Constructing a Chinese International Relations Theory: A Sociological Approach to Intellectual Innovation

Abstract

Chinese scholars are debating whether, and how, to innovate a Chinese theory of International Relations (IR). This article examines the driving forces behind this theoretical debate. It challenges the commonsensical link between external events in the subject matter (i.r.) and theorizing (IR), which suggests that the innovation of a Chinese IR theory is a natural product of China's geopolitical rise, its growing political ambitions, and discontent with Western hegemony. We propose instead a sociological approach to intellectual innovation which opens the black box of knowledge production, and argue that theoretical innovation, in China and elsewhere, is best understood as an interplay between internal and external layers. The internal academic context comprises intellectuals pursuing prominence, with each intellectual trying to carve out a maximally distinct position in order to receive attention from their peerstheorizing a Chinese IR theory being one important way of doing this. The external layer-which ranges from power politics to sociopolitical developments-affects this process indirectly by providing more research funds and autonomy to the more immediate institutional environment where control over rewards such as research funds, promotion, and publications affects what kind of work is done, with theorizing being increasingly rewarded.The International Relations discipline (IR) has long been known as an "American social science," dominated by US scholars, theories, and methodologies (Hoffmann 1977;Waever 1998;Smith 2000). A recent study of IR communities around the world shows that this has changed little, with the possible exception of China (Tickner and Waever 2009:336). Reading through the literature on IR in China, one is struck by references to debates about developing "IR with . The Chinese attempt to produce a distinctly national international theory is a unique case, and the puzzle of this paper is "Why has there been an innovational drive to develop Chinese IR theory?" Our main argument is that theoretical innovation should be understood 1 We would like to thank Ole Waever for his valuable comments on several drafts and all the Chinese scholars who agreed to participate in the interviews. We also thank Daniel Bell, Henrik Breitenbauch, Geir Helgesen, Chung-In Moon, Rens van Munster, Casper Sylvest, Morten Valbjørn, and the two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments. Lastly, we are grateful to the Augustinus Foundation for providing the funds that made our field trip possible. The usual disclaimer applies.

Relating self and other in Chinese and Western thought

“…There are obvious strategic reasons for Chinese scholars to identify their work with 'Chinese tradition' when they are operating in an academic context that is dominated by Anglophone scholarship and that arguably marginalises China as the 'Other country' and its scholars as informants (cf. Chow 1991, Kristensen andNielsen 2013). We would argue in addition that these authors do not simply report 'what is there' but , by speaking and acting as if distinct traditions existed, they in part constitute them.…”

Victimized State and Visionary Leader? Questioning China’s Approach to Human Security in Africa

“…The legitimacy of rulers was thus to a large extent performance-based. The Chinese government has actively facilitated the work of scholars including Qin Yaqing [55], Yan Xuetong [78], and Zhao Tingyang [81] who have embraced traditional Confucian ideas to justify CCP rule and China's domestic and foreign policies, including notions such as China's "peaceful development" and "harmonious world" [19,33].…”

Museum diplomacy: exploring the Sino-German Museum Forum and beyond

“…Language remains the core concern, yet social customs and cultural patterns are also taken into consideration as people from different traditions may perceive, interpret, and react to the world differently (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey 2003). As Akira Iriye (1979) has suggested, international relations are intercultural relations due to each country's different social conventions, cultural traditions and political concerns (Shani 2008;Kristensen and Nielsen 2013).…”