Abstract
The key concepts of the neorealist approach to international theory were developed by Western scholars, largely based on analyses of interactions among Western states. 3 Yet one of the paradigm's main purposes is to transcend time and space in order to recognize patterns in the recurrence of international conflict. Can any such intellectual endeavour be free of prejudices and cultural biases?
There is that mountain! There is that cloud! What is ‘real’ about them? Remove the phantasm and the whole human element there-from, you sober ones! Yes, if you could do that! If you could forget your origin, your past, your preparatory schooling — your whole history as man and beast! There is no ‘reality’ for us — nor for you either, you sober ones …2
The bulk of this essay was originally written in autumn 1990. In late 1993 it was published in Millennium’s special issue on ‘Culture in International Relations’. Within the five years that have passed since bringing my thoughts to paper, my views have evolved. Yet a text takes off and becomes an object of appropriation over which the author inevitably loses control. Trying to halt this process is futile for, in Michel Foucault’s words, ‘writing unfolds like a game that invariably goes beyond its own rules and transgresses its limits’ (M. Foucault, ‘What is an Author?’, in P. Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984, p. 102). While I have not added any substantial changes, I cannot refrain from drawing attention to what today I perceive to be an important but neglected dimension of the topic: the role of gender. Although I am primarily dealing with various cultural differences that exist between realist discourses and ancient Chinese philosophy, the two strains of thought also contain striking parallels that cannot be neglected. Both emerged out of a patriarchal context and are embedded in a strong masculine standpoint. Not only do both approaches to war and peace lack any substantial discussion of gender, but also they sustain discursive practices that entrench the exclusion of people called women from societal decision-making processes. The resulting far-reaching consequences arc too complex and important to be addressed in footnotes or fleeting comments. Because of the above-mentioned separation between author and text, I am, at this point, limiting my remarks to the present comments and a few footnotes at points were the issue emerges in a particularly striking way.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
F. Nietzsche, The Joyful Wisdom [Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft], trans. Thomas Common (London: T.N. Foulis, 1910), paragraph 57.
The standard reference to neorealist thought is K.N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics. (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979). A selection of viewpoints presented by the paradigm’s defenders, reformers, and critics is contained in R.O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).
See, for example, R.K. Ashley and R.B.J. Walker (eds), Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence in International Studies, special issue of International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 34, No. 3, 1990)
R.W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium (Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981), pp. 126–55
J. Der Derian and M. Shapiro (eds), International/Intertextual Relations (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989)
Y.H. Ferguson and R.W. Mansbach, ‘Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future International Theory’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 35, No. 4, 1991), pp. 363–86
J. George, ‘International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 33, No. 3, 1989), pp. 269–80
A. Linklater, ‘The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View’, Millennium (Vol. 21, No. 1, 1992), pp. 77–98
R.B.J. Walker, ‘History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations’, Millennium (Vol. 18, No. 2, 1989), pp. 163–83.
K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman, 1985), p. 10.
A concise and helpful overview in English of the various influential opinions on the end or transformational capacities of contemporary philosophy is provided in K. Baynes, J. Bohmann and T. McCarthy (eds), After Philosophy: End or Transformation? (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1987).
See, for example, M. Foucault, L’Archéologie du Savoir [The Archeology of Knowledge] (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1969)
J.F. Lyotard, La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport sur le Savoir [The Postmodern Condition] (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1982).
J. Habermas, Erkenntnis und Interesse [Knowledge and Human Interest] (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1973)
K.O. Apel, Diskurs und Verant-wortung: Das Problem des Ubergangs zur Postkonventionellen Moral (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1988).
A concise exposition on the linguistic mediation of perceptions and behaviour can be found in B.L. Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality (Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of MIT, 1956). Especially since Wittgenstein, questions related to language have occupied a key role in philosophical discourses. For a selection of classical essays on linguistic philosophy see R. Rorty (ed.), The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1992). Languages, of course, also embed gender-related discriminations. The patterns of most Asian and Western grammatical structures reflect patriarchal practices and entrench as well as mask corresponding cultural values, role assignments and forms of oppression.
L. Walker, The Multi-State System of Ancient China (Hamden, CO: The Shoe String Press, 1953), pp. 73–9.
B.I. Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 63
R. Moritz, Die Philosophie im Alten China (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1990), p. 49.
D.L. Hall and R.T. Ames, Thinking Through Confucius (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1987), pp. 18–19.
Ibid., pp. 17–25. Lisa Raphals contrasts the two ways of thought in a similar way, but focuses on differences between theoretical and practical knowledge as well as on questions related to (metic) intelligence and language. See L. Raphals, Knowing Words: Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992).
A.C. Graham, Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (La Salle: Open Court, 1989), p. 5.
Cox, op. cit., in note 4, p. 128. See also R.W. Cox, ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium (Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983), pp. 162–75.
M. Fischer, ‘Feudal Europe, 800–1300: Communal Discourse and Conflictual Practices’, International Organization (Vol. 46, No. 2, 1992), pp. 427–66.
C. von Clausewitz, Vom Krieg [On War] (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1980), pp. 329–38.
K.J. Holsti, Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order 1648–1989 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
A. Wendt, ‘Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization (Vol. 46, No. 2, 1992), p. 395.
F. Nietzsche, The Dawn of the Day [Morgenröte: Gedanken über die Moralischen Vorurteile], trans. J.M. Kennedy, (London: T.N. Foulis, 1911), paragraph 44.
K.N. Waltz, Man, the State and War (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959).
M. Foucault, L’Ordre du Discours [The Discourse on Language] (Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1971), pp. 31–8.
