Advertisement

Neorealist Claims in Light of Ancient Chinese Philosophy: the Cultural Dimension of International Theory

Chapter
  • 114 Downloads

Abstract

The key concepts of the neorealist approach to international theory were developed by Western scholars, largely based on analyses of interactions among Western states. 3 Yet one of the paradigm's main purposes is to transcend time and space in order to recognize patterns in the recurrence of international conflict. Can any such intellectual endeavour be free of prejudices and cultural biases?

Keywords

International Relation International System Armed Conflict Chinese Philosophy World Politics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    F. Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom [Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft], trans. Thomas Common (London: T.N. Foulis, 1910), paragraph 57.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    The standard reference to neorealist thought is K.N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979). A selection of viewpoints presented by the paradigm’s defenders, reformers, and critics is contained in R.O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    See, for example, R.K. Ashley and R.B.J. Walker (eds), Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence in International Studies, special issue of International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 34, No. 3, 1990)Google Scholar
  4. R.W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium (Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981), pp. 126–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Der Derian and M. Shapiro (eds), International/Intertextual Relations (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989)Google Scholar
  6. Y.H. Ferguson and R.W. Mansbach, ‘Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future International Theory’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 35, No. 4, 1991), pp. 363–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. J. George, ‘International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 33, No. 3, 1989), pp. 269–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Linklater, ‘The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View’, Millennium (Vol. 21, No. 1, 1992), pp. 77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. R.B.J. Walker, ‘History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations’, Millennium (Vol. 18, No. 2, 1989), pp. 163–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 5.
    K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1985), p. 10.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    A concise and helpful overview in English of the various influential opinions on the end or transformational capacities of contemporary philosophy is provided in K. Baynes, J. Bohmann and T. McCarthy (eds), After Philosophy: End or Transformation? (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  12. 8.
    See, for example, M. Foucault, L’Archéologie du Savoir [The Archeology of Knowledge] (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1969)Google Scholar
  13. J.F. Lyotard, La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport sur le Savoir [The Postmodern Condition] (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1982).Google Scholar
  14. 9.
    J. Habermas, Erkenntnis und Interesse [Knowledge and Human Interest] (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973)Google Scholar
  15. K.O. Apel, Diskurs und Verant-wortung: Das Problem des Ubergangs zur Postkonventionellen Moral (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988).Google Scholar
  16. 10.
    A concise exposition on the linguistic mediation of perceptions and behaviour can be found in B.L. Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality (Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of MIT, 1956). Especially since Wittgenstein, questions related to language have occupied a key role in philosophical discourses. For a selection of classical essays on linguistic philosophy see R. Rorty (ed.), The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1992). Languages, of course, also embed gender-related discriminations. The patterns of most Asian and Western grammatical structures reflect patriarchal practices and entrench as well as mask corresponding cultural values, role assignments and forms of oppression.Google Scholar
  17. 13.
    L. Walker, The Multi-State System of Ancient China (Hamden, CO: The Shoe String Press, 1953), pp. 73–9.Google Scholar
  18. 14.
    B.I. Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 63Google Scholar
  19. R. Moritz, Die Philosophie im Alten China (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1990), p. 49.Google Scholar
  20. 15.
    D.L. Hall and R.T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Ibid., pp. 17–25. Lisa Raphals contrasts the two ways of thought in a similar way, but focuses on differences between theoretical and practical knowledge as well as on questions related to (metic) intelligence and language. See L. Raphals, Knowing Words: Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    A.C. Graham, Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (La Salle: Open Court, 1989), p. 5.Google Scholar
  23. 18.
    Cox, op. cit., in note 4, p. 128. See also R.W. Cox, ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium (Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983), pp. 162–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 20.
    M. Fischer, ‘Feudal Europe, 800–1300: Communal Discourse and Conflictual Practices’, International Organization (Vol. 46, No. 2, 1992), pp. 427–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 21.
    C. von Clausewitz, Vom Krieg [On War] (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1980), pp. 329–38.Google Scholar
  26. 22.
    K.J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order 1648–1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 23.
    A. Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization (Vol. 46, No. 2, 1992), p. 395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 24.
    F. Nietzsche, The Dawn of the Day [Morgenröte: Gedanken über die Moralischen Vorurteile], trans. J.M. Kennedy, (London: T.N. Foulis, 1911), paragraph 44.Google Scholar
  29. 25.
    K.N. Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959).Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    M. Foucault, L’Ordre du Discours [The Discourse on Language] (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1971), pp. 31–8.Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    See, for example, Chuang Tzu, ‘The Chuang Tzu’, trans. W.T. Chan, in A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), pp. 165–6.Google Scholar
  32. 31.
    A.B. Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 140; Graham, op. cit., in note 16, p. 4Google Scholar
