A Sociology of Dependence in International Relations Theory: A Case of Russian Liberal IR

Abstract

This article addresses the question of interaction between Western and “non‐Western” international relations (IR) by analyzing liberal theory of IR that is emerging in contemporary Russia. We argue that, despite a growing diversity within Russian scholarship of liberal orientation, it remains largely a product of Western, particularly American, intellectual hegemony, and more so than any other theoretical perspective. As compared to two other existing traditions in Russian IR—realism and critical studies—liberalism remains the most dependent and therefore must be explored before any other traditions as a crucial case for understanding the dialectic of cultural dependence and hegemony in production of global knowledge. We argue that the greater dependence of Russian liberal IR results from its relatively weak indigenous tradition, perception of Russia’s material weakness as opportunity, and greater availability of Western research funds. We also discuss an alternative, less dependent version of Russian liberal IR, and opportunities that its existence implies for development of a global, de‐centered international relations theory.

A typology of homegrown theorizing

“…The school combines "nationalism" and "liberalism," terms that acquire a different meaning in the Russian context than that employed by Western theorists. For example, they point to the importance of international institutions and a non-unipolar world as a means to achieve peace, 62 they emphasize the risks of globalization, while not denying the opportunities associated, and argue that the democratization process must reflect local conditions. 63 In a similar vein, Kuznetsov builds on Toynbee's and more recently Huntington's theory of "clash of civilizations," in his theory of "grammatological geopolitics."…”

Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing

“…The school combines "nationalism" and "liberalism", terms which acquire a different meaning in the Russian context than that employed by Western theorists. For example, they point to the importance of international institutions and a non-unipolar world as a means to achieve peace, 80 they emphasize the risks of globalization, while not denying the opportunities associated, and argue that the democratization process must reflect local conditions. 81 In a similar vein, Kuznetsov builds on Toynbee's and more recently Huntington's theory of "clash of civilizations," in his theory of "grammatological geopolitics".…”

Contested Identity and Foreign Policy: Interpreting Russia's International Choices

“…Local intellectual currents and local types of political, historical, and moral reasoning regarding the country's international behavior should be explored on their own terms. Those seeking to escape intellectual dependence on socially external knowledge should therefore try to address the threat of subverting indigenous theoretical impulses explicitly (Tsygankov and Tsygankov ; Tickner and Waever ; Pellerin ; Hamati‐Ataya ). Russia is a case in point.…”