The transformation of the Eurocentric epistemological base of International Relations, without inadvertently generating a 'derivative discourse' of Western International Relations, requires an intellectual flight over rigid boundaries of Western scientism, thereby reorienting the discipline of International Relations itself towards a post-Western epoch. As such, post-Western International Relations theory can be largely viewed as an offspring of scholastic explorations aimed at breaking epistemological imperialism in International Relations. Not surprisingly, the non-Western 'rising powers' in global politics are taking particular interest in designing a post-Western International Relations theory. While the notion of 'Tianxia' has emerged as a Chinese conceptual response to the budding intellectual curiosity surrounding post-Western International Relations, the Indian scholarly scepticism towards formulating 'systemic' theories projects a hazy image of the status of post-Western International Relations theory in India.

The ongoing collective effort to turn historical sociology into a globally oriented research\ud programme implies a profound reconsideration of tis conceptual and terminological premises,\ud as well as a constant critical gaze over the colonial geopolitics of knowledge sociological thinking\ud draws legitimation from. Three strategies are here discussed, drawn from, but not limited to, the\ud contributions to this special issue: canonization, re-signification and re-conceptualization

What should ‘global’ stand for in order to qualify ‘historical sociology’ when it aspires to move beyond its Eurocentric foundations? The answer to this question lies in the ability to investigate the limits that Eurocentrism imposes on the possibility of reformulating the world as a unit of analysis, and simultaneously in tackling the centrality of the colonial question in methodological and epistemological terms, rather than exclusively in historical terms.

No abstract

No abstract