International Relations Theory Must Urgently Confront Its Euro-Centrism

International relations theory must urgently confront its Euro-centrism.

Introduction

It is an inevitable fact that nation states have to interact with one another for their mutual benefit. This translates to nations being citizens in the global society. According to Goldstein and Pevehouse (2013), international relations became a vital academic field due to its capability in aiding nations to navigate the global society. International relations, furthermore, enables the global society to uphold peace, economic growth and collectively address global concerns. As such, it is accurate to surmise that that international relations aim at propagating the prosperity among all nations. Lawson (2011) asserts that this contradicts the modern reality of global relations. That is, some nations are continually prosperous than others and the situation is not ceasing. This translates to international relations being majorly Eurocentric as noted by Baylis, Smith and Owens (2013). Kayaoglu (2010) attributes this to the various international relations theories that elaborate and guide the relations amongst countries. International relations theories explicate on the relations among nations and how to effectively develop effective foreign policies. The most notable theories include Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, Post-colonialism and Critical Theory. On this premise, this paper delves into these theories and their corresponding contribution to international relations. Secondly, this paper will identify the Eurocentric nature of these theories and how they impact on international relations. Lastly, this paper presents a myriad of reasons as to why it is important to address and resolve the Eurocentric tendencies of these theories.

International Relations Theories

As an IR theory, Monteio and Ruby (2009) elucidate that realism perceives the international system as a form of anarchy. This is primarily due to the absence of an outright central authority. This perception is part of the survival tenet of realism theory. Other tenets include statism and self-help. As tenets, statism stipulates that all nation states actively participate in international politics while the self-help tenet asserts that each individual state should rely on itself for survival (Guilhot, 2011). All these tenets, in hindsight, perceive international politics as a form of anarchy with each individual nation state is in charge of their progress. State power is important according to realists as it determines how their interests will be considered in the international stage (Monteio and Ruby, 2009). This includes all forms of coercive material capacity at the disposal of a country such as military and economic power. In further expounding on this, Guilhot (2011) states that realists have an epiphenomenal regard on international relations. IR does not constrain the behaviour or actions of the state; rather it is a mere reflection on the international balance of power.

Unlike realism, the liberalism theory approaches international relations from an idealistic point-of-view. Baylis, Smith and Owens (2013) argue that this idealism stems from the notions of individualism and freedom. As a result, this theory contrasts realism in terms of coercive material at the disposal of countries; forming the motivating force behind international relation policies.  Essentially, liberalism perceives the world as a dangerous place for the individual; as such, the exertion of military or economic power by countries far outweighs the benefits (Jackson and Sørensen, 2007). This is both on an individual scale and on an international scale. The Cold War is case in point. It, therefore, becomes imperative for countries to cooperate in order to ensure that all state interests are met.  Baylis, Smith and Owens (2013) further elaborate that liberalism stipulates that the main mandate of international relations is to bolster cooperation and prosperity among states. Jackson and Sørensen (2007) explicate that freedom and justice are other critical tenets of liberalism. As per the freedom tenet, the individual is supreme and their success relies on the freedom to reach their potential. Alternately, the justice tenet recognizes the equality among humans and disapproves all forms of privilege for individuals.  

Marxism is another notable international relations theory which alludes that economic status is the basis international relations.  Lebow (2008) asserts that unlike realism and liberalism, the world is essentially segmented into economic classes rather than political states. The Marxism theory expounds on the evident and existing economic disparity among nations by stating that the economic elite determine both national and international politics (Baylis, Smith and Owens, 2013). This is an extrapolation of the classic class conflict. In the international system, the economic elite include the wealthiest countries determined in defending their interests. These interests predominantly relate to the protection and multiplication of their wealth. Marxism further extrapolates on a world-systems theory comprising of core, periphery and semi-periphery countries (Burchil et al., 2013). The core countries are owners of high-skilled labour and produce most of the world’s capital. On the other hand, Burchil et al., (2013) elucidate that the role of periphery and semi-periphery countries is to provide unskilled labour and raw materials to be utilized by the core countries. This results in a state of dependency as noted by Lebow (2008). That is, the sustainability of periphery and semi-periphery nations is dependent on wealthier nations. This is evident in the international relations realm where core countries impose economic regulations on periphery and semi-periphery nations.

Constructivism theory is the final IR theory that this paper will delve into. Kayaoglu (2010) asserts that constructivism is a structural approach that elaborates on social relations among nation-states. That is, nation-states represent units used in the analysis of international politics.  As units, nation-states have inherent characteristics that consequently determine their interests in international politics. Moreover, Adler (2012) elucidates that these internal characteristics further predetermine their behaviour. State interests and consequent behaviour are problematic as noted by Kayaoglu (2010). They are not as materialistic as stipulated by realism or Marxism theories. Adler (2012) identifies that most of the times the country’s cultural interests stem from its values. As such, constructivist approach is not monolithic rather it concedes that the interests of nations are cultural and societal based rather than individual based.        

Euro-centrism and International relations Theory

In elaborating on euro-centrism, Bhambra (2010) acknowledges that general social science discipline in euro-centric in nature. That is, Europe and Europeans form the focal point in social science and this extends to international relations.  Kayaoglu (2012) elucidates that there is significant evidence that supports the existence of euro-centrism in international relations and social science in general. This evidence includes: historiography, universalism, civilization, orientalism and progress (Bhambra, 2010). In the context of international relations, the identified IR theories propagate the privilege afforded to the Western ways of thinking.