Western international relations theory (IRT) has held a dominant position since the discipline of international relations came into existence. However, as Barry Buzan emphasized in his critique of the Eurocentrism of IRT, the voices and perspectives that represent the experience of the non-Western world are essential to understanding today’s pluralistic world. The purpose of this paper is to understand the development of non-Western IRT and the perspective of China as a rising superpower by examining the process of the ‘Westernization’ and ‘Sinicization’ of IRT in China since the 1980s.
The ‘Westernization’ process of IR study in China (re)started in the 1980s when China undertook a policy of reform and opening-up. Since then, most of Western IRT has been introduced into China, including American IRT, the English School, critical theory, and feminism. Not only has a large body of Western IRT work been translated into Chinese and published, but also some important IR journals have turned their attention to IRT. As a result, Marxism has been weakened and lost its dominant theoretical position, and Western IRT, especially American IRT, has become the mainstream. Consequently, Chinese views of ‘national interests’, ‘sovereignty’, and ‘security’ have changed or are changing under the strong influence of Western IRT.
However, in the mid-1980s, through learning Western IRT, a debate among some Chinese scholars arose in relation to the ‘Sinicization’ of IRT. In the first phase, the focal point was on ‘Chinese-style IRT’. Later, the debate evolved into new forms regarding ‘Chinese theories’ and a ‘Chinese School’. Since 2004, an understanding that ‘Chinese theories’ and a ‘Chinese School’ need to be constructed has become established among Chinese scholars.
However, in juxtaposition to the English School, the construction of a ‘Chinese School’ requires various resources and approaches. Among others, there are two representative arguments. One is put forward by Qin Yaqing, who considers China’s rise as the core research question of ‘Chinese theory’; and the other is by Zhao Tingyang, who intends to provide a Chinese vision of a world order through reinterpreting the traditional Chinese world view,
tianxia (天下).
Self-awareness as a superpower and the self-awakening of academic independence following the absorption of Western IRT among Chinese scholars are the motivating forces of the emerging ‘Chinese School’. Hence, the construction of ‘Chinese School(s)’ indicates that a rising China is seeking a new world order image, a new self-image and a new identity.
抄録全体を表示