Op-Ed: International Relations Theory adds spice to dinnertime

By Lucas Casas

As our family sits down for dinner, the conversation turns to International Relations Theory. My grandfather and I explore the diverse notions in the field, and discover that some ideas come from outside the box.

Photo by Mathias Reding on Unsplash

As my family sits down to enjoy a delicious home-cooked meal, the conversation somehow shifts to International Relations Theory and the prevailing schools of thought. My grandfather happens to be an esteemed academic. He flaunts that only Western theorists have made meaningful contributions to the study of international relations. I rush to the defense of the non-Western.

“But Grandfather,” – I begin, “you’ve ignored one of the most important developments since the end of World War II – the Non-Aligned Movement! You see, when the United States and the Soviet Union took their place as the world’s two superpowers, they quickly carved the planet into spheres of influence. British prime minister Winston Churchill famously called it the Soviet ‘Iron Curtain.’ However, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, sought to keep his newly independent country effectively free from outside influence. In 1955, Nehru and the leaders of many newly independent states, namely Egypt, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, and others, met at the Bandung Conference to establish the Non-Aligned Movement. Their goal was to create a sense of Afro-Asian (as well as South American) solidarity, where these former colonies could develop their own statehood, free from the gravity of the two superpowers. Today, the Non-Aligned Movement comprises 120 countries (Munro). The Third World isn’t a euphemism for the underdeveloped; it is actually the term for the non-aligned (Sidhu).

“And if you look at it, true international relations took place in Asia and Africa long before it did in Europe. In Mesopotamia, for example –the ‘cradle of civilization,’ as it’s called– the Sumerians and Akkadians developed some of the first cities, laws, and treaties in human history. In northwest India, near the Indus River, the Harappan culture had their own written language and conducted trade with Egypt and Mesopotamia. For almost three thousand years, Unified Ancient Egypt had a complex society, complete with trade, laws, and foreign ties. And you can’t forget the Xia Dynasty of ancient China, with its production of silk and development of laws, customs, and medicine” (Sidhu).

I rest my case, if only for a moment, to quiet my growling stomach. But my Grandfather, a proud graduate of Harvard and Columbia, argues that for theories to be relevant in today’s world, and thus for those theories to count towards the academic field of International Relations Theory, they must be applicable to current global affairs.

“Oh, but they are!” I exclaim. “These civilizations, though long gone, are still with us today. The idea of just wars is found in the writings of Vyasa (Doniger), Valmiki (Ramayana), and Sun Tzu. Confucius, Mencius, and Xunzi also wrote about warfare, while the Indian emperor Ashoka developed the concept of dhamma, which is the theory of ‘non-violence and non-use of force in inter-state relations’ (Sidhu), which Gandhi invoked in his historic campaign for Indian independence. While these ideas and theories were not necessarily developed within the shelter of privileged walls of elite universities, all of these constitute the development of international relations and International Relations Theory in their own right. We would be remiss to think otherwise.”    

“Non-western theorists don’t just come from ancient history, either. Edward Said, Ph.D, the late professor at your alma mater, Columbia, Grandfather, wrote in his book Orientalism that the West has a biased view of the Arab Islamic world ‘and projected a false and stereotyped vision of ‘otherness’ on the Islamic world that facilitated and supported Western colonial policy’      (Edward Said). And then there is Gayatri Spivak, Ph.D, of India and also a professor at Columbia, whose writing on feminism has been extensive and highly influential” (Gayatri C. Spivak).

But my grandfather, never one to abandon his convictions, returns volley. “Well, if these non-Western thinkers are so profound, why are they not more prolific?”    

“An excellent question. To understand the apparent dearth of non-Western contribution, we must understand the political and social environment of the non-West and acknowledge the role the Western colonial powers had in shaping it. For hundreds of years, England, Spain, France, and later the United States, maintained colonies around the world. They exploited and oppressed the native people. In doing so, they shaped world history, and subsequently, wrote it to tell their story. As Sachsenmaier writes, ‘Western… historians can afford to ignore non-Western research without hampering their reputation, while scholars outside the West cannot’ (Buzan and Little). This idea, when combined with Cox’s assertion that ‘theory is always for someone and for some purpose’ (Acharya and Buzan), illustrates that world history and International Relations Theory are both seen through a Western lens. Not only do non-Western thinkers not have the freedom to cite their own version of history, lest they be ignored outright, they often lack a conducive academic environment. After WWII, the former colonies gained independence and faced the challenges of developing political and social infrastructure often from scratch, not to mention establishing their own universities, all within arbitrarily drawn, Westphalian borders. This is particularly true in parts of Africa, where they saw no option but to mirror Western universities” (Ofuho).

By now, my food is cold as my siblings reach for seconds. Resigned to later microwaving, I shift gears. “What we in the West must understand is how our view of the world is fundamentally biased towards our own collective experience. That, in and of itself, is not wrong. As Cox implied, it is human nature to see things from a first-person perspective. Still, we must acknowledge that our perspective is not the whole story, just as the non-Western perspective isn’t, either. World historians are currently reckoning with their own Euro-centric bias, and international relations is intimately intertwined with world history.

Unfortunately, International Relations theorists have yet to completely come to terms with these biases. As a result, Western foreign policy, and therefore the entire world, are worse off. And if ‘non-Western theorists… have a substantial comparative advantage when it comes to formulating and applying theory that relates to their own area of the world’ (Buzan and Little), does it not stand to reason that non-Western thinkers could have a similar comparative advantage to theorize about their areas of the world, provided the same intellectual resources and freedoms? And would we not be better off with a fully rounded perspective of humanity? There is room for all of us at the table. Now, would you please pass the potatoes?”    

Works Cited

Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. “Why is there no non-Western international relations theory?”

Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. “World History and the Development of Non-Western International Relations Theory.”

Doniger, Wendy. “Mahabharata.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mahabharata.

“Edward Said.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Said. 

“Gayatri C. Spivak.” Gayatri C. Spivak | The Department of English and Comparative Literature, https://english.columbia.edu/content/gayatri-c-spivak.

Munro, Andre. “Non-Aligned Movement.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/topic/Non-Aligned-Movement.

Ofuho, Cirino Hiteng. “Africa – Teaching IR where it’s not supposed to be.”

“Ramayana.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ramayana-Indian-epic.

Sidhu, Waheguru Pal Singh. “History of international relations, origins of International Relations, and the value of theory.” International Relations in the Post-Cold War Era. 1 February 2022. New York U, New York. Powerpoint presentation.