Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2020
As an academic discipline, International Relations (IR) has built its meta-theoretical foundations upon various dualistic meta-narratives (e.g., identity v. difference, center v. periphery, civilization v. barbarism, and so on) and the Newtonian mechanics that pursues linear causation, treating global politics as a closed system of discrete, atomistic actors where their linear inputs are supposed to produce linear outputs. Against this backdrop, this article examines the efforts made by two leading scholars of the Chinese School of IR (hereafter Chinese School), Zhao Tingyang and Qin Yaqing, whose works claim to be informed by Confucianism. In order to see whether and how far Confucian cosmology has served as an alternative meta-theoretical resource to theorize global politics differently. While the potential (and limits) of Confucian cosmology may deserve further exploration in IR, this article finds that it does not constitute the meta-theoretical backbone of their respective theo...
China and International Theory, 2019
China and International Theory: The Balance of Relationships 1st Edition Chih-yu Shih et al. Summary Major IR theories, which stress that actors will inevitably only seek to enhance their own interests, tend to contrive binaries of self and other and ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. By contrast, this book recognizes the general need of all to relate, which they do through various imagined resemblances between them. The authors of this book therefore propose the ‘balance of relationships’ (BoR) as a new international relations theory to transcend binary ways of thinking. BoR theory differs from mainstream IR theories owing to two key differences in its epistemological position. Firstly, the theory explains why and how states as socially-interrelated actors inescapably pursue a strategy of self-restraint in order to join a network of stable and long-term relationships. Secondly, owing to its focus on explaining bilateral relations, BoR theory bypasses rule-based governance. By positing ‘relationality’ as a key concept of Chinese international relations, this book shows that BoR can also serve as an important concept in the theorization of international relations, more broadly. The rising interest in developing a Chinese school of IR means the BoR theory will draw attention from students of IR theory, comparative foreign policy, Chinese foreign policy, East Asia, cultural studies, post-Western IR, post-colonial studies and civilizational politics. Table of Contents Introduction: Relating China to International Relations Part 1: Balance of Relationships 1. Relationality vs. Power Politics 2. Relational Policy of Small States 3. Relational Policy of Major Powers Part 2: Philosophical Resources 4. Relational Ontology 5. Buddhist State of Nature 6. Cyclical Perspective on History Part 3. Processes of BoR 7. Cultural Memory 8. Psychological Efficacy 9. Institutional Style Part 4. Identities of the Theory 10. Plausible Post-Western Theory 11. Plausible Chinese Theory 12. Plausible Western Theory In Lieu of Conclusion. Four Caveats Preface During the development of the balance of relationships (BoR) as simultaneously a theory undergirding an international system and a strategic agency, we face the challenge of engaging in and contributing to two major dialogues at the same time––international relations theory in general and the relational turn in particular. Further complicating this challenge is the fact that the second dialogue involves a readership across the Anglosphere and the Sinosphere, with both spheres similarly focusing on why and how relations are necessary in international relations but from different cultural backgrounds. In this light, our intension is for our theory to transcend the familiar binaries of China and the West, great and small powers, rationality and relationality, as well as those reflecting political rivalries. Nevertheless, our prime purpose is to illustrate how Chinese intellectual resources can enhance the understanding of international relations and foreign policy practices everywhere. Through doing so, we hope to tackle the misreading and misconstruction of Chinese international relations. Consequently, our writing seeks to construct bridges across seemingly incongruent epistemological traditions. This book accordingly offers a composite agenda comparing and reconciling relational imaginations of different kinds through the notion of the balance of relationships. We have opted to focus mainly on unpacking the concepts, ideas and epistemology that undergird BoR theory. Thus, we took out extensive case chapters. Nevertheless, we rely on examples to scope out its potential application to make sense of real-world phenomena that familiar IR theories struggle to explain. Such a double-headed mission complicates not only the writing but also the coordination among authors. I am grateful to my eight younger colleagues who fearlessly agreed to join the collective writing of this book, which trespasses multiple fields and critically moves outside familiar scopes of thinking. Our professional teaching spreads over the disciplines of political science, postcolonial studies, modern Chinese history, intellectual history, philosophy, East Asian and Chinese studies, and ethnic studies. In terms of nationality, we come from Japan, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Thailand. We have received doctoral training or taught in Australia, China, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands, Thailand, Taiwan, the