Is “Non-Western Theory” Possible? The Idea of Multipolarity and the Trap of Epistemological Relativism in Russian IR

Abstract

An important recent development in the discipline of International Relations (IR) has been the growing interest in the national schools and "non-core" theorizing. Even though this interest is fully justified, we argue that the tendency to describe all such schools as invariably promising and helpful in overcoming the Eurocentrism of the discipline is misguided. It originates in the false assumption that the infinite diversity of collective experiences throughout the world can only be approached on the basis of epistemological pluralism. We explore the confusion between the ontological and epistemological aspects of the problem by looking at the state of international studies in Russia. The development of Russian IR is defined by a controversy between pro-Western transitological approaches and the dominant relativist position centered around the doctrine of multipolarity. The latter is translated into the epistemological domain, leading to a totally counterproductive assertion that "Western" science is unable to understand Russia's specificity.International Studies Review (2013) 15, 328-350

Mapping Eurasia in an Open World: How the Insularity of Russia’s Geopolitical and Civilizational Approaches Limits Its Foreign Policies

“… 38 Theory Talk #66 2014; Clover 2016; Dunlop 2001; Makarychev and Morozov 2013; Umland 2009; Kipp 2002. …”

Russia's Postcolonial Identity

“…It is indicative that most of the studies looking at the Russian IR debates from the point of view of theoretical schools rather than societal discourses still ended up having to define these schools through the prism of identities or ideologies, rather than in terms of their ontological, epistemological or methodological concerns (see for example Sergounin 2000, Tsygankov 2008, Tsygankov and Tsygankov 2010. The prevalence of identity over theory as a driving force of disciplinary development, however, has not so far become a matter of serious reflection, and the significance of this fact in the context of Russia's nagging anxiety about its unequal standing vis-à-vis the West remains to be explored (for an attempt to do that, see Makarychev and Morozov 2013).…”

Differentiation Theory and the Global South as a Metageography of International Relations

“…This might be the case in area studies scholarship, probably one of the principal founts of academic knowledge on Global South–related issues today, which often puts emphasis on understanding geographical regions on their own contextual terms (Middell & Naumann, 2010), which is construed as the opposite of theoretical engagement and its universalizing tendencies. Similarly, postcolonial scholars assume that discourse on or from the Global South forms part of a counterhegemonic project, communicating with established scholarship not through theoretical debate, but through metapolitical opposition (Makarychev & Morozov, 2013). This is in line with textbook descriptions of poststructuralist approaches in IR as being more concerned with the critique of specific issues and not so much with the discussion of general theory—either among poststructuralists themselves or in order to criticize established theoretical perspectives as such (Wæver, 2013).…”