National ideology and IR theory: Three incarnations of the ‘Russian idea’

Abstract

In an attempt to broaden our perspective on IR theory formation, this article seeks to highlight the significance of ideology. Consistent with the recently revived sociology of knowledge tradition in international studies, we view IR scholarship as grounded in certain social and ideological conditions. Although some scholars have studied the political, ideological, and epistemological biases of Western, particularly American, civilization, in order to achieve a better understanding of global patterns of knowledge formation it is important to look at cases beyond the West. We therefore look at the formation of IR knowledge in Russia, and we argue that the development of a Russian theory of international relations responds to the old debate on the ‘Russian idea,’ and three distinct ideological traditions that had been introduced to the national discourse in the mid-19th century. Focusing on theories and concepts of the international system, regional order, and foreign policy, as developed by Russian scholars, we attempt to demonstrate how they are shaped by ideological and therefore pre-theoretical assumptions about social reality.

Beyond the published discipline: Toward a critical pedagogy of international studies

“…For instance, contributors have shown how theoretical developments have been mirroring local political values, whether they were liberal (Hoffmann, 1987), Marxist (Lebedeva, 2004), conservative (Welsh, 2003), or nationalist (Tsygankov and Tsygankov, 2010), and how the (re)production of local IR perspectives is enmeshed with local cultural experiences (Breitenbauch and Wivel, 2004;Kacowicz, 2009;Schoeman, 2009).…”

Russia's Postcolonial Identity

“…Waever and Tickner 2009). 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).…”

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

“…Oleg Kildiushov () offers a more detailed classification, but it also suggests that the Russian debate is centered on the issues of identity rather than theory (see also Morozov ). Tsygankov and Tsygankov emphasize the significance of ideology as a factor structuring the Russian IR debate—by “ideology,” however, they mean first and foremost the definition of the Self in its relationship with the Other, which also points in the direction of identity (Tsygankov and Tsygankov ; see also Tsygankov ). In other words, the effect of tension between the relativists and the transitologists is significant enough to merit a closer look at the substance of the argument.…”

“…Whereas there are numerous studies mapping the Russian debate as a whole (for example, Sergounin ; Tsygankov and Tsygankov ; Kuchins and Zevelev ), its relativist dimension remains unexplored. Russian scholars working in the internationalist tradition, few as they are, concentrate their efforts on reaching out to the international scholarly community, while the relativist literature remains largely ignored.…”