An IR for the Global South Or a Global IR? Amitav Acharya

GUEST EDITORIAL An IR for the Global South or a Global IR? Amitav Acharya The field of international relations (IR) is Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for witnessing growing efforts to challenge International Studies, ISQ, 58:4, 2014), Western centrism and give more space and transcends categories such as non-Western voice to the Global South. These efforts are and post-Western IR. It argues that the happening under a variety of labels, such as, discourse about the future of IR should involve but not limited to, non-Western IR, post- multiple but overlapping conversations. It Western IR, Global IR, etc. should not be an exclusive discourse within the To be sure, attempts to “bring the Global South community of scholars, but a Global South in” by highlighting and dialogue among different theoretical and generalizing from its contexts and challenges epistemological approaches. It should not run are not new. One could think of several parallel to other debates about the future of IR, examples, with Dependency theory and, but intersect with them. Discourses that view somewhat later, Postcolonialism being two of the Global South or regions like East Asia as the most prominent approaches. But recent distinct and different often turn inward and as efforts have been broader and targeted the it participants draw comfort from each other entire discipline of IR, especially its major without making much impact on the theories and concepts. And they have brought mainstream IR scholars. in a wider range of theoretical perspectives Global IR calls for theoretical and than Marxism and Postcolonialism, including epistemological pluralism and eclecticism, Constructivism (Acharya), English School across the mainstream-critical theory divide. (Buzan) and even some realists (e.g. The aim is to end the exclusion and Mohammed Ayoob’s Subaltern Realism”). marginalization of the Global South with the But labels overlap and can be help of a variety of approaches. This does not confusing. Does post-Western subsume or mean leaving mainstream theories such as exclude pre-Western or premodern, or pre- Realism, Liberalism and some forms of Westphalian histories and institutions? Are the Constructivism as is, but challenging them to distinctions between West and non-West shed their ethnocentrism and become more meaningful? (They are increasingly blurred, inclusive. but alas, the major IR theories are yet to reflect To be sure, there are issues that are of this) What is the difference between “non- special concern to the Global South. Such Western” and “post-Western”? I cannot speak issues might include under/development, for “post-Western”, but “non-Western” IR regionalism, gender, human security etc. But Theory (NWIRT), when it was first advanced in these issues have received attention from both 2007, called for making critical advances to mainstream and critical IR literature, albeit in existing IR theories with the infusion of the different ways. One notable exception is race ideas, voices and experiences from the Global which has been ignored or studied in a highly South (China included). But it did not call for superficial way in the mainstream literature, displacing or supplanting existing IR often in a patronizing manner. In some cases, knowledge and theories. Displacement is both as with race and women, their study by impractical and undesirable. I am not sure how Western scholars had led to what I have called far a “post-Western” IR Theory would seek neo-marginalization. such displacement. There may be other issues out there that are so unique or distinctive to the Avoiding Parallelism and Embracing economic, political and security predicament Pluralism of the Global South as to deserve special In the meantime, the idea of Global IR, as attention. But creating a separate school to outlined and developed during the 2015 ISA study them may be unhelpful and unnecessary. Presidential Year (Acharya, “Global IR and For one thing, the existing IR theories are Indonesian Journal of International Studies (IJIS) 175 AMITAV ACHARYA neither uniform nor unchanging when it comes years of history during which the West has to reflecting and addressing the more specific been the dominant element. But if they study concerns of the Global South. Some IR from the vantage point of civilizations, then mainstream scholars (rather than the theories they have 5000 years of history to play with, they identify with) in the West continue to out of which Westphalianism/Western resist such broadening, but the theories dominance is but a brief period. themselves are not a closed shop when it comes The place of history in Global South to engaging with the issues and challenges scholarship is rather uneven. When one talks of facing the Global South. Latin American or African voices in IR, the At the same time, I believe that Global emphasis seems to be on colonial and post- South scholarship should not limit itself to colonial, rather than precolonial history (or studying Global South issues, or issues that are pre-Columbian, although the latter term kind of special concern to the states and peoples of of obscures the general comparability aspect of the Global South. In a globalized and Multiplex Western colonialism). The focus is on World, it is increasingly difficult to draw any contemporary marginalization, not discovery, sharp lines between Northern and Southern if not recovery of their alternative pasts. This issues. Global South scholars should cast their creates an ethnocentrism within the Global net widely and comprehensively. The challenge South, or a kind of self-marginalization. This is to forge an inclusive global dialogue. needs to change. I have not seen much attempt by scholars whether from the Americas (North, Second Generation Challenges Central and South) or elsewhere to In developing such a paradigm of Global IR, it conceptualize from pre-Colombian history, is no longer enough to say that the IR suffers including Maya, Inca, etc. This is in marked from Western centrism. Nor is it enough to say contrast to the efforts by scholars to bring that we should develop concepts and theories Chinese and Indian civilizational history into from non-Western history and practice. These IR. first generation efforts have run their course. Last but not the least, efforts to The second generation challenge for those who develop a more inclusive discipline of IR, while want to move IR forward by bringing the attracting new scholars and generating Global South “in” is to demonstrate that research at the higher levels, is yet to filter concepts and theories derived from the non- down to the level of basic undergraduate Western context can also apply beyond that textbooks. There is yet to be an undergraduate specific national or regional context from textbook which reflects the global heritage and which they are initially derived. This is scope of the discipline. The most popular texts especially a challenge for the Chinese and other remain stubbornly Westphalic, and with such Schools of IR that are now emerging. limited exceptions (more in Europe than in the While helpful to the task of pluralizing IR, they US), pay lip-service to non-Western histories, seem preoccupied with demonstrating how voices and perspectives. To remove this bias in existing IR theories fail to apply to their teaching undergraduates in IR is an urgent nations or regions, but end up offering need but no easy task, because of the near “alternative” understandings and approaches hegemony of a few textbook publishers in the that do not travel beyond their nations and West. This is perhaps where groups like WISC regions. and regional and national associations can play Another key challenge is to bring more a meaningful role, provided they look past history and civilizations into the Global South national or regional exceptionalisms and IR scholarship. I begin my First Year Seminar interact with each other and along with the at American University, entitled “Civilizations larger community of Western and non- and World Orders: An Introduction to Global Western scholars that is concerned with the International Relations,” by telling the Global South. The shared task is not to build an students that if they study IR from with the IR for the Global South but a Global IR. nation-state as the basic point of reference, they are dealing with at most 500 hundred 176 IJIS Vol.2, No.2, Desember 2015 GUEST EDITORIAL *Amitav Acharya saat ini menjabat sebagai ketua Transnational Challenges and Governance di UNESCO, menjabat sebagai ketua ASEAN Studies Initiative, dan juga merupakan seorang Profesor di bidang Hubungan Internasional di School of International Service, American University, Washington D.C.. Amitav adalah penulis dari buku berjudul Whose Ideas Matter? (Cornell 2009), The Making of Southeast Asia (Cornell 2013), Rethinking Power, Institutions and Ideas in World Politics (Routledge 2013) dan The End of American World Order (Polity 2014, Oxford 2015). ** Tulisan ini juga dapat dilihat di laman E- International Relations dengan judul An IR for the Global South or a Global IR? Oleh Amitav Acharya (21 Oktober 2015) di tautan: http://www.e-ir.info/2015/10/21/an-ir-for- the-global-south-or-a-global-ir/ Indonesian Journal of International Studies (IJIS) 177 AMITAV ACHARYA 178 IJIS Vol.2, No.2, Desember 2015 .

Load more