Re-viewing the Eurocentric Conception of World Politics
A Response to Knutsen, Ling, Schmidt, Tickner and Vitalis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11921790 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joanna M Hobson (0000-0002-7340-567X, University of Sheffield, corresponding author), John M Hobson (University of Sheffield) |
| Year | 2014 |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 485-514 |
| Publication date | 2014-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Millennium Journal of International Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0305-8298 • E-ISSN: 1477-9021 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0305829813515042 |
| OpenAlex | W2079274446 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 1 |
This article responds to the five forum pieces that critically engage my 2012 book The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics, the central argument of which is that ever since 1760 international theory has not provided ideologically neutral, universalist explanations of world politics but has been charged, or even mandated, with the provincial objective of defending, promoting or celebrating Western civilization as the highest referent of the world. The first section defends the book’s claim that pre-1945 realism was founded largely on various scientific racist bases (specifically between 1889 and 1945) – what I call ‘racist realism’ – while the second section defends my claim that classical realism and neorealism are not culturally neutral, universal approaches but are grounded in an underlying Western provincialism. The third section defends my reading of three pioneering figures of IR, John Burgess, Paul Reinsch and J.A. Hobson, while the fourth section reframes my non-Eurocentric reading of international theory in the last 250 years through a gendered lens so as to flesh out how gender/patriarchy and racism/Eurocentric institutionalism are mutually embedded, polymorphous discourses. Finally, the conclusion tackles the dual criticism that the book is limited by its Anglo-centric focus, on the one hand, and its situation within a critical tradition that is inherently European, if not Eurocentric, on the other
Argument (complex analysis · Art · Criticism · Epistemology · Ideology · Literature · Political science · Politics · Racism · Realism · Sociology · Gender Studies · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Development and Aid · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Philosophy
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,3 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2021 (6) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |