 ISBN 978-3-030-84938-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84938-2
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
Cover illustration: Mina De La O
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgements
This book is something I have wanted to create for quite a while. I would
like to thank all the contributors for their efforts, and for the fascinating
chapters they have produced. I have learnt so much from putting this
book together and for that I am very grateful. I would also like to thank
the Palgrave Macmillan team, especially Anca Pusca, for all of their help in
guiding me through this process. Finally, I would like to say a huge thank
you to my wonderful colleagues who have spent many hours listening to
me as I worked through my ideas. You have all been amazing sounding
boards, and I am here to return the favour whenever you need.
v
Contents
1 Introduction: Refocusing International Relations 1

Samantha Cooke
Part I Internationalising International Relations Theory

2 Decentralising Europe: Harnessing Alternative
Theories of IR 19
Tareq Sydiq and Maria Ketzmerick
3 Foreign Policy Analysis: Engagements Outside
of the West 43
Chris Featherstone
4 Reimagining the Global Order: China in History
and Theory 73
Xin Liu
Part II Decentralising the West: Redefining

Key Concepts in IR
5 An East Asian Theory of Democracy 103
Olivia Cheung
6 Understanding People and the State: A Liberal
and Neo-Confucian Comparison 133
William Barclay
vii
viii CONTENTS
7 Decolonising Empowerment in Africa: Illustration

as a Tool 159
Chesney McOmber and Katharine McNamara
Part III Changing Frameworks: Re-imagining Political

Issues
8 Theorising Emotions in IR: A Maghrebi Perspective
on the Concept of Rivalry 193
Yasmine Zarhloule
9 Gendered Activism and Political Participation:
A Latin American Perspective 225
Emanuela Buscemi
10 Jihadi Wars and Hybrid Security Threats in Asia:
Lessons from Pakistan 251
Mudassir Farooqi
Glossary of Terms 281

Index 283
Notes on Contributors
William Barclay has written essays which have been published by inter-
national organisations and peer-reviewed journals, such as the Aga Khan
Foundation and the Journal of Liberty and International Affairs. More-
over, William is often invited to present his work at renowned inter-
national institutions and conferences, such as the University of Oxford
and the ‘Annual Meeting of the Association for Israel Studies at the
Berkeley School of Law’. In addition, William has captained multiple
‘Oxford Debate’ teams to victory, and he has received various awards
and grants from celebrated organisations such as the Canadian Political
Science Association (CPSA). William is currently a political theorist at
Carleton University.
Emanuela Buscemi holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of
Aberdeen (Scotland) and teaches at the University of Monterrey (UDEM,
Mexico). She previously taught at the American University of Kuwait. Her
research interests include alternative social movements, informal activism
and resistance, identity and gender politics, performance, agency and
belonging in the Arabian Gulf and Latin America. Her work has been
featured in the Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, Contemporary
Social Science, About Gender-International Journal of Gender Studies,
Democratization, as well as in edited volumes published by New York
University Press, Routledge and Palgrave Macmillan. She is the co-
author (together with Ildiko Kaposi) of the edited volume Everyday Youth
Cultures in the Gulf Peninsula: Changes and Challenges (Routledge,
2021).
ix
x NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Olivia Cheung is a Research Fellow at SOAS China Institute, SOAS

University of London. She is currently writing a book on The Polit-
ical Thought of Xi Jinping with Steve Tsang. She obtained her D.Phil.
from St Antony’s College, Oxford (as a Swire Scholar) and taught at the
University of Warwick.
Samantha Cooke holds a Ph.D. from the University of Surrey and is
Senior Lecturer in International Relations and Politics at the Univer-
sity of Gloucestershire. Her research explores the relationship between
secularism, the individual and the state in the Middle East North Africa
region, with a specific focus on gender equality within a postcolonial
feminist framework. She also engages in education research, with social
media and identity being amongst the areas she explores. Her publica-
tions include articles in National Identities, Women’s Studies International
Forum and Education Information Technologies. She has also published a
chapter with Marie Breen-Smyth in Terrorism and Political Violence: The
evolution of contemporary insecurity (SAGE Publications, 2015).
Mudassir Farooqi is Assistant Professor of Politics and International
Relations at Forman Christian College-University, Lahore, Pakistan. He
obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Leicester and currently teaches
on International Relations, the Politics of Terrorism, International Organ-
isations, and Hybrid Warfare. His research interests primarily cover the
fields of interdisciplinary research designs and mixed methods, branding
of terrorism and counter-terrorism, warfare and social movements. He
also researches new and old schools of terrorism, organisational forms
of terrorism, autopoietic communicative conscious organisations, broad-
ening paradigm of marketing and social enterprises.
Chris Featherstone is an Early Career Researcher at the London School
of Economics. His research focuses on US and UK foreign policy and
Foreign Policy Analysis. His doctoral research looks at the US and UK
decision-making processes that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He
uses FPA models to explain the decision-making processes in the US and
UK.
Maria Ketzmerick is a Postdoctoral researcher and Lecturer at the Chair
for Sociology of Africa at the University of Bayreuth. Her research focuses
on topics within post/decolonial security research, Central Africa (espe-
cially Cameroon) in a regional, transnational and global context as well as
approaches of (sociological) peace and conflict research. In doing so, she
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS xi
wants to contribute to an understanding of the ambivalent and complex

interrelationships between locally rooted social dynamics, transnational
politics and global change, and is particularly interested in the (politically
loaded and power shaped) relationship between state and society and the
associated dynamics of (in)security. Empirically, she is interested in situ-
ations in which (social) orders are subject to constant (re)negotiation
and the question of how these orders are embedded in historical and
geographical interdependencies in a globalised context. After studying
Political Science, International Law, and Global Studies, she worked as a
researcher at the collaborative research centre “Dynamics of Security” at
the University of Marburg, before joining the chair group in April 2020.
Xin Liu is a Senior Lecturer in International Theories and Chinese
Studies at Liverpool John Moores University. His research is driven by
the question of how non-Western experiences may unsettle the profane
and rigid frameworks in mainstream IR theories. Calvin has published
articles on China’s premodern state-formation, and the lessons of Chinese
industrialisation for both liberal and realist theories. He is now developing
new research programmes to investigate how modernity unfolds in both
Western and non-Western daily lives in a comparative perspective.
Katharine McNamara is a doctoral candidate at the University of
Florida in the Department of Environmental and Global Health. Her
longstanding involvement in gender and development research through
initiatives led by USAID has led her to remain engaged in projects span-
ning public health, anthropology and international relations that seek
to better understand how communities experience development policy
and interventions. Katharine holds regional expertise in Latin America,
where she has engaged in research in Honduras and Ecuador during her
master’s and doctoral studies. As a current McKnight Doctoral Fellow and
recipient of the Fulbright Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Award,
her ongoing dissertation research addresses questions related to tensions
between natural resource extraction, conservation and the Covid-19
pandemic in the province of Loja, Ecuador.
Chesney McOmber is a political scientist who specialises in Compara-
tive Politics and International Relations. Her research interests include
international development, gender and politics, women’s empowerment,
qualitative research methods and social learning. Her research explores
the ways in which social inequities shape responses and resilience to
xii NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
environmental and public health crises. A central theme in her research

is knowledge diffusion, with a particular interest in knowledge copro-
duction. Her fieldwork experience spans across sub-Saharan Africa, the
MENA region, and South Asia. Dr. McOmber is currently a postdoctoral
scholar at the University of Connecticut.
Tareq Sydiq is a Researcher at the Center for Conflict Studies at Philipps-
Universität Marburg (Germany). He studied political science and soci-
ology and is working on a Ph.D. on Bottom-Up politics in authoritarian
systems using Iran as a single-case study. His research interests include
Japanese politics, protests and contestations, as well as authoritarianism in
Asia.
Yasmine Zarhloule is a D.Phil. Candidate in Middle Eastern Studies at
the University of Oxford. Her research explores the relationship between
everyday life practices, citizenship and claims of political belonging in
the borderland spaces in the Maghreb. She previously completed a B.A.
(Hons) and M.A. in International Relations at the University of Warwick,
as well as an M.Sc. in Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Oxford.
She has held positions as a research consultant at the European Council
of Foreign Relations (London), a research trainee at the Carnegie Middle
East Centre (Beirut) and assistantships at both Warwick and Oxford
universities. Her research interests include legacies of colonialism, urban
geographies and the politics of space, as well as broader expressions of
belonging, unity and micropolitics in the MENA.
Abbreviations
APS Army Public School (Peshawar, Pakistan)

AQ Al-Qaeda
AQI Al-Qaeda in Iraq
ASEAN Association for Southeast Asian Nations
BN Barisan National
BRI Belt and Road Initiative
BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa
CA Community Affected
CARE International Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere
CCD Community Concept Drawing
CCP The Chinese Communist Party
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research
CIA Central Investigation Agency (USA)
CL Community Leaders
CNRP Cambodia National Rescue Party
COBRA Cabinet Office Briefing Rooms.
CPP Cambodia People’s Party
CPV Communist Party of Vietnam
CTD Counter Terrorism Department (Pakistan)
DPJ Democratic Party of Japan
FATA Federally Administered Tribal Areas
FPA Foreign Policy Analysis
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GLBM Ground Launched Ballistic Missile
GLCM Ground Launched Cruise Missile
xiii
xiv ABBREVIATIONS
GNP Gross National Product

