Locating a Multifaceted and Stratified Disciplinary ‘Core’

Abstract

Disciplinary depictions using the core-periphery distinction are often premised on a 'blurred' and/or monolithic understanding of the core. For instance, the 'core' is often conceptualized broadly to include Western Europe and North America, or narrowly to refer to just the United States. Simultaneously the corresponding disciplinary self-images often refer to the core and the periphery as fixed and homogenous entities, which overlook the often diverse tendencies and hierarchies within the predefined space. This article therefore seeks to highlight the changing geographies of the core/periphery distinction in order to reveal the presence of different cores because there are different core properties. What this means is that the 'core' can appear in surprising spaces and occupy geographies that are normally associated with the periphery. In order to specifically illustrate certain workings and reach of the 'core' within spaces typically conceptualized as 'peripheral' this article will draw on existing data and research. The resultant empirical sketch will show how the 'core' is able to extend its reach and produce further epistemic hierarchies within peripheral spaces. In locating IR's different cores and their hidden geographies this article aims to destabilize the coreperiphery distinction in order to move beyond this disciplinary and disciplining archetype.

Kautilya's Mandala Theory as Constitutive Outside of Modern Realism

“…Holsti'nin bu çalışmasının yayımlanmasından bugüne teorideki Batı-merkezci, hegemonik ve Batılı olmayan katkıları görmezden gelen yapıya ilişkin analiz sunan birçok nicel akademik araştırma yapılmıştır. Bu araştırmalardan kimileri uluslararası ilişkiler programlarının müfredatlarını analiz ederek (Waever, 1998;Andrews, 2020;Aydınlı ve Erpul, 2021) kimileri disiplinin önde gelen akademik dergilerinde yayımlanan makalelerdeki teorik temele, makalesi yayımlayan kişinin kimliğine veya teori kullanım tercihine ilişkin veriler sunarak (Smith, 2000;Aydınlı ve Mathews, 2000;Tickner, 2003;Breuning, Joseph ve Walton, 2005;Dankbaar, 2012;Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Bell, Morales ve Tierney , 2016;Malinak, Peterson, Powers ve Tierney, 2018;Eun, 2018;Goh, 2019;Turton, 2020;Wemheuer-Vogelaar, Kristensen ve Lohaus, 2022) uluslararası ilişkiler disiplinindeki teorik Batı-merkezciliği, hegemonik yapıyı ve dar görüşlülüğü sayısal verilerle ortaya koymaya çalışmıştır. bilim ve tarih yazımının sınırlamalarını ortadan kaldırmak olmuştur.…”