UK, and the US for extensive periods respectively in our careers. All these factors meant parallel and long processes of negotiation and coordination. However, as the existence of this work now shows, in the end we managed to merge all these diverse perspectives together and establish our own balance of relationships among ourselves. We realize that it is unconventional to have nine coauthors as opposed to nine authors of separate chapters. I rather enjoyed the processes of cooperation and coordination, however. As I have always initiated the idea and the writing of a chapter, my coauthors joined at different points upon my invitation and yet inevitably contributed across the writing of different chapters. We interacted intensively. At least four of us participated in finalizing all chapters. Relying on our other collaborative projects or workshops, I was able to improvise meetings with coauthors every once in a while over the past few years. The major sponsor for the writing of the book was nevertheless a three-year writing grant I received from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan from 2014 through 2017. A few summer and winter camps specifically contrived to introduce the balance of relationships to younger generations were organized in the Center of International China Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the Division of Area Studies at the University of Tokyo, the Department of Political Science of National Taiwan University, and the Institute of International Relations of Shanghai Tongji University. With the support of the editors of the Worlding the West Series of Routledge and the publication of this book, we wish to engender likewise passion in the Anglosphere to reflect upon China and international theory in even more comprehensive and sophisticated ways. Chih-yu Shih Author(s) Bio Chih-yu Shih, the primary author of this book, teaches international relations theory, anthropology of Knowledge, and cultural studies as National Chair Professor and University Chair Professor at National Taiwan University. Access to his current research—Intellectual History of China and Chinese Studies—is at http://www.china-studies.taipei/ Together, his writings on IR theory, intellectual history, and ethnic citizenship challenge familiar social science and humanity categories. His co-authors—Chiung-chiu Huang (National Cheng-chi University), Pichamon Yeophantong (University of New South Wales, Canberra), Raoul Bunskoek (National Taiwan University), Josuke Ikeda (Toyama University), Yih Jye Jay Hwang (Leiden University), Hung-jen Wang (National Cheng-Kung University), Chih-yun Chang (Shanghai Jiaotong University), and Ching-chang Chen (Ryukoku University)—have all published critically on Asia in IR in general and on China, Japan, Taiwan and ASEAN in specific. They have come cross each other through different joint projects involving critical IR, post-Western IR, homegrown IR, global IR, Asian IR and Chinese IR. Their careers include professional posts in India, Germany, Thailand, Japan, the US, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Australia, and China. Chiung-chiu Huang is Associate Professor at the Graduate Institute of East Asian Studies, National Chengchi University, Taiwan. Pichamon Yeophantong is Senior Lecturer at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of New South Wales at the Australian Defence Force Academy, Australia. Raoul Bunskoek is a Ph. D candidate in the Department of Political Science at National Taiwan University, Taiwan. Josuke Ikeda is Associate Professor at the Faculty of Human Development, University of Toyama, Japan. Jay Yih-Jye Hwang is Assistant Professor at Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, Leiden University College, The Netherlands Hung-jen Wang is Associate Professor at Department of Political Science, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan. Chih-yun Chang is a Research Fellow at the Department of History, Shanghai Jiaotong University, China. Ching-chang Chen is Associate Professor at Department of Global Studies, Ryokoku University, Japan. Routledge April 8, 2019 Reference - 320 Pages - 3 B/W Illustrations ISBN 9781138390508 - CAT# K399572 Series: Worlding Beyond the West
Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 2018
In comparison with Confucian ethics, Confucian political philosophy has been significantly understudied in the contemporary scholarship. Part of the explanation for this fact is a common (mis)perception that ancient Confucianism has little, if any, to contribute to contemporary political philosophy, which is connected with a related (mis)perception that Confucianism is essentially an ethical theory, lacking a corresponding political vision. The so-called political philosophy in Confucianism is nothing but ethics for those particular individuals who happen to be rulers. These (mis)perceptions are now seriously challenged. A significant number of scholars have done serious work to bring the ancient Confucian tradition to bear on many important and urgent social and political issues we are facing today, often through engaging dialogues with contemporary Western political philosophers. The result is a fast-growing literature of a very high quality, in the form of not only journal articles and book chapters but also of monographs in the field of Confucian political philosophy. This volume is a partial reflection on contemporary Confucian political philosophy. This chapter, as an Introduction, aims to provide an overview of the state of the field, followed by outlines of the chapters that follow.