GWoT Global War on Terrorism
HES Higher Education Students
IMF International Monetary Fund
IR International Relations
KDB Korea Democracy Barometer
KMT Kuomintang (The Chinese Nationalist Party)
KPK Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
LDP Liberal Democratic Party
MDG Millennium Development Goals
NLD National League for Democracy
OBL Osama Bin Laden
OIC Organization of Islamic Countries
PAP People’s Action Party
PBSC Political Bureau of the Standing Committee of the
Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee
PH Pakatan Harapan
PLA People’s Liberation Army
PM Participatory Methods
PPP Purchasing Power Parity
PRC People’s Republic of China
PRP Lao People’s Revolutionary Party
PSP Progressive Singapore Party
PVM Participatory Visual Methods
SAR Special Administrative Regions
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SP Security Agency Personnel
SSG Special Services Group (Pakistan Army)
TTP Tehreek I Taliban in Pakistan
UN United Nations
U.S.A. United States of America
UN United Nations
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USSR The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WEAI Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
WoT War on Terrorism
WPK Worker’s Party of Korea
CHAPTER 1
Introduction: Refocusing International

Relations
Samantha Cooke
Study Questions
1. Why is it important to understand non-Western perspectives?
2. How has the West come to dominate our understandings of
international relations?
3. Can international relations theory ever be truly ‘international’?
4. Do we need to focus more on repositioning International Relations
Theory or decentralising the West?
5. How do you understand ‘non-Western’?
6. What does a ‘global’ International Relations look like to you?
S. Cooke (B)
School of Natural and Social Science, University of Gloucestershire,
Cheltenham, UK
e-mail: [email protected]
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 1

S. Cooke (ed.), Non-Western Global Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Studies in International Relations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84938-2_1
2 S. COOKE
International Relations (IR) is a broad and complex field, dominated by

Western thought, history and experiences which have been told, predom-
inantly by white men. As we delve into the various facets of world politics,
history and state relations in an ever more globalised world, it has become
increasingly apparent that the number of voices being recognised and
heard is limited, based on intersecting factors such as geographic location,
race, sex and class. In order to ensure that the international component
of International Relations is in fact, international, the way we engage with
the subject needs to change.
As the twenty-first century progresses, there has been an increase in
calls to liberate, or decolonise, academic curriculums. Such calls reflect
problems within the Western dominated field of IR and the lenses we use
to understand issues and engagements within the international system. As
those engaging in all aspects of the learning and teaching conversation of
the broader field of IR try to bridge gaps, it is arguable that an approach
similar to ‘add women and stir’, which has been criticised by Mohanty
(2003), is being adopted so that perspectives which are not considered
to be ‘mainstream’ are ‘included’ in discussions yet are not extensively
engaged with.
Whilst there are a significant number of textbooks engaging with IR
theories (Baylis et al., 2020; Burchill et al., 2013; Dunne et al., 2013),
providing regional contexts to IR theory (Fawcett, 2016), exploring non-
Western perspectives (Acharya & Buzan, 2010; Bischoff et al., 2016;
Tickner & Smith, 2020), and seeking to explore why this Western
centrism has emerged and how perspectives can be combined (Eun, 2019,
there remains little engagement with non-Western IR theory without a
regional approach being adopted. Moreover, it is important to understand
different perspectives across the regions to ensure that when ‘regional
perspectives’ are spoken of, they reflect a multitude of voices, rather than
just the perspectives espoused by regional hegemons. Therefore, the aim
of this book is to pick up some of the various conversations which have
been started about shifting the focus from the Western way of under-
standing the international system and our interactions and moving more
towards country specific focuses from across the globe. It does this by
asking ‘what is international relations theory all about?’ and sub-questions
such as ‘how do we understand?’ and ‘who decides what matters?’.
The central aim of this book is to provide a more global understanding
of IR (plural), rather than presenting a global understanding (singular).
1 INTRODUCTION: REFOCUSING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 3
The way in which engagements within IR theories have developed over

the last century has resulted in Western perspectives being presented as
universal and that is something this book seeks to dislocate. Instead,
by incorporating perspectives from Asia (see Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 10),
the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region (see Chapters 3 and 8),
Africa (Chapter 7) and Latin America (see Chapter 9), with some offering
cross-regional perspectives (see Chapter 2), the contributors to this book
collectively make this work more global in scope.
The focus on non-Western perspectives does not however, mean that
more traditionally engaged with perspectives, or Western states will be
omitted (see Chapters 3 and 7). Instead, this book allows frequently
engaged with theories, concepts and issues to be brought into discus-
sions and comparisons rather than non-Western perspectives only being
introduced to more traditionally focused debates. It is through this that
similarities, differences and omissions can be brought to the fore of
discussions and a new way of engaging with theories of IR can begin.
This chapter will outline theories and perspectives outside of the
normative Western frameworks, setting out the overarching focus of the
book which is, what is non-Western theory? What is it all about? To engage
with such questions, this chapter will begin by outlining key Western
theories in IR and the criticisms which have arisen of them. It will empha-
sise omissions of history, context, individuals and culture in the theoretical
approaches dominating IR, and how this has contributed to greater calls
for greater understanding of the international system and the multitude
of experiences and perspectives which operate within it.
The chapter will then move to outline the detrimental nature of omit-
ting perspectives of non-Western thinkers are illustrated, problematising
the Western dominated discipline of IR as we understand it. The omis-
sions of current texts that are engaged with in this introductory chapter
thus pave the way for the contributing authors to provide insights into a
myriad of different perspectives from across the world.
What Is Non-Western Theory?

Non-Western theory, broadly speaking, refers to frameworks developed
within the context of states which fall outside of the geographical remit
of the ‘West’. This area includes states such as the US, Canada, Australia
and Europe, with traditional IR theories being rooted in European
history, with a strong emphasis on the Enlightenment period. These
4 S. COOKE
theories, however, are often omitted from mainstream IR, with theories
rooted in Western history being used as frameworks for understanding
political systems, conflict and the development of concepts frequently
engaged with in the West, such as democracy, which emerged in diverging
socio-political, cultural and historic contexts.
As Robert Cox (1986, 207) said, ‘Theory is always for someone and
for some purpose’, but what if these theories are not for everyone and
are not as adaptable or applicable to diverging situations as mainstream
IR might want you to believe? Criticisms of this nature are prominent
throughout academia, reflecting in part, moves to liberate and decolonise
the curriculum.
The embeddedness of Western, predominantly European theory, in
IR for understanding state interactions and behaviours, speaks loudly to
Spivak (1999) and Chakrabarty’s (2000) assertion that Europe is ever-
present in global history, politics and literature. Moreover, the less flexible
theories, such as realism which failed to predict the end of the Cold War,
mean that IR’s continued (over)reliance on them significantly restrict the
potential of the field and omit localised perspectives.
Furthermore, the positioning of the state as the main actor for theo-
ries such as realism, liberalism, the English School, arguably determines
the identity of IR as being more focused on macro level politics. This
presentation of universalising thought as frameworks for understanding
state relations and behaviour are detrimental to our understanding of how
politics has developed, reinforcing instead colonial and European narra-
tives in some instances, and a lack of acknowledgement and understanding
of states which have emerged within different historical contexts to those
directing the conversation.
More critical perspectives, such as Marxist theories, postcolonialism
and feminism, have sought to challenge these homogenised representa-
tions through engagements with intersecting identity factors as well as
the incorporation of experience into their work. Whilst this refocusing
does allow for more nuanced insights to be gained, criticisms of their
Western-centric approach, alternative homogenisations and individuals
being spoken for; thus, resulting in a larger, but still limited set of voices
speaking on behalf of a greater range of identities and experiences.
IR as a field, has historically been represented by white men. This move
to diversify the discipline has been successful in some respects, but this
shift still has a prominent Western identity. This raises questions, such as
those posed by Acharya and Buzan (2010, 4) about ‘whether IR theory
needs to be universal in scope (i.e., applying to the whole system) or can

also be exceptionalist (applying to a subsystem on the grounds that it has
distinctive characteristics)’. This then raises the question of why can it not
be both? International Relations theory should offer models for under-
standing, as Featherstone (Chapter 3) highlights, which are adaptable to
diverging state contexts, whilst maintaining conversations with alternative
models; thereby enabling more malleable and context appropriate frame-
works, which can inform each other, to emerge for understanding core
components of IR, such as identity and power.
Identity
Identity is always established through comparison, whether this be with
another person or state. IR theory ultimately explores different identity
factors, such as state interactions and their behaviours by offering frames
of reference. When considering theses identities, actors and engagements
however, one of the main questions which needs to be addressed, espe-
cially when referring to more traditional theoretical perspectives, is what is
the state? Simply put, a state is a geographically defined, whose sovereignty
is recognised by other states. This is the first step in identifying a state.
Ascribing an identity or recognising one when referring to the state speaks
to its position on the regional and international stages, and ultimately,
how much power this state is seen to have/has accumulated.
Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state to self-govern or govern another

state. There are four key criteria which need to be met in order for a
state to be recognised as sovereign. These are a clearly defined territory, a
government, a population to rule, and the ability to engage in inter-state
relations.
It is through understandings and engagements with various forms of

power, that state and individual identities become more visible. In his
seminal work, Orientialism, Said (1978/2003) speaks to Western domi-
nance and portrayals of the ‘Orient’ and their positioning, predominantly
through European colonial interactions, which were later followed by
US expansionism, and how they have been used to created and re-create
representations of states and their citizens.
6 S. COOKE
Such representations have been key in justifying foreign policies and

imperial engagements, historic and contemporary, and the continued use
of traditional theories, such as liberalism and realism, to develop responses
to situations in historically, geographically and culturally different states,
results in policy failures and inadequate solutions. The rationale behind
this book is, that whilst there is a greater level of engagement with theo-
ries and approaches which have emerged outside of the West, there is still
a long way to go in repositioning Western theory within IR.
The phrase ‘repositioning’ is preferred, in this chapter, to ‘decentral-
ising’ due to risks that the latter has for once again positioning Western
perspectives at the core of the project. This does not mean that existing
works on non-Western theories, or theories from the Global South have
done this, nor does it mean that future works engaging with it will do
so. Rather, this picks up on something Liu (Chapter 4) refers to, which
reinforced ideas that by narrowly focusing on the decentralisation of
Western theory, not only does it remain centralised in that work, but it
also increases the chance of another perspective replacing it, thus creating
something akin to a ‘centrism trap’.
By engaging more with the concept of repositioning, this book
encourages critical engagements with (non)mainstream Western and non-
Western theories as strengths and weaknesses in both provide more
contextually appropriate insights into micro and macro aspects of IR.
Moreover, by reflecting on terminology and the power it holds, this
chapter argues that repositioning both Western and non-Western theo-
ries on the spectrum of International Relations allows for conversations to
occur between models and frames of reference across states and regions, as
mentioned by Featherstone (Chapter 3), thereby enabling a more global
understanding and a more international identity of IR to develop.
Power
Power is arguably something every state and everyone seeks, and it is a
type of relationship which Foucault (1982, 794) defines as a ‘strategy
of struggle’ which results in confrontation. Such power relations can
be understood to form around ideas relating to hegemonic masculinity,
which informs different models of patriarchal power structures. Similari-
ties between such relationships hinge on notions of the ‘powerful’ and
the ‘powerless’, with Scott’s (1985) ‘weapons of the weak’ emerging
from “hidden transcripts” of resistant action of the apparently powerless’

(Briggs & Sharp, 2004, 666).
Power, for radical feminists, impacts all aspects of society and as a
consequence of this, the personal is political, and politics equates to power
which ‘defines all relationships’ (Bethke Elsthain, 1981, 217). hooks
(1984, 84) defines power as being about having domination and control
over another person, thus speaking to power structures which are seen at
all levels in IR. For states however, it might be considered dangerous to
gain too much power, for example, seeking hegemony, with defensive
realists prioritising security. Contrastingly, offensive realists focus more
on survival within the international system and this results in the most
amount of power being sought, with an emphasis on military capabilities.
As states engage with the international system and outline their rela-
tionship with power, it is here that state identities become increasingly
visible. There is the risk however, of generalisations being made about a
state based on this behaviour due to the dichotomisation of state relations
with power, with there being recognition of states either being powerful
or not. The emergence of the BRICS states does challenge this binary
understanding, presenting power as a spectrum which they are travelling
across.
Power has a multitude of meanings. Here it reflects to the ability to affect

change through influence and action (and possibly coercion)—this reflects
having the power to do something. It also refers to the ability to make
others behave in a specific way, this speaks to ideas of power over someone.
Despite this, International Relations in the West, which has grown to

represent IR more broadly, especially in relation to theoretical thinking,
‘is informed by Western e.g., the state, power, order, regimes, interdepen-
dence, etc., and Western analyses and unsurprisingly, paint pictures of the
world that confirm the usefulness of these framing. Too often there is in
this work the implicit assumption that Western analytical concepts univer-
sally acceptable and unquestionably valid’ (Puchala, 1997, 129). There
is no denying of the useful insights which have occurred as a result of
using Western theory to frame aspects of IR, but there is also no denying
the harm it has done in inadequately recognising different experiences,
concepts and culture of states outside of the West.
8 S. COOKE
The multifarious and subjective nature of concepts like power, are the
focal points of the chapters in this book, with McOmber and McNamara
(Chapter 7) highlighting the need to reposition understandings at the
micro level. Therefore, this chapter not only calls for the repositioning of
IR theories rather than just focusing on the decentralisation of the West,
but it also argues for the need to accompany it with recognition of the
international permeating the national and the local levels.
Conclusion
This book is the result of many conversations about the inadequacy of
mainstream IR theory to offer a more global understanding of poli-
tics, power, state relations and the role of the individual in formulating
understandings. What mainstream IR theory offers is a narrative of world
politics which cannot be told without the US at its core, or predominantly
European theory framing our understandings.
Conversations have started about how to change this rhetoric,
encourage more diverse lines of inquiry and allow perspectives and under-
standings emerging from different contexts to be explored and utilised.
This is the conversation this book seeks to build on, but with an aware-
ness of the risk of keeping the West as the focal point, even as we seek to
dislocate it from the core of IR. Whilst this chapter has highlighted poten-
tial risks in labelling this reorientation as a decentralisation and argues for
greater recognition of there being a spectrum in IR, this does not mean
that Western IR theory should be ignored.
Through addressing different experiences with power and acknowl-
edging different identities at all levels, this chapter argues a global IR
(singular) is not possible and is not something that we as members of this
diverse global community, should seek to achieve. Instead, it argues that a
repositioning of theory, and reframing of concepts, is possible, with theo-
retical variants permitting greater insights into the incomplete-able puzzle
of International Relations; therefore, enabling us to further engage with
global International Relations (plural).
How to Use This Book

The ultimate purpose of this book is to function as a textbook for students
and educators in Higher Education. There is no assumed knowledge of
IR theories, the concepts explored, or the states being discussed, with
key concepts being defined in each chapter. Each contribution starts with
six study questions, with the intention of encouraging users of the book
to critically engage with each chapter from the outset. By placing these
study questions at the beginning, they can also serve to guide users as
they engage with each chapter.
There are two key concept boxes in each chapter too, providing greater
context to the chapters and allowing users to reflect on how they may
have understood them initially. In addition to this there are two class-
room activities at the end of each chapter. Contributors designed these
activities with the overarching themes of repositioning the West and crit-
ical engagement in mind. These can be used by educators who seek to
incorporate these key points of discussion into their lessons.
Finally, each chapter provides a list of further readings for users of
this book to engage with. Based on the focus of this book, and the
need to reposition IR in a more global setting, some of these articles
are not in English. Some contributors chose not to include non-English
sources due to factors such as their positionality, access and context suit-
ability. The rationale for including such sources is to further bridge the
gaps between existing ways of producing knowledge by incorporating
research published in another language. Through the incorporation of
other language sources, the chapters further contribute to the dislocation
of the West, and whilst most languages are European, not all are, and
this allows for greater engagement with a broader range of literature for
multilingual users of this book.
Book Structure
This book is comprised of three parts, each engaging with core compo-
nents of IR and its associated theories. Part 1, Internationalising Interna-
tional Relations Theory, engages with theoretical lessons and challenges
from IR, exploring how reciprocal relationships are required between
theoretical and conceptual developments globally. This places emphasis on
one of the main objectives of this book which is to present a more global
understanding, rather than a global understanding of IR by highlighting
the conversations which need to happen to allow theory and under-
standing to continue developing, rather than stagnating and remaining
underdeveloped.
10 S. COOKE
The first chapter in this part (Chapter 2, Sydiq & Ketzmerick) provides
a predominantly methodological contribution to working with and incor-
porating non-Western theory. Through their engagement with Nahda,
Négritude and Nihonjinron spots of literature, they encourage a cross-
regional, comparative reading of spots of literature to avoid Eurocentrism
dominating theoretical frameworks and interpretations. They also speak
to spatial and interpersonal connections between authors through the use
of ‘spots’ rather than ‘areas’ of literature, thus emphasising the application
of non-Western thought beyond their socio-political contexts.
This notion of cross-contextual and cross-regional applications and
discussions is continued in Chapter 3 (Featherstone), which explores
Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). Recognising that FPA is well established
within the West, Featherstone highlights how it is emerging at different
rates across Latin America, and how this is more advanced than the
Chinese model. This chapter does 3 key things, firstly it uses the case of
Iraq (2003) as an example of how to apply FPA, whilst reflecting on the
significance of researcher positionality and training on how this is done
and drawing on some aspects brought through in Latin American FPA.
The second thing it does, is call for Western models to be more open to
adopting and adapting aspects from models which have developed else-
where, thereby challenging the prominence of Western FPA by reasserting
that there is no ‘one-size fits all’. This is where models from the ‘Global
South’ are further ahead, meaning that Western FPA must play catch
up. Finally, it highlights how aspects of Western model(s) are visible in
other models. Recognition of shared elements reinforces this chapter’s
argument that more global engagement and context appropriate research
is possible if a fluid relationship of sharing, adopting and adapting FPA
models at the state and regional level occurs.
Chapter 4 (Liu) builds on an emergent theme from the
other two chapters, arguing that we cannot be preoccupied with
Wester/Eurocentrism, warning that this focus could result in us falling
into another ‘centrist’ trap, with another perspective rising to take the
stage. Focusing exclusively on China, this chapter argues that the concept
of Balance of Power was never able to really develop within the South
East Asian context and no ‘balancing’ behaviour against China has been
observed by other states in the region. Moreover, Liu highlights how
descriptive accounts of history places more focus on hierarchy over
anarchy due to the impact of cultural influences on state interactions;
whilst also outlining challenges to Euro and Sino-centric cultural expla-

nations. Finally, the chapter explores how Chinese historical traditions
and modern legacies should be explored as both theories and methods
for transcending the problem of Eurocentrism.
Part 2 of this book, Decentralising the West: Redefining Key Concepts
in IR, builds on these arguments and recommendations by narrowing its
attention to four core concepts of IR. This allows for context specific defi-
nitions and understandings to emerge, whilst simultaneously critiquing
the continued application of Western definitions and models. Moreover,
each chapter addresses the issue of homogenised understandings, not
only through the application of a Western lens, but also by adopting
regionalised lenses rather than state specific ones.
In Chapter 5, Cheung speaks to the concept of democracy through an
exploration of different regime types and engagements with it throughout
Asia. Three core regime types are explored throughout this chapter;
democracies, pseudo-democracies and authoritarian regimes, and these
are accompanied by sub-models which emerge. By providing a regional
overview of democracy and how useful it is to apply modernisation theory
to the region, Cheung asks how East Asian’s understand democracy and
highlights the limited successes associated with this theoretical application
in South East Asia.
Chapter 6 (Barclay) continues to challenge Western centrism and the
perceived superiority of traditional IR theory by focusing on the concepts
of the state and the individual and how contextually diverse frameworks
allocate differing levels of significance to them. Throughout this chapter,
Barclay engages with a dual comparison. The first explores the differences
between Liberalism and Neo-Confucianism and the second is between
state engagement with the concepts of objectives and national interest
in the US and China. By comparing Western and non-Western theories
and states, this chapter provides insights into the divergent nature of each
framework and the significance of refocusing our attentions to contex-
tually appropriate lenses which challenge Western centrism. Overall, this
chapter serves as a critique of liberalism which has not enabled the US to
sustain its global position and highlights how Western-centric/developed
perspectives do not necessarily guarantee longevity of successes, there-
fore more regional and/or state specific frameworks need to be rigorously
engaged with and understood.
In Chapter 7, McOmber and McNamara engage with power and
empowerment, which are prominent themes throughout this book. They
12 S. COOKE
challenge Western notions and methods of engagement by highlighting

the need to engage with micro, instead of macro, level politics and they do
this via community level focus groups in Kenya and Morocco. The chapter
also reinforces that there are alternatives to Western theoretical under-
standings and methodological engagements, and this is achieved through
the development of Community Concept Drawings (CCD). Finally, they
argue that there is no single definition for either of these concepts as they
are context specific and socially constructed. From this, the case is made
to decentralise the state, with communities becoming the referent object.
The final part of this book, Changing Frameworks: Reimagining Polit-
ical Issues, engages with the three broad categories of political ‘issues’ of
conflict, activism and terrorism. By situating these issues outside of the
West, it becomes possible to view and engage with them in more crit-
ical and insightful ways. Each chapter also challenges the dominance of
Western-centric theories of IR, with Chapters 8 and 9 building on earlier
calls to decentralise the state and focus more on micro level politics.
Chapter 8 (Zarhloule) reiterates earlier calls to decentralise the state
as the main focal point of international relations, calling to explore
the significance of emotions in state politics, especially in relation to
concepts of national pride and the production of space as a national
unit. It is because of this that Zarhloule argues in favour of a shift away
from theories such as Realism at the macro level is needed. By focusing
on emotions’ role in border conflicts, such as those between Morocco
and Algeria, we are able to begin moving beyond the fixed ‘categories
through which Maghreb/inter-state relations of rivalry are often anal-
ysed. Moreover, the chapter argues that emotion is a key determinant in
discourses surrounding and shaping (post)colonial state’s identities, whilst
also being key to broader state, regional and global pictures. Finally, the
chapter advocates a growth in discussion and interdisciplinarity between
emotions in IR and non-Western scholarship as most seminal works have
been based, so far, on the modern Western state and its production of
emotional discourses.
The call to move from macro to micro level politics is continued in
Chapter 9, with Buscemi focusing on localised narratives and experi-
ences. She challenges and calls for a shift away from the continuation of
colonial rhetoric through activism and feminism which it rooted in Euro-
pean concepts. Moreover, the chapter critiques Western/Euro-centric
approaches for the continuation of the rhetoric of (colonial) oppression
through such political engagements. By engaging with these narratives
and experiences, the chapter repositions the concept of power, within a

Latin American context, in a more localised framework.
The book concludes with insights from Pakistan and their experiences
with the Global War on Terror (GWoT). In Chapter 10, Farooqi builds on
Western understandings of conflict, highlighting alternative lenses which
emerge from Pakistan. The success of non-intervention approaches with
national militaries is emphasised, accompanying the impact of the GWoT
on Pakistan, their response, and civilians. Through this engagement
with existing literature, historic contextualisation of the state experiences
with Jihadism and, emphasising the role of non-state actors, the chapter
explores hybrid security threats. Subsequently, this chapter expands secu-
rity concepts beyond a Western paradigm, offering alternative perspectives
to understand the multifaceted nature of the GWoT.
Classroom Activities
Classroom Activity 1
Choose one of the study questions from the beginning of this chapter and
get participants to come up with their best answer. Once they have done
this, get them into pairs and get them to agree on an answer. Then put
two pairs together and repeat this process until you have 2 large groups.
Get the groups to present and defend their answers. How did they get to
that point? Do they agree with the other groups answer? Why (not)?
Classroom Activity 2
Split the class into groups of no more than 4 and allocate each group
a core concept from this chapter. Give them some time to brain-write
their ideas before bringing them back to their group. They need to think
about how they understand the concept and how it relates to IR theory
and its repositioning. They should also consider whether their own under-
standing of the concept has changed since, if so how? Once each group
has their ideas, get them to write their ideas on a whiteboard/flipchart
paper. Each group will then move around the other groups work. They
may add to what the other group has written, but nothing can be
removed. By the end of the session, you will have comprehensive under-
standings and reflections on these concepts. Encourage students to take
14 S. COOKE
photographs of these or take photos yourself and upload them to a VLE

site if you are using one.
Bibliography
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2010). Why is there no non-Western international
relations theory? An introduction. In A. Acharya & B. Buzan (Eds.), Non-
Western international relations theory (pp. 1–25). Routledge.
Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P. (2020). The globalization of world politics: An
introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.
Bethke Elshtain, J. (1981). Public man, private woman: Women in social and
political thought. Princeton University Press.
Bischoff, P. H., Aning, K., & Acharya, A. (Eds.). (2016). Africa in Global
International Relations: Emerging approaches to theory and practice.
Briggs, J., & Sharp, J. (2004). Indigenous knowledges and development: A
postcolonial caution. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), 661–676.
Burchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Nardin, T., Paterson,
M., Reus-Smit, C., & True, J. (2013). Theories of international relations.
Macmillan International Higher Education.
Chakrabarty, D. (2000). Provincializing Europe: postcolonial thought and histor-
ical difference. Princeton University Press.
Cox, R. (1986). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international
relations theory. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 204–
254). Columbia University Press.
Dunne, T., Kurki, M., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2013). International relations
theories. Oxford University Press.
Eun, Y. S. (2019). Opening up the debate over ‘non-western’ international
relations. Politics, 39(1), 4–17.
Fawcett, L. (Ed.). (2016). International relations of the Middle East. Oxford
University Press.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to centre (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
MA: South End Press Classics.
Mohanty, C. T. (2003). “Under western eyes” Revisited: Feminist solidarity
through anticapitalist struggles. Signs, 2, 499–535.
Puchala, D. J. (1997). Some non-Western perspectives on international relations.
Journal of Peace Research, 34(2), 129–134.
Said, E. (1978/2003). Orientalism. London: Penguin Books.
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance.
Yale University Press. Spivak.
Spivak, G. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the
vanishing present. London: Harvard University Press.
Tickner, A. B., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2020). International relations from the global
South: Worlds of difference. Routledge.
Further Readings
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no non-Western international
relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific,
7 (3), 287–312.
Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2017). Why is there no non-western international
relations theory? Ten years on. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific,
17 (3), 341–370.
Bilgin, P. (2020). Opening up international relations, or: How I learned to stop
worrying and love non-Western IR. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Blanchard, E. M., & Lin, S. (2016). Gender and non-western “global” IR:
Where are the women in Chinese International Relations Theory? Interna-
tional Studies Review, 18(1), 48–61.
Eun, Y. S. (2019). Opening up the debate over ‘non-western’ international
relations. Politics, 39(1), 4–17.
Milner, A., & Kasim, S. M. (2018). Beyond sovereignty: Non-Western interna-
tional relations in Malaysia’s foreign relations. Contemporary Southeast Asia,
40(3), 371–396.
Rengger, N., & Thirkell-White, B. (2007). Introduction: Still critical after all
these years? The past, present and future of Critical Theory in International
Relations. Review of International Studies, 33(2007), 3–24.
Shani, G. (2008). Toward a post-Western IR: The Umma, Khalsa Panth, and
critical international relations theory. International Studies Review, 10(4),
722–734.
Shilliam, R. (Ed.). (2010). International relations and non-Western thought:
Imperialism, colonialism and investigations of global modernity. Routledge.
Tickner, A. B., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2020). International relations from the global
South: Worlds of difference. Routledge.
PART I
Internationalising International Relations

Theory
CHAPTER 2
Decentralising Europe: Harnessing

Alternative Theories of IR
Tareq Sydiq and Maria Ketzmerick
Study Questions
1. How has the current global order affected how we engage with IR?
2. Why is it important to move beyond Europe and the West when
developing frameworks for understanding IR?
3. How do we decide what is important? Who decides?
4. What insights do comparative readings provide?
5. What can be considered non-Western theory?
T. Sydiq (B)
University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
M. Ketzmerick
University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 19

S. Cooke (ed.), Non-Western Global Theories of International
Relations, Palgrave Studies in International Relations,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84938-2_2
20 T. SYDIQ AND M. KETZMERICK
6. What similarities and differences do these spots of literature have?
The call to actively read, analyse, and use non-Western theories has
been around for some time in most disciplines of social sciences, with
many scholars linking knowledge production to the access to power
(Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2020; Quijano, 2000). Demand for theories that were
not produced in the Global North1 is equally high in the area of peace and
conflict research. However, even though literature from non-European
contexts does exist and is made available to Western audiences, it is often-
times not read in academic teaching due to different reasons ranging from
access, translation, and comparability and is quoted poorly. Where only
specialised academic training provides the kind of access and language
capacity to examine non-Western literature, their inclusion in comparative
readings is further hindered. In order to alleviate this, we suggest compar-
ative reading of regionalised spots of literature production, highlighting
their value for the global International Relations (IR) project (Acharya,
2014; Anderl & Witt, 2020).
To incorporate such literature, we identify spots of literature outside
of Western literature and relate them first to one another, and then to
wider IR literature. This approach builds on contemporary debates, as
postcolonial and decolonial research in many disciplines appears to be
entering a new stage. It is moving past early critiques of academic writ-
ings, disciplines, and syllabi as colonial and racist, and towards showing
the potential of these approaches to understand transnational intercon-
nections in world politics (Bhambra, 2014). Whereas it seems evident
from a postcolonial or critical perspective that a distinct positionality
leads to specific view of the world (DuBois, 2007; Fanon, 2008), this
is not entirely reflected in academia. Nevertheless, a West and the Rest
dichotomy, precisely one relating to nuanced differences content-wise, has
its own challenges, namely one of the distinct categories. For assigning a
scholar, a label as “Northern” or “Southern” runs the danger of over-
emphasising or essentialising these categories, particularly when they do
not seem straightforward or salient. If these categories are more than
1 By Global North and Global South we refer to the imaginaries of geographical,

political and economic difference that were established in imperial intervention. Out of of
these processes, the Global North appears to be the centre whereas the Global South is
imagined as periphery (Tafira & Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018).
2 DECENTRALISING EUROPE: HARNESSING ALTERNATIVE ... 21
descriptive containers, we should be able to identify concepts and ideas

unique to their non-Western positionality, enabling us to draw them
into debates on theory building. This raises two problems: One of
positionality, and one of theoretical content which emerges from such
positionalities. We focus on self-referential spots of literature rather than
dichotomies as our object of comparison, using comparative reading to
derive ideas unique to their positionality rather than ideas unique to their
socio-political histories.
This chapter highlights the need for more cross-regional comparisons
of non-Western scholars, as such endeavours can reveal ideas beyond case-
sensitive debates. We argue that a close reading of non-Western bodies of
literature shows that not only do non-Western theories exist, but that
they specifically share distinct and relevant questions and ideas which
reveal themselves and more importantly their commonalities through such
a comparative reading in political philosophy. Therefore, our question
is whether or not decidedly non-Western theories on the world order,
interrelations, and mobilities exist, and if so, what their commonali-
ties, differences, and references are. In turn, this would contribute to
larger debates on decolonialising political theory by providing further
evidence that positionality matters content-wise and opens up debates
on how to incorporate said content into IR theory. This chapter there-
fore explores the following research question: How does non-Western
theory change the perception of the world order and present it differ-
ently? Following both interests, the paper proceeds on two stages: Firstly,
we will outline the potential of three spots of non-Western thinking across
time and place and their potential for IR research—Nahda, Négritude,
and Nihonjinron. Secondly, through our comparative lens, we discuss
differences, challenges, and common patterns regarding ideas of their
self-positioning within a given order, interrelations and exchange, and
modernity. To answer the question, the chapter moves to outline the rele-
vance of reflecting the knowledge production and the practice of teaching
it. We then focus on our case selections, which is followed by a discus-
sion of our findings. In the conclusion, we draw links to further research
fields and embed our results in the wider frame of global power struggles,
calling for more comparative approaches in incorporating non-Western
thought.
What Is Theory in De-/Postcolonial IR?

The chapter’s interest in non-Western theory production mirrors several
international relations and peace and conflict studies debates. A core ques-
tion centres around what follows from a need to decolonise the discipline
in order to make pluralistic knowledges visible by simultaneously acknowl-
edging the global power relations. Existing critique of Western theories as
racist or colonial, implies a second step—conceptualising what actually is
a way to decolonise a discipline. Embedded in this is the question of what
is considered theory and why some scholars are not part of the canon and
represent the Non-West.
Decolonising Academia and Research

of International Politics? Using Social
Standpoints as Spots of Literature
Western/Non-Western Thought and Spots of Literature

While debates in IR have emphasised a need to incorporate non-Western
thought, methods of doing so and questions of what exactly consti-
tutes non-Western thought prevail. Since biographies oftentimes transcend
categories, bodies of self-referential literature are more easily identifiable
than individual authors. We call these bodies of literature with specific,
non-Western audiences “spots of literature”.
Since their emergence, postcolonial and decolonial theories have had

a huge impact on academic disciplines, such as the social sciences, by
questioning knowledge production in academia against the background
of global power hierarchies. Accordingly, as Go (2013, 2016) points out,
the integration of the postcolonial question strengthens and enriches our
understanding of the world in which we live; processes of globalisation
and the international order could be a postcolonial social science better
explained and understood in its dynamics ‘[o]ne might even say, that
social sciences is obliged to engage with postcolonial theory’ (Go, 2016,
15). A postcolonial perspective allows a transnational or global histo-
riography and overcomes the territorial demarcations between nations
(Go, 2016, 15). Correspondingly postcolonial works are not interested
in concepts that are collectively applicable to societies but for moments
of transition, discontinuities and change, and hybridity within the North–

South encounter—a perspective which helps to situate the ideas raised in
the spots of literature we compared.
Equally, in IR, postcolonial thought and the need to decolonise
research were addressed to make research topics more global and plural
(Bendix et al., 2020; Jones, 2006; Nayak & Selbin, 2013). This interest
led to researchers increasingly focusing on experiences from the Global
South and the non-West in their work. Currently, there are many scholars
who explicitly work on decolonial and postcolonial research approaches
(Bhambra & Santos, 2017; Go, 2016; Quijano, 2000), while others
continue to seek mediation between international relations and decolo-
nial concepts (Gilroy, 2004; Sabaratnam, 2017; Shilliam, 2010). These
research approaches combine the conceptual inclusion of various histor-
ical experiences, including colonial, to reduce the dividing line between
North–South relations. The debate is primarily dominated by the notion
that current knowledge and theory production is linked to Western
thought by considering others as regional or local (Dabashi, 2015).
“Western” thought and epistemologies have come up as a major point
of critique, considered to be exclusive to Southern thought, prompting
agendas of incorporating them into the wider academic debate. To
approach this challenge, Sabaratnam (2011, 2) suggested six intellec-
tual strategies to bring in new subjects to IR research, which “aim at
reconfiguring our understanding of world politics through subjecting
its main perspectives to philosophical and empirical challenges”. These
strategies support the development of hands-on strategies to reflect on
research being done. Another contribution to exemplify the decoloni-
sation of Western knowledge production is Ndlovu-Gatshenis’ edited
volume “Decolonizing the University, Knowledge Systems and Disci-
plines in Africa” (2016), which discusses the potential of critical analysis
for concepts and research questions in several subdisciplines. The essen-
tial question of bridging theoretical and practical knowledge production
is further discussed in many ways under the headline of decolonising
methodologies, with some scholars deliberately integrating indigenous
knowledge (Exo, 2018; Smith, 1999). The criticism expressed therein
also impacts the nature of research, primarily discussed under the name
of collaborative research (Bouka 2018; Lottholz, 2018; Poets 2020). By
applying the methodology of decentred comparative reading, we engage
in grasping knowledge production in the non-West.
However, whereas academia made great strides forward in reflecting

binaries, concepts, and theories, their incorporation appears to require
huge efforts still even when pursued as Shilliam observes, that topoi in
postcolonial research have their filaments rooted in the extra-academic
intellectual work in the liberation struggles in the nineteenth and twen-
tieth centuries (Rutazibwa & Shilliam, 2018). He refers to different
concepts and respective non-Western authors, such as Suzanne Césaire, to
exemplify his observation (Shilliam, 2017). However, to research visions
of internationalism as suggested by Shilliam, appears to be a difficult
endeavour since there is a tendency that mainly Western authors discuss
the critical potential of postcolonial spaces by using theories of Western
scholars. By taking up this critique, we follow Shilliam’s method of
following non-Western intellectual thought concepts and suggest reading
non-Western texts closely.
The collection of texts, theories, and perspectives about the non-
West or Global South raised a significant point within the debate on
decolonising academic agendas: Who belongs to the Global South and
what can be considered non-Western theory? While there may be a core
literature associated with "Southern" thought, distinctions between a
Northern/Southern dichotomy become tricky at its fringes. For example,
while many scholars may be assigned the label of “Southern” or “Non-
Western” to share a biographic background situated in the Global South,
they may be part of Western academia, publishing in Western languages
for Western audiences. This dilemma can be illustrated by thinking of the
fluidity of identities. Is a scholar born outside of Europe, but studying
and working in Europe, being referenced primarily by European scholars,
ultimately a European or a non-European scholar? And crucially, at least
in the context of this chapter, can we consider their academic work
non-Western? Regarding debates on Western/non-Western theory, iden-
tification of scholars’ multiple, shifting positionalities, their audiences and
references overlap.
As Julian Go (2013) points out, the subaltern standpoint is of
importance to include plural and diverse experiences, positionalities, and
viewpoints. However, many examples show that focusing solely on posi-
tionality can mask crucial and critical potential since it cannot be assumed
that including authors based in the “non-West” will necessarily bring an
increase in postcolonial perspectives (Tickner & Wæver, 2009). Position-
ality cannot be easily equated with perspective. Thus, identifying whether
a different epistemological background, rooted in different power struc-