  33. J.M. Koller, Oriental Philosophies (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), p. 197; Schwartz, op. cit., in note 13, p. 414Google Scholar
  34. H. Schleichert, Klassische Chinesische Philosophie: Eine Einführung (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. 1990), pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  35. 32.
    M. Foucault, Naissance de la Clinique [The Birth of the Clinic] (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963).Google Scholar
  36. 33.
    T.J. Kaptchuk, The Web That Has No Weaver: Understanding Chinese Medicine (New York, NY: Congdon and Weed, 1983), pp. 1–33 and 256–66.Google Scholar
  37. 36.
    M. Weber, Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen: Konfuzianismus und Taoismus: Schriften 1915–1920, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 19, ed. H. Schmidt-Glintzer (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989), pp. 309–13.Google Scholar
  38. 37.
    A.C. Graham, Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1978)Google Scholar
  39. J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954).Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    Chuang Tzu, Chuang-tzu: The Inner Chapters, translated by A.C. Graham (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1986), pp. 48–61.Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    R. Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 41.
    R.O. Keohane, ‘Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics’, in R.O. Keohane (ed.), op. cit., in note 3, p. 7. It should nevertheless be noted that a number of realist theorists, particularly the ones with a (neo)liberal outlook, are critical about certain aspects of reason. For example, the traditional liberal view emphasizes that rationality only applies to endeavour and not to outcome, or that various external and internal factors are responsible for decision-makers acting ‘only’ under bounded rationality. See R. Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 28Google Scholar
  43. R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 111–14.Google Scholar
  44. 42.
    H.J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), p. 4.Google Scholar
  45. 43.
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, translated by D.C. Lau (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986), p. 117.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    M. Wight, Power Politics, ed. H. Bull and C. Holbraad (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978), p. 290.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    W.B. Gallie, Philosophers of Peace and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 28–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    F.H. Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 88.Google Scholar
  49. 51.
    Mo Tzu in Schwartz, op. cit., in note 14, p. 142; T. Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C.B. Macpherson (London: Penguin Books, 1968), p. 185Google Scholar
  50. J. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, edited by R.H. Cox (North Arlington, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1982), pp. 3–10.Google Scholar
  51. 53.
    J.J. Rousseau, Discours sur l’Origine et les Fondements de I’Inegalité parmi les Hommes [Discourse on the Origin of Inequality] (Paris: Gallimard, 1965), p. 49.Google Scholar
  52. 54.
    H. Bull, The Anarchical Society (New York, NY: Columbia University Press: 1977), p. 46; Waltz, op. cit., in note 3, pp. 163–72Google Scholar
  53. M. Wight, ‘Western Values in International Relations’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), pp. 102–3.Google Scholar
  54. 59.
    A. Waley, Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China (New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956), p. 177.Google Scholar
  55. 60.
    R. Aron, Paix et Guerre entre les Nations [Peace and War] (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1962), p. 103.Google Scholar
  56. 62.
    Ibid., pp. 134–5. See also M. Haas, Asian Culture and International Relations’, in J. Chay (ed.), Culture and International Relations (New York, NY: Praeger, 1990), p. 173Google Scholar
  57. J.K. Fairbank and S.Y. Teng, ‘The Chinese ‘lladition of Diplomacy’, in J. Larus (ed.), Comparative World Politics: Readings in Western and Premodern Non-Western International Relations (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co, 1964), p. 192. The perception of the international system is also one of the areas in which both realism and Chinese philosophy display their strong masculine biases. The five-fold Confucian model of hierarchy is an examplepar excellence of a patriarchal system in which senior men control both junior men and women in order to consolidate a male dominated societal order. The extension of this domestic model of control to the realm of foreign policy accounts for a further entrenchment of patriarchy. Masculinity in Western approaches to war and peace is equally striking and amply documented. See, for example, J.B. Elshtain, Women and War (New York: Basic Books, 1987)Google Scholar
  58. C. Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)Google Scholar
  59. Ch. Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar
  60. J.A. Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Colombia University, 1992).Google Scholar
  61. 63.
    See K. J. Holsti, ‘The Necrologists of International Relations’, Canadian Journal of Political Science (Vol. XVIII, No. 4, 1985), p. 678Google Scholar
  62. A. Lijphart, ‘Karl W. Deutsch and the New Paradigm in International Relations’, in R.L. Merritt and B.M. Russett (eds), From National Development to Global Community (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), p. 239Google Scholar
  63. D.J. Puchala and S.I. Fagen, ‘International Politics in the 1970s: The Search for a Perspective’, in R. Maghroori and B. Ramberg (eds), Globalism versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982), p. 48.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    See R.K. Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism, and War’, in J. Der Derian and M.J. Shapiro (eds), op. cit., in note 4; J. Derrida, A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds, ed. by P. Kamuf (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 259–76; Graham, op. cit., in note 17, pp. 223–31Google Scholar
  66. R. Wiggershaus, Die Frankfurter Schule: Geschichte, Theoretische Entwicklung, Politische Bedeutung (München: Hauser. 1986). pp. 628–46.Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    See also R.B.J. Walker, ‘World Politics and Western Reason: Universalism, Pluralism, Hegemony’, in R.B.J. Walker (ed.), Culture, Ideology, and World Order (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984), p. 205Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations