Suchergebnisse

"Westerners on both the left and right overwhelmingly equate globalization with Westernization and presume that the global economy is a pure Western-creation. While such a conception flatters the Western ego, this book challenges it via more inclusive thinking. It reveals the multicultural origins of globalization and the global economy, not so as to marginalise the West but to show how it has long been embedded in complex interconnections and interactions with non-Western actors/agents and processes. The central empirical theme is the role of Indian structural power that was derived from Indian cotton textiles, which organised and linked the first global economy together (1500-1850) and performed a vital, albeit indirect, role in the making of modern Western industrialization and the second (modern) global economy post-1850. These textiles underpinned the complex inter-relations between Africa, West and Central/East Asia, Southeast Asia, the Americas and Europe that collectively drove global economic development forward."

1. Introduction: constructing Eurocentrism and international theory as Eurocentric construct -- I. 1760-1914: Manifest Eurocentrism and Scientific Racism in International Theory: 2. Eurocentric imperialism: liberalism and Marxism, c.1830-1914; 3. Eurocentric anti-imperialism: liberalism, c.1760-1800; 4. Racist anti-imperialism: liberalism and cultural-realism, c.1850-1914; 5. Racist imperialism: 'racist-realism', liberalism, and socialism, c.1860-1914 -- II. 1914-1945: The High Tide of Manifest Eurocentrism and the Climax of Scientific Racism: 6. Anti-imperialism and the myths of 1919: Marxist Eurocentric and racist cultural-realism, 1914-1945; 7. Racist and Eurocentric imperialism: racist-realism, racist-liberalism, and 'progressive' Eurocentric liberalism/Fabianism, 1914-1945 -- III. 1945-1989: Subliminal Eurocentrism in International Theory: 8. Orthodox subliminal Eurocentrism: from classical realism to neorealism, 1945-1989; 9. Orthodox subliminal Eurocentrism: neo-liberal institutionalism and the English school, c.1966-1989; 10. Critical subliminal Eurocentrism: Gramscianism and world-systems theory, c.1967-1989 -- IV. 1989-2010: Back to the Future of Manifest 'Eurocentrism' in Mainstream International Theory: 11. Imperialist and anti-imperialist Eurocentrism: post-1989 'Western realism' and the spiritual return to post-1889 racist-realism; 12. Imperialist Eurocentrism: post-1989 'Western-liberalism' and the return to post-1830 liberal paternalist Eurocentrism -- V. Conclusion: Mapping the Promiscuous Architecture of Eurocentrism in International Theory, 1760-2010: 13. Constructing civilization: global hierarchy, 'gradated sovereignty' and globalization in international theory, 1760-2010.

This article emerges out of the racism debate in Security Dialogue (May 2020). It takes its cue from the passing claim that Orientalism/Eurocentrism is different from racism and that the former is deemed to be relatively innocuous while the latter is viewed as egregious. Here I reveal how Eurocentrism is equivalent to cultural racism. I show how racism has outwardly shapeshifted through time in everyday life and world politics, and how orthodox international relations theory's racist trajectory has mirrored this. Since 1945, modern orthodox international relations theory has covered its racism with a non-racist mask through a sublimated discourse that focuses on cultural difference but is white racism in disguise. Unmasking modern international relations/international political economy theory exposes this sublimated racist discourse by revealing its racist double move: first, it whitewashes racism and denies its presence in the conduct of world politics and the global economy in the last three centuries, thereby providing an apologia for racist practices; second, it advances subliminal cultural-racist analytical/explanatory frameworks. I close by solving the conundrum as to how white orthodox international relations scholars who are most probably non-racist (though not anti-racist) in their personal lives embrace, albeit unwittingly, racist theories of world politics and the global economy.

AbstractThis article provides an 'engaged' introduction to this forum on Andrew Linklater's recently published book,Violence and Civilization in the Western States-Systems. I call this 'engaged' because I seek to adjudicate between the critics and Linklater's book in the hope of building a bridge over troubled water. Given that the key word that underpins many of this forum's contributions is Eurocentrism, I explore whether, and if so to what extent, Linklater's book is Eurocentric. While I too identify various Eurocentric cues, I also provide various defences for Linklater. In particular, the final section advances two definitions of Eurocentrism and anti-Eurocentrism. Although I identify elements of 'Eurocentrism I' (the elision of non-Western agency and reification of the West) in his book, Linklater might respond to the principal forum complaint that he accords little or no role to non-Western actors and processes in the Western or global civilizing process by appealing to an alternative anti-Eurocentric approach: 'anti-Eurocentrism II' (which focuses squarely on Western imperial power and ignores or heavily downplays non-Western agency). I close by critiquing his left-liberal cosmopolitan politics, arguing that his Eurocentric-universalist normative posture cannot create the kind of peaceful and harmonious world that he (and Kant) so desires.

This article deconstructs the twin 'self-delusions' of IR to reveal, first, the conventional axiom that the discipline enquires into juridically-equal sovereign state relations under international anarchy masks the dark hierarchical face of IR which promotes, defends and reifies, analytically and/or normatively, Western civilisation over non-Western states, and, second, the conventional axiom that IR operationalises a positivist and/or value-free cultural pluralism masks the dark face of Eurocentric monism that constitutes the core ideological foundation of the vast majority of IR theory. These emerge from IR theory's deployment of the twin concepts of Eurocentric hierarchy and the Eurocentric 'standard of civilisation', which yield the twin conceptions of 'formal (imperialist) hierarchy' and 'informal (anti-imperialist) hierarchy' alongside the notion of 'gradated sovereignties' in world politics. To illustrate this, the 'formal-hierarchical' conception is traced in classical English School pluralism and neorealist hegemonic stability, while the 'informal-hierarchical' conception is traced in neo-Marxism and classical English School pluralism.

This article responds to the five forum pieces that critically engage my 2012 book The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics, the central argument of which is that ever since 1760 international theory has not provided ideologically neutral, universalist explanations of world politics but has been charged, or even mandated, with the provincial objective of defending, promoting or celebrating Western civilization as the highest referent of the world. The first section defends the book's claim that pre-1945 realism was founded largely on various scientific racist bases (specifically between 1889 and 1945) – what I call 'racist realism' – while the second section defends my claim that classical realism and neorealism are not culturally neutral, universal approaches but are grounded in an underlying Western provincialism. The third section defends my reading of three pioneering figures of IR, John Burgess, Paul Reinsch and J.A. Hobson, while the fourth section reframes my non-Eurocentric reading of international theory in the last 250 years through a gendered lens so as to flesh out how gender/patriarchy and racism/Eurocentric institutionalism are mutually embedded, polymorphous discourses. Finally, the conclusion tackles the dual criticism that the book is limited by its Anglo-centric focus, on the one hand, and its situation within a critical tradition that is inherently European, if not Eurocentric, on the other.