tures, would produce different thought is key. Approximating this, we
focus on the existence of commonalities across thoughts that shares these
backgrounds, with strong implications that they produce differences in
thought. In turn, this would lend further support for approaches encour-
aging to read more texts that do not originate in the Global North and
work out what they entail analytically.
Due to constraints on conducting a holistic research, selecting cases
becomes necessary, and lacking a distinct identification of Southern
thought, case selection is crucial in pursuing our question. The use of
the country of residence or the geo-cultural location as an indicator
might be misleading and trumping the very basic premise. Yet, even
looking at authors’ personal backgrounds and their course of academic
training, would reveal that scholars from non-Western backgrounds are
successful in Western institutions and vice versa. By this approach the
binary structure of West/Non-West is not only highlighted but even
emphasised. We address these hybrid structures and conflicts between
the author’s positionality and the content of their writing by identi-
fying spots of literature that emerged as self-referential bodies of research
and combine both non-Western positionalities of their respective authors
and non-Western audiences. These selected cases circumvent such a
hybrid structure of West/non-West and show overlap in their distinctly
non-Western thought.
Academic Knowledge
Production: What is IR Theory?
Closely linked to debates on decolonising academia are reflections about
the thinking about the thinking in IR and the extended power mechanisms
of knowledge production led (and still lead) to the exclusion of ideas.
Essentially, the text’s revaluation as of theoretical value concerning non-
Western theories is important since the exclusion is often based on the
assumption that it is not theoretical (enough). So, it is necessary to look
closer on theory to develop an understanding of premises.
According to Berenskoetter (2018, 23), in mainstream IR the purpose
and function of theory can be differentiated between three kinds of
attitude: “theory as an analytical tool that offers timeless explanations
(‘explanatory’); theory as a historically situated and subjective perspective
with a normative thrust (‘reflexive’); theory as an ideology intertwined
with political agendas that need to be deconstructed (‘critical’)”. This

reflection on the premise of producing critical academic knowledge,
has resulted in postcolonial researchers, such as Sabaratnam (2011) and
Bertrand (2018), arguing that this self-positioning has become affirma-
tive. Theory has been mostly discussed as a body of modern academic
literature, despite other conceptualisations existing both in academic and
activist discourses, with the exclusion of other bodies of thought occur-
ring by default. This process of exclusion is evident in the case of Carolina
Maria de Jesus, whose “Quarto de Despejo” was rejected at first, as she
remarked: “When I first gave my manuscript to Brazilian editors they
laughed […] They told me I should write on toilet paper” (de Jesus et al.,
1999, 7). Her book eventually succeeded as an internationally acclaimed
bestseller, but only after deletions by her editors which presented a “feisty,
opinionated” woman who laid blame on officials for the conditions of the
poor as a “docile, wistful, and seemingly reluctant” fatalist (de Jesus et al.,
1999, 15). These resulted in two separate publications; “Child of Dark.
The Diary of Carolina Maria de Jesus” (de Jesus, 1962), a translation of
the original edited version, and “The Unedited Diaries of Carolina Maria
de Jesus” (de Jesus et al., 1999), both of which resonated with students
of Brazilian politics and activists alike—in particular the Afrobrazilian
Niger Circle, who placed de Jesus’ photograph in their magazine cover
(de Jesus et al., 1999, 8). Annie Ernaux’s book “The Years” (2017),2
in which she explores her own biography but is read as an anthropo-
logical observation of two generations of class struggle, should also be
considered. Not meant as a theoretical production, these books stim-
ulated academic research by reflecting on identity and class questions
between the collective and personal developments. However, biographical
observation, poems, and prosaic texts which can be seen with the contri-
butions by Senghor (1966) and Césaire (1972), who influenced with their
writings, stimulated theoretical production immensely.
The link between IR theory and knowledge production is made,
among others, by Bueger and Gadinger (2018), and Berenskoetter
(2018) via the analysis of textbooks, which, according to them, “show IR
as a more or less ‘ordered system’ and ‘unified organic whole’, thereby
also delineating it as a distinct body of knowledge. More precisely, these
collections present an image of IR and an image of its subject matter.
2 Other examples include Eribon (2013), Mau (2019) and Nkrumah (1971).
They give students a sense of the world as it was, is and may be; they
tell stories about where and how international relations take place that
influence students’ worldviews and, hence, their orientation as citizens
and political actors” (Berenskoetter 2018, 446). Despite the important
observation about representation in textbooks, it is up to speculation
on how textbooks actually impact teaching and learning. This underlies
our perspective pursuing two aims: The first is academic curiosity—What
can non-Western theories tell us? The second is, what can a broad-
ened understanding of theoretical production help us to understand? By
combining both questions, we aim to understand the extent to which a
comparative reading of non-Western textual productions can support an
understanding of the authors’ belonging to the world, their orientations,
and self-perceptions.
Comparative Reading in IR Theory
Decentred Comparative Reading

As one strategy to grasp thinking and knowledge production from the
non-West, we suggest using a decentred comparative reading of different
spots of literature. A close reading of non-Western bodies of litera-
ture shows that not only do non-Western theories exist, but that they
specifically share distinct and relevant questions and ideas which reveal
themselves and more importantly their commonalities through such a
comparative reading. Since there is a broad range of regionally and polit-
ically different bodies of literature, we suggest to pursuing an approach
of dissimilar case design, since similarities in ideas and thinking high-
lights the positionality in the non-West that determine these commonalities
independent from ideas in the Global North.
The ambiguities mentioned above regarding identifying non-Western

textual productions pose a major methodological challenge for us when
designing our research strategy. We address them by following four
guidelines:
First, as our research interests lie in commonalities, particularly in ideas
and thoughts shared among non-Western thinkers, we needed to look
at a broad range of regionally and politically different bodies of litera-
ture. Our rationale is that a high degree of dissimilarity in other variables
would strengthen our argument regarding similarities in ideas, that is that
their positionality in the non-West did indeed determine these common-

alities (and not other variables they may have in common). We are thus
pursuing an approach of dissimilar case design, in line with Mill’s method
of agreement3 (Bennett, 2004, 31). Second, despite those dissimilari-
ties, enough similarity is needed to exist to justify a comparison to begin
with. Third, as our underlying assumption is that this literature is shaping
ideas and localisation of Western theories, we needed to identify larger,
well-perceived bodies of literature with proven interaction among authors
within its body of literature and the interaction between policymakers
and authors. Fourth, the literature we would examine is needed to be
intended as independent from Western thought claiming to be, or having
an agenda of establishing schools of thought, or being understood by the
wider academic audience as being independent enough to be regarded as
schools of thought. Following the four guidelines, we came up with three
spots of literature to focus on in this chapter: Négritude, Nihonjinron,
and Nahda.
They are different enough to make their similarities all the more
visible: Négritude, a movement that began in Paris and came from
the environment of literary Paris in the 1940s (Simo, 2017; Wilder,
2015), Nihonjinron, generally understood as post-war Japanese litera-
ture focusing on Japaneseness (Aoki, 1996), and Nahda, a discussion
of intellectual modernisation in the Middle East, especially in Arabic
areas, dated roughly between the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries (Kassab, 2009, 17), are spots of literature which differ signifi-
cantly regionally. Attempts to compare political thought in Africa and Asia
are rare; generally, such comparisons tend to be via Western thought as
an intermediary point of comparison, rather than direct comparison and
research on interactions. Furthermore, they are from different periods,
stem from different philosophical traditions, with Négritude influenced
by literature and Nihonjinron by social sciences, and were conceived in
different political situations.
However, these dissimilarities do now affect all three of them in the
same way; rather, with every dimension of comparison, we have two spots
showing greater similarity and the third being dissimilar. Both Négritude
3 Mill’s method of agreement: If two or more instances of the phenomenon under

investigation have only one circumstance in common, the circumstance in which alone all
the instances agree, is the cause (or effect) of the given phenomenon (Mill, 2006).
and Nihonjinron were mainly conceived during the era of decolonisa-

