Social Positioning and International Order Contestation in Early Modern Southeast Asia

IF 8.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Organization Pub Date : 2021-07-06 DOI:10.1017/S0020818321000321
Colin Chia
{"title":"Social Positioning and International Order Contestation in Early Modern Southeast Asia","authors":"Colin Chia","doi":"10.1017/S0020818321000321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Identities and ideas can lead to international order contestation through the efforts of international actors to socially position themselves and perform their identities. International actors try to shape the world to suit who they want to be. To substantiate this argument, I examine the contestation of international orders in early modern Southeast Asia. The prevailing view portrays a Confucian international order which formed a consensual and stable hierarchy in East Asia. However, instead of acquiescing to hegemonic leadership, both Siam and Vietnam frequently sought to assert their equality and even superiority to the Chinese dynasties. I argue that both polities engaged in political contention to define their places in relation to other polities and the broader social context in which they interacted. I examine how international order contestation emerged from efforts to define and redefine background knowledge about social positioning, social categorization, and the political ontologies and beliefs about collective purpose on which they are based. I claim that agents seek to interact with others in ways that reify their sense of self, and challenge the background knowledge embedded in performances of other actors that threaten their ability to perform their identity. I also argue against theories that attribute international order contestation to hegemonic decline or the breakdown of a tacit bargain, which assume that orders are held together by a dominant power. One implication is that hegemony and hierarchy are based on dominant ideas, not dominant states.","PeriodicalId":48388,"journal":{"name":"International Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0020818321000321","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Organization","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818321000321","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Identities and ideas can lead to international order contestation through the efforts of international actors to socially position themselves and perform their identities. International actors try to shape the world to suit who they want to be. To substantiate this argument, I examine the contestation of international orders in early modern Southeast Asia. The prevailing view portrays a Confucian international order which formed a consensual and stable hierarchy in East Asia. However, instead of acquiescing to hegemonic leadership, both Siam and Vietnam frequently sought to assert their equality and even superiority to the Chinese dynasties. I argue that both polities engaged in political contention to define their places in relation to other polities and the broader social context in which they interacted. I examine how international order contestation emerged from efforts to define and redefine background knowledge about social positioning, social categorization, and the political ontologies and beliefs about collective purpose on which they are based. I claim that agents seek to interact with others in ways that reify their sense of self, and challenge the background knowledge embedded in performances of other actors that threaten their ability to perform their identity. I also argue against theories that attribute international order contestation to hegemonic decline or the breakdown of a tacit bargain, which assume that orders are held together by a dominant power. One implication is that hegemony and hierarchy are based on dominant ideas, not dominant states.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
近代早期东南亚社会定位与国际秩序之争
抽象身份和思想可以通过国际行为者的努力来定位自己并履行自己的身份,从而导致国际秩序的争夺。国际行动者试图塑造适合自己的世界。为了证实这一论点,我考察了现代早期东南亚的国际秩序之争。主流观点描绘了一种儒家国际秩序,这种秩序在东亚形成了一种协商一致、稳定的等级制度。然而,暹罗和越南并没有默许霸权主义的领导,而是经常寻求维护他们对中国王朝的平等甚至优越性。我认为,两个政体都参与了政治争论,以确定他们与其他政体的关系,以及他们互动的更广泛的社会背景。我研究了国际秩序之争是如何从定义和重新定义关于社会定位、社会分类的背景知识,以及它们所基于的关于集体目的的政治本体论和信念的努力中产生的。我声称,特工试图以具体化自我意识的方式与他人互动,并挑战其他演员表演中嵌入的背景知识,这些知识威胁到他们表演身份的能力。我还反对将国际秩序之争归因于霸权衰落或默契交易破裂的理论,这些理论认为秩序是由一个主导大国维系的。其中一个含义是,霸权和等级制度是建立在主导思想的基础上的,而不是主导国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
1.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: International Organization (IO) is a prominent peer-reviewed journal that comprehensively covers the field of international affairs. Its subject areas encompass foreign policies, international relations, political economy, security policies, environmental disputes, regional integration, alliance patterns, conflict resolution, economic development, and international capital movements. Continuously ranked among the top journals in the field, IO does not publish book reviews but instead features high-quality review essays that survey new developments, synthesize important ideas, and address key issues for future scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Foreign Policy Appointments Resources and Territorial Claims: Domestic Opposition to Resource-Rich Territory Violent Competition and Terrorist Restraint The Future Is History: Restorative Nationalism and Conflict in Post-Napoleonic Europe Security, Society, and the Perennial Struggles over the Sacred: Revising the Wars of Religion in International Relations Theory
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1