Dialogues in Human Geography, 2021
This commentary reviews the arguments made in An et al.'s 'Towards a Confucian Geopolitics'. Particularly, I consider An et al.'s main claim that a form of strategic and/or 'hybrid Confucianism' has played a significant role in the construction of contemporary Chinese geopolitics. While I accept aspects of this argument, this commentary also raises further theoretical and empirical issues that are immanent within the work. I draw attention to: (1) concerns relating to the historical narrative constructed by the authors; (2) problematics relating to the recent diversity of contemporary Confucian discourse; and (3) questions relating to the geographies of Confucianism.
Asian Philosophy, 2022
n the final decades of the 20th century, the majority of modern Sinophone scholars believed that Confucianism was an outdated and obsolete ideology that was not only unsuitable for the development of modern science and democratic societies, but also responsible for the deep social and political crisis that had branded China for the previous two centuries. Modern New Confucians, however, never assumed that the Confucian system was responsible for such a situation. Most of them believed that Confucianism was compatible with science and democracy. Moreover, the majority of them assumed that the East Asian cultures would never be able to develop truly democratic structures of their societies unless they incorporated the appropriate elements of their own, i.e. Confucian, traditions. This paper critically analyses the theoretical models of Tang Junyi and Mou Zongsan on the possible revival and development of Confucian proto-democracies.
International Communication of Chinese Culture, 2020
The article studies the image of Guan Zhong, a historical figurehead from the Spring and Autumn period China, in East Asian Confucian discourse on humaneness (ren 仁, "benevolence") and related political questions. It traces the development of Confucian discourse on Guan Zhong from its beginnings in the Analects of Confucius and in the thought of his later disciple Mencius, to later discourses on humaneness in Chinese, Joseon Korean and Tokugawa Japanese Confucian thought. In so doing, it establishes a comparative perspective of how Guan Zhong's humaneness (or inhumanity) was interpreted in socio-political environments of individual East Asian countries, establishing a correlation between their interpretational tendencies and overall intellectual tendencies of local Confucianisms-as, for instance the philosophy of Practical Learning in Joseon Korea and Tokugawa Japan. Concurrently, the article also illuminates the special characteristics of the notion of humaneness which also gained its expression throughout East Asian Confucian ethical evaluations of Guan Zhong's political achievements. The article is an abridged translation of the Chapter 9 of Chun-chieh Huang's book Dongya Rujia Renxue Shilun 東亞儒家仁學史論 (Taipei: National Taiwan University Press, 2017, pp. 377-414). Chun-chieh Huang 黃俊傑-Huang Chun-chieh [Huang Junjie 黃俊傑] is the Distinguished Chair Professor of National Taiwan University and a member of Academia Europaea. Translated and abridged by Jan Vrhovski-Jan Vrhovski is a research fellow at University of Ljubljana, working on history of formal logic, philosophy and intellectual history of modern China.
Review of International Studies , 2021
All Azimuth, 2021
In recent years, the "relational turn" in International Relations (IR) theory has attracted extensive attention. However, the limitations of the substantialist ontology of mainstream (Western) IR theory means that it encounters difficulties and dilemmas in interpreting the evolving international system. Against the background of the rapid development of globalization and regional integration, the reality of world politics is constantly changing, and increasingly shows obvious characteristics of interconnection and high interdependence. In this context, there is insufficient research comparing the Western and non-Western versions of the "relational turn". Relational ontology may be able to provide a bridge between Chinese Confucian philosophy, Western philosophy, Western sociology, and mainstream western IR theories capable of generating productive synergies. However, there are major theoretical and cultural obstacles to be overcome if a reconciliation of the Western and Chinese versions of relationalism is to be achieved.
9ο ΔΙΕΘΝΕΣ ΣΥΝΕΔΡΙΟ ΓΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΠΡΟΩΘΗΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΚΠΑΙΔΕΥΤΙΚΗΣ ΚΑΙΝΟΤΟΜΙΑΣ, 2023
Complutum, 2019
Bartın Orman Fakültesi Dergisi, 2010
Frontiers in Communication, 2022
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2000
2023
Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 2019