tion, with Négritude having its early beginnings during WW2 and being
largely discussed in the post-war period, and Nihonjinron emerging in the
aftermath of WW2 (Aoki, 1996) as an answer to anxieties following the
end of the war. Nahda, in contrast, began much earlier, with el-Tahtawis’
work going as far back as 1834 (Kassab, 2009, 22) and much of the works
understood as part of Nahda being published towards the end of the nine-
teenth century. Both Nihonjinron and Nahda, meanwhile, were facing the
end of an era of perceived supremacy, with previous imperial ambitions
being challenged by a new, Western political dominance (Aoki, 1996, 23;
Kassab, 2009, 19; Kurzman, 2002, 6); this break in self-perception as a
superior, major power, either as an Islamic or Japanese empire, sets them
apart from Négritude, where the imperial system is inherently foreign and
oppression endured, rather than practiced. Similarly, the state apparati
and loci of power prior to Western dominance were prominent in the
countries where Nahda and Nihonjinron were discussed. For Négritude-
authors, those were mostly marginalised through colonisation. Finally,
both Nahda and Négritude authors shared an experience of colonisation
and struggle against it, and were later read during anti-colonial struggles,
while Japan’s history as a colonising power rather than a colonised nation
left Nihonjinron authors without similarly anti-colonial ideas.
Every one of these spots of literature played a role in domestic poli-
tics and shaped the public debate. Négritude authors became prominent
political figures and Nahda authors famously founded a multitude of
newspapers and journals, reforming both their respective languages and
media markets (Hanssen & Weiss, 2016, 15, 24). Nihonjinron comprises
a broad genre of literature, both in academia and more popular culture
(Aoki, 1996, 22), also being influential on nationalist politicians. We
therefore assume that they have a foundation in discourses among their
respective, intended audiences and not merely among Western audiences.
Finally, much academic work has dealt with determining which authors
belong to these respective spots of literature, what their ideas are, and
what their historical and political context is. Négritude, as a term inten-
tionally used by its authors, is perhaps the easiest to identify here. Nahda
and Nihonjinron, while not necessarily used as terms by all authors
assumed to have contributed to them, have been identified by other
authors as literature connected by common themes, (research) agendas,
and biographic links.
Having identified our main spots of literature, we were faced with two
other methodological challenges. What can be considered to constitute
theory? and what genres of text can we analyse? Particularly, when dealing
with hierarchies of knowledge (production), this is an important question
to ask, as the literary traditions within Négritude and Nahda (Kurzman,
2002, 14), as well as more popular literature within Nihonjinron chal-
lenges our understandings of academia and make it hard to disentangle
scientific theory from artistic poetry. Secondly, language remains a major
barrier; many texts have not been translated, and with such a research
design encompassing a multitude of languages, such as French, Japanese,
Arabic, Ottoman Turkic, and Turkish, to name the main ones, is a
major hurdle; especially as theoretical research requires more than a
basic command of the respective languages. This is a problem we cannot
completely solve; but making use of secondary literature which takes these
problems into account, by incorporating non-academic texts into their
analysis, and by using multiple routes of translations, such as Arabic texts
translated into French and Japanese texts translated into German, while
using original texts where possible, we sought to fill existing gaps.
As said in the beginning we aim to identify similarities and investigate
what these theories could be potentially interesting for IR. That is why we
also asked what links can be made for IR? Prior to the analysis we thought
of topics, such as: What is said about the concepts, such as international,
independence, and humanism? How is it dealt with the global and the
local? How are ambivalences to be understood and how do diffusions
occur without emphasising one or the other?
Nahda, Négritude, and Nihonjinron:

Points of Comparison
With these questions and assumptions in mind, we argue that our iden-
tified spots of literature share commonalities, both in the questions they
ask and the answers they provide. More specifically, three major themes
emerge from such a comparison: Questions of Self-positioning, Arenas of
Comparison, and the issue of modernity in relation to particularity and
universalism.
Self-Positioning: Who Are We in the World?

While all three spots of literature show degrees of self-referentiality
by dealing with questions of Blackness, Arabness, and Japaneseness,
they share a desire of self-positioning in the world vis-à-vis a Western-
dominated world. This is tied to their historical origins, but emerges
independently across widely differing historical and political settings.
The writings and ideas of Négritude stemmed from the environment
of the black diaspora and caused a stir at an early stage, which intensified
when Jean-Paul Sartre positively discussed them in the article “Orphée
Noir” (Simo, 2017). Sartre (1972; Eckert, 2007) constructed the Négri-
tude movement as an “anti-racist racism” whose starting point it was “to
become aware of his race”. In our reading, the movement was ambiva-
lent in itself and united different goals, images, and utopias, but the point
of departure was to overcome colonialism. In particular, Senghor (1967)
focused on the French empire and not on the French nation-state and
emphasised the premise that neither France could decolonise Africa, nor
Africa could liberate itself, but rather decolonise France. Ambivalence is
probably one of the first descriptions to grasp the Négritude analytically.
Although the three main authors, Césaire, Senghor, and Dumas were
positioned in the Global South, they have their biographical origin in
the former French colonies. All three met in Paris during their studies
and as their access to knowledge production is concerned it was clearly
French-oriented. This is significant due to the French-centralist educa-
tion and school system and their own frame of reference (Wilder, 2015).
Furthermore, Senghor and Césaire, became political figures following
their studies and the decolonisation period, Senghor as the first presi-
dent of an independent Senegal and Césaire as a politician and mayor
in Martinique. Senghor was also the first African president to resign
voluntarily, which is particularly important in the context of debates on
term limitation (Eckert, 2007). However, they and thus also their knowl-
edge references, do not fall clearly into the categories non-European and
non-Western because of their hybrid mobility. In terms of content, the
Negritude authors did not aim for a radical break, but rather take a medi-
ating path between colonial structures and their countries’ political future.
This is particularly evident with Senghor, who negotiated the political
conflicts over participation and future decolonised structures in the field
of culture.
A point of departure for Nihonjinron authors was, as Aoki (1996)

points out, “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese
Culture” by Ruth Benedict (1946); it may be impossible to discuss one
without the other due to the broad reception of the book in Japan (Kent,
1999, pp. 181–183), which in turn became a critical point of reflec-
tion and comparison for authors of Nihonjinron (see for example Doi,
1973; Nakane, 1985). Ruth Benedict, an American anthropologist, was
tasked by US authorities to study Japanese society, in order to guide US
policy regarding their opponent during WW2. Her book became espe-
cially influential during the Occupation and Reconstruction period of
Japan (1945–1952) and one of the major academic works on Japanese
society published during that time. This, at least in part, explains the
reception of “The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of a Japanese
Culture” as a vantage point of critique for Japaneseness, to later become
criticised as not well informed (Aoki, 1996). When Nakane notes that
her own work can be compared to an artist using colours, giving her an
advantage due to her growing up with those colours and knowing the
subtleties (Nakane, 1985, 8), this can easily be read as implicitly ques-
tioning the authority of authors such as Benedict to write on Japaneseness
as a non-Japanese. Questions of what constitutes Japaneseness may have
been asked for a longer period, but they are invariably tied to histor-
ical development and Japanese economic and political power over time.
This is one of the explanatory elements Aoki (1996) uses to distinguish
four periods of Nihonjinron, adding a more recent period to three similar
periods identified by Dale (1986).
Following their timeline, in answering the questions, authors moved
from a modernist understanding of Japaneseness towards being critical of
traditional elements, towards a more positive, essentialist understanding
which supposedly explains Japanese success; in other words, authors
arguing in favour of modernising seemingly inferior traditional elements
of Japaneseness coinciding with a period of economic and political weak-
ness in the 1940/50s, where authors arguing towards understanding and
even preserving traditional elements of Japaneseness would coincide with
the economic boom in the 60/70s. Both share modernist assumptions of
what constitutes desirable outcomes: economic development and strong
political institutions. Key topics of Nihonjinron authors fall into this cate-
gory as well—the role and uniqueness of the Japanese language, Japanese
social structures, especially with regard to the core family, and Japanese
isolationism are used to position Japaneseness.
Nahda has been described both as a modernisation project and a

