Decentralizing International Relations: myths, multiple centers and knowledge production

Abstract

International Relations has been developed on a set of well-known narrative myths. On the one hand, there is the formal beginning of the discipline in 1919, its universal character, the organization of theoretical discussions around four great debates, and the recent end of great theories. On the other hand, there is the formation of the international system based on sovereign states, its anarchic condition, the difference between the international sphere and domestic politics, and the distancing of the social world characterized by situations of class, race, and gender. These components constitute the core of the standard Western narrative on which the discipline is based.

Some critics of Western and Westphalian centrism in International Relations have emerged with increasing frequency in the literature, making themselves explicit in numerous evaluations drawn up within the framework of the supposed centenary of the discipline. However, due to the predominantly Anglo-Saxon character of the discipline, these debates have not equally spread over the Spanish-speaking academy. Recognizing this pending challenge, this article intends to organize some of the recent discussions on the subject and to incorporate some considerations about the main conditions of knowledge production in the International Relations field. To do this, it is based on the premise of the imposition of the dominant academic and intellectual Atlantic order (Arenal, 2004).

To achieve the proposed objectives, tools of qualitative methodology are used. Specific and recent bibliography related to discussions in the discipline, dedicated to question the foundations of International Relations and their current challenges, is reviewed. Moreover, some relevant approaches to the main components of the standard Western narrative, the central core of the discipline's mainstream, are systematized. In turn, the recent theoretical contributions of Acharya (2012) and Rosenberg (2016) are introduced, which propose alternative categories to define "the international". From these elements, reflections are made on issues related to the geopolitics of knowledge and the production networks of the center and the peripheries. Thus, the article is divided into three sections.

The first section problematizes the traditional history of International Relations. To begin with, it claims that its international explanatory vocation has not triggered a global disciplinary development, due, in part, to the great influence of the United States. Then, it questions its supposed starting points: the so-called Peace of Westphalia, in 1648, and the creation of the first university chair on the subject, after the end of the First World War, in 1919; likewise, its focus on the ideas of power, state, sovereignty, anarchy, order, the behavior of the great powers and the importance of the security agenda. These key exclusion criteria have ignored both realities and processes external to Europe, as well as previous and more complex theoretical approaches. For this reason, we point out some debates developed at least forty years earlier regarding imperialism, race, and trade. In addition, the asymmetric distribution of power, hierarchy, status quo, and other relevant situations of international inequality typical of the social world are exhibited. Finally, the traditional story built around the four great theoretical debates, successive, and with winners and losers, is analyzed. This narrative makes other theoretical proposals that were developed in parallel invisible, presents artificial dialogues, and proposes a misconception about the advancement of science.

The second section of the article presents two theoretical proposals alternative to this narrative. To do this, it ascribes to the idea that International Relations is both a divisive disciplinary field (Holsti, 1985) and the result of a process of fragmentation and segmentation, which generated "camps" (Sylvester, 2007). On the one hand, Amitav Acharya's idea of "Global International Relations" is introduced, which aims to establish a critical dialogue with the dominant theories, instead of rejecting them. In this line, he proposes perspectives that he considers pluralistic, inclusive, and respectful of the diversity and the specificity of the regions. In particular, he wonders how ideas that arise in different geographic spaces and times can be both enduring and applicable to other contexts. Then, some criticisms of said proposal are presented synthetically. In addition, Justin Rosenberg's focus on “multiplicity” is examined. The author denounces the transfer of political theory to the field of international politics, with the characterization of the absence of a central power as differentiating. Consistently, he notes the lack of an exclusive discipline goal, a special province. To meet this challenge, he understands the international as a particular historical form of multiplicity, which involves the social world and reconnects International Relations with the broader field of social science.

Finally, the third section argues that the disciplinary field of International Relations is a scientific field in dispute. With this, the analysis incorporates the dimension of the geopolitics of knowledge, which has central and peripheral networks. In this sense, we claim that we have to ask ourselves about the conditions of production of the central concepts, and the consequences that it has entailed for the development of the discipline. Linked to the topic, the article reflects on the concentration of theory production in the Anglo-Saxon world and a few places in Europe (Tickner and Wæver, 2019). Similarly, it is pointed out that Acharya and Rosenberg do not distance themselves from a positivist ontology, since they do not recognize the power relations intrinsic to the production, validation, and visibility of knowledge.

The main motivation that guides this article is to contribute to decentralizing and expanding International Relations, by questioning some important components of the standard Western narrative and organizing different approaches linked to the process of disciplinary self-reflexivity. In addition, it focuses on the contributions and limits of some highly influential current theoretical perspectives. Finally, it incorporates the dimension of knowledge geopolitics and the existence of central and peripheral networks, crucial to a better understanding of the future of the discipline, and the role of the Spanish-speaking academy.

To sum up, decentralizing International Relations calls for questioning ourselves about complex issues of theoretical, ontological, and epistemological dimensions. The article considers that, without the founding myths, the discipline becomes weaker, but, at the same time, more honest and real. Taking this challenge into account, it proposes to ask ourselves: how is the world understood? And furthermore, how can the identity of International Relations be built within the framework of its second centenary?