The What, Who and Where of World Politics? Two Different Conceptions of 'the International'/D

• Author: Dikmen-Alsancak, Neslihan
• Position: Regional International Relations and Global Worlds: Globalising International Relations

Introduction

The discipline of International Relations (IR) has long witnessed discussions on the limitations of the discipline in its understanding of world politics, and the place of the non-core. These discussions have focused on the " 'Western' character," "Western-centrism," and "Westernness" and/or "Eurocentrism" of the discipline. (1) Scholars who contribute to this debate have suggested that such limitations resulted in overlooking experiences in different parts of the world for understanding world politics, (2) and hence pose an obstacle in making IR a global discipline. (3) Relatedly, a scholarship has emerged in the discipline that is interested in "looking beyond the West" (4) for making sense of world politics as it is experienced in different parts of the world.

Based on particular rationales, different scholars prefer different terms such as "Third World", "Global South", "non-West", "non-core", and "colonized" while contributing to this discussion. Throughout the paper, we use these terms interchangeably, although we remain cognizant of their problematic nature. In this paper, these terms refer to those parts of the world that are "not to be located on or near the top of hierarchies" (5) and are "less influential," "non-dominant," and/or "non-privileged" in world politics. (6)

The article examines two bodies of IR scholarship in this discussion. The first is composed of Third World IR scholarship, which does not refer to studies of those located in or from the Third World but rather to the scholarship that explores international relations from the perspectives of states and social groups in the Third World. The second is postcolonial IR scholarship, which is composed of studies approaching international relations through using postcolonial insights. We chose to focus on these two scholarships since they have been influential in discussions about the discipline's limitations in its engagement with the non-core. That said, in the literature, these scholarships are mostly treated as composing a single approach. (7) How each contributes to this discussion and whether there are any differences between them has been under-examined. Informed by this observation, this paper aims to look at conceptions of 'the international' as found in these scholarships and question whether there have been any differences in their understandings of this notion. We suggest that this analysis is significant because it is the conceptions of 'the international' that inform how the limitations of IR and the place of the non-core in world politics are understood.

As we will explain in detail in the next section, we offer to study the conceptions of 'the international' as found in the writings of scholars from Third World IR scholarship and postcolonial IR scholarship with reference to questions that constitute the conceptions of 'the international,' namely, the what, who, and where of world politics. In the literature, different terminologies are used to define the subject matter of the discipline, including "world politics", "global politics", and "international relations", and there have been debates about the limitations and implications of these terms for the discipline of IR. (8) Although we are aware of such debates, we do not engage with them in this paper. As such, we use world politics and international relations/politics interchangeably.

In choosing the scholars subjected to analysis, we use "purposive sampling". The purposive sampling method aims to "produce a sample that can be logically assumed to be representative of the population" by consulting "expert knowledge" available in the field. (9) As such, we select scholars based on the discussions on these scholarships in the literature. In these discussions, other IR scholars have identified selected authors as significant representatives who have produced some of the earliest studies on these two respective bodies of scholarship. (10) Based on this method, we look at the works of Caroline Thomas, Mohammed Ayoob, and Stephanie G. Neuman in examining Third World IR scholarship, and Albert J. Paolini, L.M.H. Ling, and Siba N. Grovogui in analyzing postcolonial IR scholarship.

Our findings suggest that despite certain commonalities between them, there have been significant differences in the conceptions of 'the international' in the two bodies of scholarship under consideration. While the scholars who study the Third World point to a 'particular' conception of 'the international' by highlighting experiences in the Third World, postcolonial IR scholarship goes beyond merely pointing to particular experiences, questioning 'universality' assumptions in IR. Thus, Third World IR scholarship broadens the conception of 'the international' in IR, whereas postcolonial IR scholarship deepens it.

The paper is organized into three sections. The first section introduces the framework. The second section looks at the conception of 'the international' in Third World IR scholarship. The third part examines postcolonial IR scholarship and analyzes the conception of 'the international' in this literature. In these two sections, we also highlight the implications of these conceptions for the study of the non-core. The concluding section discusses the importance of our findings for the discipline of IR.

How to Examine the Conceptions of 'the International'?

In order to examine the conceptions of 'the international' in these two bodies of scholarship, we suggest analysing three questions that constitute the conceptions of 'the international,' namely the what, who, and where of world politics (11) The "What of world politics" refers to interrogating scholars' basic ideas about "what makes the world go around." (12) In other words, this question is interested in identifying the most fundamental dynamic shaping world politics according to different scholars. This question enables us to see whether scholars conceive material and/or ideational aspects of world politics, how they challenge conventional understandings and what they offer in their stead. Through questioning the "who of world politics," we look at those actors whose acts shape world politics according to the selected scholars. This question also includes a discussion of why scholars consider these actors significant and how they account for how these actors' ideas, capabilities, practices, or policies influence world politics. Lastly, the "where of world politics" aims to understand the location of world politics or where world politics takes place according to the selected scholars. This question examines whether scholars take internal and external realms as "separate or convergent" (13) and where they think ideas, capabilities, practices, and policies of the actors of world politics take place.

By utilising this framework, we examine the conceptions of 'the international' as found in Third World IR scholarship (section 2) and postcolonial IR scholarship (section 3). While doing so, we also show how these conceptions differ from the mainstream or conventional accounts in the discipline and discuss their implications for studying world politics. We understand mainstream or conventional accounts of IR as those which "defend[s] a positivist idea of science" and share an ontological and epistemological assumption that "the West and North America are the main origins (and drivers) of international relations" and IR. (14)

The Conception of 'the International' in Third World IR Scholarship

The aim to understand the place and role of the Third World in world politics and IR has been on Third World IR scholars' agenda since the late 1980s. These scholars mainly address two points about the limitations of IR and its "Western character." First, they point out that the Third World received attention only within the context of great power politics. (15) This situation did not change with the end of the Cold War. Security and development issues in the Third World were still examined as regards "perceived threats to the north such as terrorism, migration, human trafficking." (16) Second, these scholars have questioned the "correspondence between standard IR terminology, categories and theories, and third world realities" (17) and suggest the necessity for rethinking them. (18) Since the selected scholars did not openly discuss how they conceive 'the international,' we aim to tease out their conceptions from their writings.

The What of World Politics?

From the perspective of the Third World IR scholars, the unequal distribution of power between the core and non-core parts of the world shapes the main dynamic of world politics. In this understanding, even though the anarchical nature of world politics manifests itself in the existence of the formal sovereign equality of the Third World states, which was gained in the course of the decolonization process, the high amount of inequality in the distribution of power (material capacities) defines world politics' hierarchical nature. By pointing to these unequal power relations between the core and non-core parts of the world, Third World IR scholarship explains the reasons for these inequalities and their implications for the functioning of world politics.

In their analysis, the notion of hierarchy is mainly understood with reference to material aspects, such as military, economic, and institutional capabilities. According to Third World IR scholars, due to their late entrance into the international political and economic system, Third World states experienced hierarchy in world politics. Hence, Third World states are not experiencing state-making and nation-building processes under the same international conditions as their Western counterparts. Since there are already established international norms of human rights and standards of political behaviour, these norms also affected Third World states' political legitimacy, economic development and contributed to their internal...