Global IR Research Programme: From Perplexities to Progressions

IF 0.7 Q3 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS All Azimuth-A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace Pub Date : 2023-06-12 DOI:10.20991/allazimuth.1331851
Deepshika Shahi̇
{"title":"Global IR Research Programme: From Perplexities to Progressions","authors":"Deepshika Shahi̇","doi":"10.20991/allazimuth.1331851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our basic expectations vis-à-vis ‘the international’ have turned our phenomenal \nexistence into two seemingly irreconcilable cognitive prisons: ‘one world’ with \nhomogenizing propensities (dominated by the West) and ‘many worlds’ with \nheterogenizing predispositions (embodied by the non-West). Every so often, these \ncognitive prisons—oscillating between the extreme homogenizing propensities of \nthe West and heterogenizing predispositions of the non-West— become obstacles \nin implementing effective global partnerships that are required to tackle the \nchallenges thrown by global crisis-situations, e.g., the likelihoods of world \nwar, financial crisis, climate change, pandemic, and the like. The agenda of \nthe ‘Global IR research programme’ has emerged to demolish these cognitive \nprisons. To this end, this agenda finds rational support from multiple auxiliary \ntheories that derive stimulus from hitherto denigrated knowledge-forms thriving \nin different corners of the world: e.g., Tianxia (all-under-heaven) from China, \nAdvaita (non-duality) from India, and Mu No Basho (place of nothingness) from \nJapan. Nevertheless, the conditioned reflexes of many IR researchers compel \nthem to receive the emergent knowledge-forms by correlating their ‘source’ and \n‘scope’: generally, the knowledge-forms having their source in the West are \ngranted a global scope, whereas the knowledge-forms having their source in the \nnon-West are given a local scope; it is often suspected that the local non-Western \nknowledge-forms cannot grasp the larger global scenario. Philosophically, these \nconditioned reflexes emanate from Kantian dualism, which forms disconnected \nopposites of phenomena-noumena, science-metaphysics, West–non-West etc. This \narticle reveals how the Global IR research programme—inspired by the Chinese, \nIndian and Japanese cosmovisions—strives to demolish the cognitive prisons of \n‘one world versus many worlds’, thereby ensuring the prospective progressions \nof this research programme.","PeriodicalId":51976,"journal":{"name":"All Azimuth-A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"All Azimuth-A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.1331851","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Our basic expectations vis-à-vis ‘the international’ have turned our phenomenal existence into two seemingly irreconcilable cognitive prisons: ‘one world’ with homogenizing propensities (dominated by the West) and ‘many worlds’ with heterogenizing predispositions (embodied by the non-West). Every so often, these cognitive prisons—oscillating between the extreme homogenizing propensities of the West and heterogenizing predispositions of the non-West— become obstacles in implementing effective global partnerships that are required to tackle the challenges thrown by global crisis-situations, e.g., the likelihoods of world war, financial crisis, climate change, pandemic, and the like. The agenda of the ‘Global IR research programme’ has emerged to demolish these cognitive prisons. To this end, this agenda finds rational support from multiple auxiliary theories that derive stimulus from hitherto denigrated knowledge-forms thriving in different corners of the world: e.g., Tianxia (all-under-heaven) from China, Advaita (non-duality) from India, and Mu No Basho (place of nothingness) from Japan. Nevertheless, the conditioned reflexes of many IR researchers compel them to receive the emergent knowledge-forms by correlating their ‘source’ and ‘scope’: generally, the knowledge-forms having their source in the West are granted a global scope, whereas the knowledge-forms having their source in the non-West are given a local scope; it is often suspected that the local non-Western knowledge-forms cannot grasp the larger global scenario. Philosophically, these conditioned reflexes emanate from Kantian dualism, which forms disconnected opposites of phenomena-noumena, science-metaphysics, West–non-West etc. This article reveals how the Global IR research programme—inspired by the Chinese, Indian and Japanese cosmovisions—strives to demolish the cognitive prisons of ‘one world versus many worlds’, thereby ensuring the prospective progressions of this research programme.
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
全球IR研究计划:从困惑到进步
我们对-à-vis“国际”的基本期望已经把我们的现象性存在变成了两个看似不可调和的认知监狱:具有同质化倾向的“一个世界”(由西方主导)和具有异质化倾向的“多个世界”(由非西方体现)。在西方极端的同质化倾向和非西方的异质化倾向之间摇摆不定的认知桎梏,经常成为实施有效的全球伙伴关系的障碍,而全球伙伴关系是应对全球危机局势所带来的挑战所必需的,例如,世界大战、金融危机、气候变化、流行病等的可能性。“全球IR研究计划”的议程已经出现,以摧毁这些认知监狱。为此,这一议程从多种辅助理论中找到了合理的支持,这些理论从迄今为止在世界不同角落蓬勃发展的被贬低的知识形式中获得刺激:例如,中国的天下(天下),印度的非二元性(非二元性),日本的无物Basho(虚无之地)。然而,许多IR研究人员的条件反射迫使他们通过关联“来源”和“范围”来接受新兴的知识形式:通常,来源在西方的知识形式被赋予全球范围,而来源在非西方的知识形式被赋予局部范围;人们常常怀疑当地的非西方知识形式无法把握更大的全球情景。在哲学上,这些条件反射源于康德的二元论,这种二元论形成了现象-本体、科学-形而上学、西方-非西方等不连贯的对立面。本文揭示了受中国、印度和日本世界观启发的全球IR研究项目如何努力打破“一个世界对多个世界”的认知禁锢,从而确保该研究项目的未来发展。
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
1.80
自引率
30.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: All Azimuth is a bi-annual journal that provides a forum for academic studies on foreign policy analysis and peace research as well as theoretically-oriented policy pieces on international issues. We particularly welcome research on the nexus of peace, security, and development. We aim to publish pieces bridging the theory-practice gap; dealing with under-represented conceptual approaches in the field; and engaging in scholarly dialogue between the “center” and the “periphery”. We strongly encourage, therefore, publications with homegrown theoretical and philosophical approaches. In this sense, All Azimuth aims to transcend conventional theoretical, methodological, geographical, academic and cultural boundaries. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial evaluation by the Editor. If found suitable for further consideration, manuscripts will be assessed through double-blind peer-review by independent, anonymous experts. All Azimuth is published by the Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research, a non-profit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to helping develop agendas and promote policies that contribute to the peaceful resolution of international and inter-communal conflicts taking place particularly in the regions surrounding Turkey.
期刊最新文献
Turkish Foreign Policy Towards Central Asia: An Unfolding of Regionalism and Soft Power Quo Vadis, Turkish IR? Mapping Turkish IR’s Footsteps within the Global From Prescription to Treatment: The Disciplinary (under)Achievement of IR in Turkey Frozen in Time while Icebergs are Melting: Türkiye's Climate Policy Neo-Weberian Reading of Violent Non-State Actors: The Case of Hezbollah
×
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