See, for example, Chuang Tzu, ‘The Chuang Tzu’, trans. W.T. Chan, in A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), pp. 165–6.
A.B. Bozeman, Politics and Culture in International History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), p. 140; Graham, op. cit., in note 16, p. 4
J.M. Koller, Oriental Philosophies (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), p. 197; Schwartz, op. cit., in note 13, p. 414
H. Schleichert, Klassische Chinesische Philosophie: Eine Einführung (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann. 1990), pp. 18–19.
M. Foucault, Naissance de la Clinique [The Birth of the Clinic] (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1963).
T.J. Kaptchuk, The Web That Has No Weaver: Understanding Chinese Medicine (New York, NY: Congdon and Weed, 1983), pp. 1–33 and 256–66.
M. Weber, Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen: Konfuzianismus und Taoismus: Schriften 1915–1920, Gesammelte Schriften, Vol. 19, ed. H. Schmidt-Glintzer (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989), pp. 309–13.
A.C. Graham, Later Mohist Logic, Ethics and Science (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press, 1978)
J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954).
Chuang Tzu, Chuang-tzu: The Inner Chapters, translated by A.C. Graham (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1986), pp. 48–61.
R. Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
R.O. Keohane, ‘Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Politics’, in R.O. Keohane (ed.), op. cit., in note 3, p. 7. It should nevertheless be noted that a number of realist theorists, particularly the ones with a (neo)liberal outlook, are critical about certain aspects of reason. For example, the traditional liberal view emphasizes that rationality only applies to endeavour and not to outcome, or that various external and internal factors are responsible for decision-makers acting ‘only’ under bounded rationality. See R. Gilpin, The Political Economy of International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 28
R.O. Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 111–14.
H.J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), p. 4.
Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, translated by D.C. Lau (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1986), p. 117.
M. Wight, Power Politics, ed. H. Bull and C. Holbraad (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1978), p. 290.
W.B. Gallie, Philosophers of Peace and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 28–9.
F.H. Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 88.
Mo Tzu in Schwartz, op. cit., in note 14, p. 142; T. Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C.B. Macpherson (London: Penguin Books, 1968), p. 185
J. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, edited by R.H. Cox (North Arlington, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1982), pp. 3–10.
J.J. Rousseau, Discours sur l’Origine et les Fondements de I’Inegalité parmi les Hommes [Discourse on the Origin of Inequality] (Paris: Gallimard, 1965), p. 49.
H. Bull, The Anarchical Society (New York, NY: Columbia University Press: 1977), p. 46; Waltz, op. cit., in note 3, pp. 163–72
M. Wight, ‘Western Values in International Relations’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), pp. 102–3.
A. Waley, Three Ways of Thought in Ancient China (New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956), p. 177.
R. Aron, Paix et Guerre entre les Nations [Peace and War] (Paris: Calmann-Lévy, 1962), p. 103.
Ibid., pp. 134–5. See also M. Haas, Asian Culture and International Relations’, in J. Chay (ed.), Culture and International Relations (New York, NY: Praeger, 1990), p. 173
J.K. Fairbank and S.Y. Teng, ‘The Chinese ‘lladition of Diplomacy’, in J. Larus (ed.), Comparative World Politics: Readings in Western and Premodern Non-Western International Relations (Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co, 1964), p. 192. The perception of the international system is also one of the areas in which both realism and Chinese philosophy display their strong masculine biases. The five-fold Confucian model of hierarchy is an examplepar excellence of a patriarchal system in which senior men control both junior men and women in order to consolidate a male dominated societal order. The extension of this domestic model of control to the realm of foreign policy accounts for a further entrenchment of patriarchy. Masculinity in Western approaches to war and peace is equally striking and amply documented. See, for example, J.B. Elshtain, Women and War (New York: Basic Books, 1987)
C. Enloe, The Morning After: Sexual Politics at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993)
Ch. Sylvester, Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)
J.A. Tickner, Gender in International Relations: Feminist Perspectives on Achieving Global Security (New York: Colombia University, 1992).
See K. J. Holsti, ‘The Necrologists of International Relations’, Canadian Journal of Political Science (Vol. XVIII, No. 4, 1985), p. 678
A. Lijphart, ‘Karl W. Deutsch and the New Paradigm in International Relations’, in R.L. Merritt and B.M. Russett (eds), From National Development to Global Community (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981), p. 239
D.J. Puchala and S.I. Fagen, ‘International Politics in the 1970s: The Search for a Perspective’, in R. Maghroori and B. Ramberg (eds), Globalism versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982), p. 48.
A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984).
See R.K. Ashley, ‘Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism, and War’, in J. Der Derian and M.J. Shapiro (eds), op. cit., in note 4; J. Derrida, A Derrida Reader: Between the Blinds, ed. by P. Kamuf (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 259–76; Graham, op. cit., in note 17, pp. 223–31
R. Wiggershaus, Die Frankfurter Schule: Geschichte, Theoretische Entwicklung, Politische Bedeutung (München: Hauser. 1986). pp. 628–46.
See also R.B.J. Walker, ‘World Politics and Western Reason: Universalism, Pluralism, Hegemony’, in R.B.J. Walker (ed.), Culture, Ideology, and World Order (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984), p. 205
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1998 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bleiker, R. (1998). Neorealist Claims in Light of Ancient Chinese Philosophy: the Cultural Dimension of International Theory. In: Jacquin-Berdal, D., Oros, A., Verweij, M. (eds) Culture in World Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26778-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26778-1_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-69379-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-26778-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)