Andreas Herberg-Rothe ([email protected]) Towards a theory of mutual recognition in IR1 Draft for my presentation at the ISA Asia-Pacific conference, Hong Kong 25.-27. June 2016 Do not circulate or quote without the explicit permission of the author 1. Introduction In the wake of globalization, many pundits articulated whether the theoretical concepts developed from the era of nation states (Ulrich Beck) are still tenable for the portrayal of the twenty-first century international relations. Furthermore, many concepts regarded as central in the IRT came to be perceived as a form of American political and social science. Given the absence or non-maturity of Chinese, Russian, African, Islamic, or Indian IRTs, the mainstream IRT originated almost exclusively from the Anglo-Saxon world. Although at the beginning in the 90th of last century, globalization was also seen as an American enterprise it led to the “rise of the others” (Zakaria) or a multicomplex world (a slight modification of Acharya’s concept – Acharya 2014 a) of nation-states and global institutions, enterprises and NGOs. This comprises the two following macro-developments: 1. Globalization enabled the former great empires (China, Russia, or India) to reestablish their status as major powers and civilizations and also led many developing countries (Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa) to increase their voices; this development led to the rise of multiple centers of power with different layers across the world. 2. Globalization additionally dissolved traditional identities and forms of government (to some degree as a result of social inequality), which led to social fragmentation and re- ideologization of domestic conflicts, as already can be observed with respect to the rise of the Islamic State. The conclusion is that the role of ideologies was not over 1 I’m very grateful to Key-young Son’s (Seoul), who worked with me so closely together in the last years, to Miriam Förstle, my research assistant, who was essential in commenting, writing and discussion and for the intensive dialogue with my student Marzie Ghiasi. Nevertheless, all remaining faults are only my own. with the end of the twenty century or the advent of globalization, but that it changed from modern to post-modern ideologies. The rise of post-modern ideologies is the result of globalization as well as the denial of recognition to the great civilizations of the world (see Herberg-Rothe and Son 2016). The rise of the others and the ideological segmentation of societies due to globalization mainly led to intensified struggles for recognition in the national and international spheres (see Terhalle 2015 on the problem of mutual recognition between the United States and China). For instance, China’s foreign policy has been perceived in the United States through the lens of the U.S.’s own understanding of international relations, and vice versa. As to China’s rise, it is of paramount importance whether it will be socialized into the Westphalian system of states, a position, which Hilary Clinton has been advocating, or whether it will act according to its own principles and values as a civilization. In order to deal with struggles for recognition constructively, it is essential for both sides to fully recognize how “the other” understands the contemporary world. This development contributed already to the questioning of the validity of established IRT concepts and the introduction of non-Western conceptions in order to understand better the global dynamic and worldwide conflicts as well as struggles for recognition. The future task of global IR does not lie in just furthering the understanding of international relations, but according to Amitav Acharya about how to ensure the global recognition of difference and plurality, given the emergence of various new actors and institutions. As Amitav Acharya emphasized, “Global IR is about recognizing and respecting diversity, not creating homogeneity or universality.”(Acharya 2014 b) But the main problem in a globalized world is going much further in order to differentiate between those social practices in the great civilizations of the earth, which could, should and must be recognized – and those which cannot. Recognition in IRT The discipline of IRT is still mainly an American enterprise and does not reflect the voices, experiences and thinking of the vast majority of mankind and might be viewed to some extend as an American social Science, despite the progress made so far to develop approaches which are rooted in local or regional experiences (Acharya 2015). Area studies and local approaches are viewed as exotic with no or minor relevance for the discipline in general. Although there are different achievements (Katzenstein, Acharya), they are not able yet to bridge the gap between dominant Western IRT and local and regional approaches. This schism is embodied in different kinds of exceptionalism, may it be a kind of eurocentrism or ethnocentrisms, of the “West against the Rest” or the “Rest against the West”. In order to bridge this gap various authors have developed the idea of pluralistic universalisms. In sharp critique of the universalism of the enlightenment, which is viewed as generalizing of only values, norms and interests of a single, the Western civilization – and was very often pursued in an extreme violent way – a pluralistic universalism would be able to incorporate the variety of the world’s civilizations and view their different practices, values and approaches, not as an obstacle to a world civilization, but just to the reverse, as an expression of the richness and fruitfulness of the civilizations of the world. In Acharya’s view, such a pluralistic universalism would be an alternative to monolithic universalism of only one civilization as well as cultural relativism (Acharya 2014 b). Although we could agree that pluralistic universalism is a meaningful concept to counter all kinds of exceptionalism of one’s own cultures, it does not solve the problem of differentiating itself from cultural relativism. So, in trying to develop a global IRT the task is not only to differentiate the new approach from the mere Western approach, but also from cultural relativism. It can be even assumed, that area studies, local and regional schools will only be able to bridge the gap between the West and the” Rest” and also with similar importance within the “Rest”, when they can distinguish their approach from cultural relativism. We assume that constructivism, de-constructivism and critical theory have their strength in rejecting a monistic universalism, but fail in differentiating themselves from all kinds of cultural relativism. In order to cope with these problems we propose the three intertwined concepts of a floating balance of contrasts according to Clausewitz, the understanding of recognition in Clausewitz and Hegel and finally harmony in the approach of Confucius, but not as mere hierarchical societal relation. In between the contrasts of monolithic universalism and cultural relativism these three concepts are designed to initiate an epistemological process based on the idea of self-transgressing, development, nevertheless not of a single identity, as in Hegel’s approach, but of the contrasts of real life and finally a new ontological world view. By beginning with the floating balance we advance to mutual recognition and enable a new identity as a further developed Confucian harmony, this process may be capable to avoid the traps of monolithic universality as well as cultural relativism. Different approaches Since the peace of Westphalia, the mainstream IRTs viewed international relations as a kind of a billiard game and variations within the IRTs were associated with a different understanding of the billiard game. For example, realism is concerned with mutual repulsion and enmity, whereas liberal institutionalism emphasizes attraction and competition. The bureaucratic politics models emphasize that the billiard balls are driven by the forces within society and so forth. The East Asian understanding of international and global affairs rejects the compartmentalization of IRTs and adopts a holistic approach. Particularly, they differ over the relationship between center and periphery, thus envisioning the various layers and circles of relationship between center and periphery. In this way, the East Asian civilization provides the foundation for a peaceful coexistence between center and periphery. Such an understanding would enable different actors to co-exist on different layers and circles around the center. One could say that in Chinese approaches the concept of harmony is paramount, in Islam theory the concept of justice, in Western approaches that of symmetrical relations, in Persian civilizations that of a particular illumination, in Indian that of gradations. Our approaches are grounded in liminality as a reflection of the contemporary world besieged by ambiguity or disorientation after the collapse of the post-Cold War order. It remains to be decided in the future whether the West is in decline, or whether the “Rest” is just catching up. The West may be in an irreversible but relative decline, but the new powers have yet to hold a hegemonic status. At this moment, we propose such ideas as the Clausewitzian floating balance and the Confucian harmony as ways to find a form of linkage or “connectivity” (Paraq Khanna in his new book) between various Western and East Asian methodologies. The Confucian notions of harmony are deeply associated with hierarchy and good governance, whereas the Clausewitzian floating balance centers on how to forge a dynamic and developing equilibrium between contrasts. Beyond Western rationality as well as “critical” constructivism Assuming that the rise of the others and the rest is the predominant and overall tendency in the twenty-first century, the task of IRT is to find ways how the West and the Rest can live together, after the pitfalls of colonialization, European-American hegemony as well as the failed attempts, either to merely imitate Western modernity or the total rejection of it.