cultural movement (Kassab, 2009; Kurzmann, 2002). The vantage point
is similar to that of Négritude and Nihonjinron—perceived European
greatness, combined with a perceived decline of local power, prompts the
debate. One problem for literature on Nahda is how to determine who
belongs to it and who does not. One may, as Kassab (2009) does, define
two phases of Nahda in order to delineate it temporally, but answering
geographic and linguistic questions is much harder due to disagreements
among Nahda authors on these issues. The importance of Arabic news
outlets for Nahda and its emergence in the context of Ottoman decline,
and Egyptian and Arabic nationalism (Kassab, 2009), gives credence to
the argument that Nahda is primarily an Arabic project. As such, they
were standardising the Arabic language in the context of the printing
press one a significant side project. Others have called Nahda a project
of Islamic modernism (Kurzman, 2002), interpreting as an Islamic rather
than an Arabic project, with their positioning being supported by the
importance of the Ottoman Empire in the early period of Nahda and the
role of Nahda in the Tanzimat reforms conducted within it. This is further
confused by authors who are neither Islamic nor Arabic, but contribute
regardless. It seems that common topics and cross-references can define
Nahda, and this is why both Kurzman (2002) and Kassab (2009) come up
with five main themes which Nahda authors explored. These are the rise
and fall of civilisations, political justice and reform, science and educa-
tion, religion, and gender and women’s rights; with all of these topics
being explored through a juxtaposition of Europe and the local contexts.
While all three of our spots of literature raise this question of a non-
European identity, only Négritude develops a “postcolonial” identity by
referring to the hybrid relations between coloniser and colonised, with
Nahda falling short of an unanimous answer (individual authors however
provide a multitude), and Nihonjinron answering by employing an essen-
tialist, traditional Japanese identity. Nevertheless, even Négritude does so
vis-a-vis Europe as a point of reference, using European observations on
“the colonies”, basing their postcolonial identity on differentiating them-
selves from Europe rather than developing an identity independently of
with reference to other, non-European traditions.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
doen.—Tegelijk reikte hij Sokrates den beker. En deze nam hem aan
en zeer blijmoedig, o Echekrates, zonder eenigszins te beven of van
kleur of gelaatsuitdrukking te veranderen, maar den mensch met
strak-open oogen aanziende, zooals hij dat gewoon was, vroeg hij:
Wat denkt gij van dezen drank, is het geoorloofd daarvan aan
iemand te plengen of niet?—Zooveel, zeî hij, o Sokrates, mengen wij
C als wij meenen dat voldoende is tot drinken.—Juist, zeide hij.
Maar allicht is het geoorloofd, en ook passend, tot de goden te
bidden, dat de verhuizing van hier eene gelukkige moge zijn. Dit doe
ik dan ook, en moge het zoo geschieden. Dadelijk na deze woorden
bracht hij den beker aan zijn mond en dronk hem vlug en rustig leêg.
En de meesten van ons waren zoolang vrij-wel in-staat onze tranen
in te houden, maar toen wij zagen dat hij dronk en gedronken had,
niet meer, maar bij mij vloeiden de tranen met geweld in stroomen,
zoodat ik mij omhulde en mij-zelven beweende; want over hem
D weende ik niet, maar om mijn eigen lot, van welk een vriend ik
beroofd was. Kritoon was nog eer dan ik uit den kring opgestaan,
omdat hij niet in-staat was zijn tranen te bedwingen. En Apollodoros,
die ook al vroeger niet ophield te weenen, brak toen in luide
jammerklachten los en ontstelde elk der aanwezigen, behalve
Sokrates zelven. Doch deze zeide: Wat-voor dingen doet gij nu, mijn
bewonderenswaardigen! Ik echter heb boven-al om die reden de
vrouwen weggezonden, opdat zij met zulke dingen niet storen
E zouden. Want ik heb gehoord, dat men in heilige stilte behoort te
sterven. Doch houdt u rustig en kloek!—En wij op het hooren
hiervan, schaamden ons en lieten af van weenen. Hij wandelde eerst
rond, en nadat, zooals hij zeide, zijn beenen zwaar werden, legde hij
zich achterover neder. Want zoo verzocht hem de slaaf. En deze,
dezelfde die hem het gif had toegediend, onderzocht tegelijk van-tijd-
tot-tijd zijn voeten en beenen, door die te betasten, en daarop kneep
hij hem sterk in den éenen voet en vraagde of hij het voelde.
Sokrates zeide van-niet. En daarna kneep hij in de scheenbeenen,
118 en zoo omhooggaande, liet hij ons zien, dat hij langzamerhand
koud en stijf werd. Ook Sokrates zelf betastte zich en zeide, dat,
wanneer het zijn hart zoû bereiken, hij dan zoû heengaan. Reeds
begonnen ongeveer de deelen van ’t onderlijf koud te worden, toen
hij zijn gelaat onthulde—want hij had zich omhuld—, en het laatste
woord zeide, dat hij gesproken heeft: o Kritoon, wij zijn Asklepios
een haan schuldig. Geef hem dien en vergeet het niet.—Dat zal
geschieden, zeide Kritoon. Maar bedenk of gij nog iets anders te
zeggen hebt.—Op deze vraag van Kritoon antwoordde hij niet meer,
maar kort daarop kreeg hij een lichten schok, en de mensch
onthulde hem, en zijn oogen stonden star. Toen Kritoon dat zag,
drukte hij hem mond en oogen toe.
Dit was het einde voor ons, o Echekrates, van onzen vriend, een
man, zooals wij zouden zeggen, van zijn tijdgenooten die wij leerden
kennen, den besten, en ook overigens den wijsten en
rechtvaardigsten.
AANTEEKENINGEN
60D. E u e n o s . Sofist en dichter, afkomstig van
het eiland Paros. Ook elders vermeldt
Platoon hem (Ap. 20B, Phaidros 267A), met
dezelfde goedmoedige ironie als hier.
89C. A r g e i e r s . Toen de Argeiers in 550 hun
zuidelijk grensgebied met de stad Thureai
aan de Lakedaimoniërs verloren, verboden
zij bij wet hun mannen lang haar, en hun
vrouwen gouden sieraden te dragen
zoolang die stad niet heroverd zoû zijn. Zie
Herodotos I 82.
I o l a o s . Neef van Herakles en diens
wagenmenner en trouwe metgezel. Toen
Herakles bij zijn strijd met de Hydra door
een reusachtige zeekrabbe werd
aangevallen, riep hij de hulp van Iolaos in.
Zie Platoons Euthydemos 297C.
90C. E u r i p o s . De om haar onstuimigheid
bekende enge zeestraat tusschen Boiotia
en het eiland Euboia op de hoogte der
steden Chalkis en Aulis.
95A. H a r m o n i a d e T h e b a a n s c h e .
Gemalin van Kadmos den Phoinikiër, den
mythischen stichter van Thebai.
97C. A n a x a g o r a s . Uit Klazomenai in Lydia.
500-428. Beroemd leerling der Ionische
natuurphilosofen. Hij vestigde zich te
Athenai en werd bevriend met den kring van
Perikles. Om zijn atheïstische stellingen
werd hij, evenals later Sokrates, van
„asebeia” beschuldigd en ontkwam alleen
door Perikles’ invloed aan de doodstraf. Hij
stierf te Lampsakos. Van zijn hoofdwerk
„Over de natuur” bestaan nog slechts
fragmenten.
108D. G l a u k o s . Waarschijnlijk wordt gedoeld op
Glaukos van Chios, den uitvinder van het
soldeeren van ijzer. Zie Herodotos I 25.
118A. Wij zijn A s k l e p i o s een haan schuldig.
Het gewone offer aan den god der
geneeskunde, wanneer men van een ziekte
is hersteld.
Colofon
Duidelijke zetfouten in de originele tekst zijn verbeterd. Wisselende spelling is
gecorrigeerd. Daarnaast is aangepast:
Pagina Origineel Aangepast

5 Apollodoras Apollodoros
14 bovenal boven-al
14 daarstraks daar-straks
16 allang al-lang
20 allang al-lang
22 ten-minst tenminste
25 voorzoover voor-zoo-ver
26 wordingsovergang wordings-overgang
26 wordingsovergangen wordings-overgangen
28 methematische mathematische
30 daarstraks daar-straks
36 ons-zelven onszelven
41 een een een
42 voorzoover voor-zoo-ver
43 zonderdat zonder dat
60 mijzelf mij-zelf
61 mijzelf mij-zelf
66 mijzelf mij-zelf
88 zoo-lang zoolang
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PLATOONS
PHAIDOON ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of
this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept
and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and
may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the
terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of
the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Non Western Global Theories of International Relations 1St Edition Samantha Cooke Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non Western Global Theories of International Relations 1St Edition Samantha Cooke Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non Western Global Theories of International Relations 1St Edition Samantha Cooke Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Non-Western Global Theories of

International Relations 1st Edition

Non-Western Global Theories

More information about this series at

Palgrave Studies in International Relations

Cover illustration: Mina De La O

1 Introduction: Refocusing International Relations 1

Part I Internationalising International Relations Theory

Part II Decentralising the West: Redefining

7 Decolonising Empowerment in Africa: Illustration

Part III Changing Frameworks: Re-imagining Political

Glossary of Terms 281

Olivia Cheung is a Research Fellow at SOAS China Institute, SOAS

wants to contribute to an understanding of the ambivalent and complex

environmental and public health crises. A central theme in her research

APS Army Public School (Peshawar, Pakistan)

GNP Gross National Product

Introduction: Refocusing International

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 1

International Relations (IR) is a broad and complex field, dominated by

The way in which engagements within IR theories have developed over

What Is Non-Western Theory?

needs to be universal in scope (i.e., applying to the whole system) or can

Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state to self-govern or govern another

It is through understandings and engagements with various forms of

Such representations have been key in justifying foreign policies and

from “hidden transcripts” of resistant action of the apparently powerless’

Power has a multitude of meanings. Here it reflects to the ability to affect

Despite this, International Relations in the West, which has grown to

How to Use This Book

whilst also outlining challenges to Euro and Sino-centric cultural expla-

challenge Western notions and methods of engagement by highlighting

and experiences, the chapter repositions the concept of power, within a

photographs of these or take photos yourself and upload them to a VLE

Internationalising International Relations

Decentralising Europe: Harnessing

Tareq Sydiq and Maria Ketzmerick

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer 19

6. What similarities and differences do these spots of literature have?

1 By Global North and Global South we refer to the imaginaries of geographical,

descriptive containers, we should be able to identify concepts and ideas

What Is Theory in De-/Postcolonial IR?

Decolonising Academia and Research

Western/Non-Western Thought and Spots of Literature

Since their emergence, postcolonial and decolonial theories have had

of transition, discontinuities and change, and hybridity within the North–

However, whereas academia made great strides forward in reflecting

a different epistemological background, rooted in different power struc-

with political agendas that need to be deconstructed (‘critical’)”. This

Comparative Reading in IR Theory

Decentred Comparative Reading

The ambiguities mentioned above regarding identifying non-Western

their positionality in the non-West did indeed determine these common-

3 Mill’s method of agreement: If two or more instances of the phenomenon under

and Nihonjinron were mainly conceived during the era of decolonisa-

Nahda, Négritude, and Nihonjinron:

Self-Positioning: Who Are We in the World?

A point of departure for Nihonjinron authors was, as Aoki (1996)

Nahda has been described both as a modernisation project and a