Introducing Sufism to International Relations Theory: A preliminary inquiry into epistemological, ontological, and methodological pathways

Abstract

One of the most commonly treaded pathways to address the widely recognized Eurocentric biases in International Relations has been the initiation of intellectual efforts toward the incorporation of non-Western world views. However, the greater assimilation of knowledge produced by non-Western scholars from local philosophical-experiential vantage points — that is, the integration of Chinese, Indian, or Brazilian outlooks expressed under the rubric “non-Western International Relations” — cannot make International Relations less Eurocentric or more “Global” if the following slippery grounds are overlooked: (1) if non-Western International Relations theories employ non-Western philosophical resources for generating a derivative discourse of Western/Eurocentric International Relations theories, thereby failing to transcend the conjectural boundaries of Western/Eurocentric International Relations; and (2) if non-Western International Relations theories manufacture an exceptionalist discourse that is specifically applicable to the narrow experiential realities of a native time–space zone, thereby failing to offer an alternative universalist explanation that grants a broad-spectrum relevance to Western/Eurocentric International Relations. In the light of these realizations, the present article aims to explore if “Sufism” — as a non-Western intellectual resource — is capable of offering a fertile ground for crafting a non-derivative and non-exceptionalist Global International Relations theory. In order to do this, the article employs the insights gained from the poetry of a 13th-century Sufi scholar, Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī. The article draws the conclusion that Sufism, as an established philosophy with a grand temporal-spatial global spread, upholds a “threefold attribute” — namely, epistemological monism, ontological immaterialism, and methodological eclecticism — which gives it a unique foundational status to formulate a non-Eurocentric Global International Relations theory.

Realist avenues to global International Relations

“…Others offer different ontologies, explanations, prescriptions, and knowledge claims which challenge positivism, structuralism, materialism, and the centrality of realism's core concepts (e.g. Rösch and Watanabe, 2017;Shahi, 2018Shahi, , 2019aTieku, 2012;Tingyang, 2006). Either way, non-Western scholarship does not offer better knowledge simply because it originates elsewhere.…”

“…Seth and Sabaratnam argue that we must deconstruct problematic concepts and foundational myths regarding IR's origins (Sabaratnam, 2011;Seth, 2011). 1 From this perspective, extending Western-centric realism with non-Western knowledge is illegitimate: it simply reproduces discourses derivative of Western realism and ignores those features that are absent in or challenge the Western canon (Shahi, 2019a, also for an example on Arthaśāstra; Shani, 2008). This group's s purpose and process of theorizing differs from that of realism.…”

“…If non-Western scholarship is perceived and perceives itself as local, decentered knowledge, it risks becoming trapped in an exceptionalist account of international relations. Such an account limits itself to ideas and orientations unique to particular non-Western states (Biersteker, 2009: 311; Hurrell, 2016: 6; Shahi, 2019a: 251). Certainly, there is ample reason to scope theoretical and empirical research around a particular non-Western state; in fact, such research may appropriately counteract IR’s “fetishization of abstraction” (Krishna, 2001: 401).…”

“…This in turn reifies difference within the cases between carefully collected and contextualized evidence on the one side positioned against a one-dimensional view of the West or Western theory on the other. It essentializes Western as well as non-Western IR and hinders the development of global IR (Shahi, 2019a: 254). When we posit non-Western experiences and scholarship as valuable only where they differ from their Western equivalents, we reproduce the dichotomies that global IR challenges.…”

Decolonising resilience: reading Glissant’s Poetics of Relation in Central Eurasia

“…It is all too easy to think about resilience as a way of bringing together and merging policy requirements, from defence to social welfare, providing universal frameworks for scaling up 'capacities' and 'empowering' communities. It is also all too easy to consider any other non-equilibrium approaches as non-scientific, speculative or mystical (Thacker 2010), perhaps falling back on traditional Sufi or other monist understandings which allegedly fail to recognize the centrality of the human/nature divide (Shahi 2019).…”