Reasons Why Western International Relations Theory Is Not Applicable To The Chinese Context

There are several reasons why Western International relations theory are not applicable to the Chinese context. Historically China did not own theory of its own (not in the traditional western sense) and this has created difficulty in explaining China using those same traditional theories like liberalism, idealism or first wave Constructivism. Mao Zedong’s personal ideology (influenced by Chinese traditions and anti-Western isolationism brought on by the Cold War) also had a large impact on the modern Chinese political landscape. Heavy emphasis is placed on survival and financial practicality both at the individual and state level of Chinese society that little to no discussion on norms and ideals are present within the Chinese zeitgeist as it did with other centres of International Relations like the United States, the European Union and Australia.

Additionally, China was influenced by Confucianism whilst Christianity and Ancient Hellenic philosophy has been at the forefront of Western theories like the just tradition of war. All of this taken in as a collective whole produces several barriers which must be addressed if a truly universal theory of International Relations is ever to be found. With the end of the Cold War, and China’s increasing presence both on the economic and political global circles, the instances of interactions between China and the West are on the rise. With fundamental cultural misunderstandings still left unresolved, it thus become imperative to find a way to understand Chinese motivations and its modus operandi, else the prophesy as espoused by Huntington in Clash of Civilizations may finally be proven true.

This paper will discuss reasons why Western International Affairs theories are not applicable to the China’s context which is coming from a different political, economic, social, cultural and legal background. It will propose a tentative framework to get around some of these issues, in the hopes that this will spawn a new method of creating theories specifically when it comes to interacting with the Chinese civilization in the distant future.

Definitions

To start with the definitions, International Relations refers to a Social Science discipline that is concerned with the interconnectedness of politics, economics, and law on an international level. It involves the interaction of state and non-state actors as well (Chan, 2013). By Western International Relations theories this paper refers to states whose systems have been influenced by the Euro-North American centric views and cultures. In this context, Western is therefore not only limited to geographical Western Europe and North America but also states like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Firstly, the western great powers had been dominating global politics and International affairs making the Euro-North American centric views irrelevant in trying to understand Chinese International Relations Theories in modern history. Such states include Britain, France, Germany and the United States. Standard hypotheses of International Relations claim to be universal, substantial, non-partisan, and value-free in their logical undertakings to clarify the manner in which the International System works and operates. Interestingly in these cases, there is a great connection between power in International Affairs and knowledge production. The powers like Britain, France and the USA had dominated the field of International Affairs before China arose in modern political affairs. Robert W. Cox’s (in Dams and Putten, 2015) renowned statement that theory is always for someone and for some purpose is justifiable and to a great extent in this context many International Affairs theories have been from a Western point of view making them irrelevant and useless in trying to conceptualize and understand Chinese global affairs.

In addition to the above, Western International Affairs have been too Eurocentric to the extent that they are inapplicable to the Chinese context. This is because Cox’s arguments ring so apparent that academic and analytical works created in the Social Sciences worldwide mirror the core’s views and ideologies as in the World Systems Theory (in Dams and Putten, 2015). These Western theories are more relevant in the Western world, specifically, the United States since in International Relations system can be classified and categorized as the central core Social Sciences whilst in the European being semi-peripheral and peripheral for the rest of the world (Kristensen, 2016). With their dominance to universal validity, Euro-North American scholars overwhelm the field of International Relations in the Gramscian sense. Most insightful works in the semi-outskirts and periphery attempt to incorporate into the worldwide International Relations view by the US the scholarly world, while others question and attempt to defeat this center fringe structure of Social Science by challenging the Western-driven standard International Relations hypothesis. China is part of this ‘peripheral’ world which explains why Western theories cannot be applicable to the Chinese context, of which China in the 21st century seems to be playing the big brother role of the peripheral world through South-South cooperation and presenting itself as a developing country (Hsiung, 2009). The Western world is highly a liberal democratic system with a society that celebrates liberal ideals and aspirations and this has additionally hindered them to understand Chinese points of view. With this, it is therefore recommended that in future China can only be analyzed from a Western point of view only when her culture has been socialized and incorporated into the Western global world as in the case of Japan which although having Japanese cultural practises has Western traits in it. China is highly traditional, unlike Japan, therefore scholars must not categorize China into Western global affairs theories until she has been absorbed into Western global standards.

Moreover, the developing world has been excluded to a greater extent in contributing to Western International Relations theories. China belonged in this group even since the 18th century when the United States began developing itself. Whilst other scholars and public figures like Donald Trump argue that China is now developed, she still has some features of the developing world. This makes Western International Relations theories inapplicable to the Chinese context.

Hypothetical and insightful discussions on the Western-driven nature of International Relations hypotheses and the need to overcome this nature have been an enduring issue in the field of International Relations. For instance, early endeavours at scrutinizing the Eurocentrism of International Relations hypotheses can be found in the works of the Latin American Dependency School and the World Systems Analysis.

Immanuel Wallerstein recognized that the ideas of the privilege of the individuals who accept they hold widespread qualities to mediate against the barbarians; the basic particularism of Orientalism; and scientific universalism (Developing Economics, 2019). For Wallerstein, a potential method for conquering the period of European universalism is to make a variety of universalisms by historicizing scholarly investigations (Developing Economics, 2019). Therefore Euro-North American centric universalism has been utilized to legitimize the strength and dominance of the dominant Western world of which China does not belong to, hence the Western theories are irrelevant to the Chinese context. Unless China dominates the world politically, economically and socially it will be impossible for her to dominate the International Affairs discipline. Therefore analysts are recommended to come up with a framework for analysing the developing world and not try to use generalizations from Western international relations theories.

Furthermore, China has got its own school of International Relations making Western viewpoints irrelevant to the Chinese context. Agendas in making a Chinese School of International Relations are a portion of the main endeavours by China in testing the US-driven knowledge generation and in this way, broadening and limiting the International Relations hypothesis for China. The history of China’s International Relations studies goes back to the mid-1950s. Following Qin’s periodization, insightful Chinese International Relations attempts can be ordered into three stages: pre-theory, theory learning, and theory building. For instance, during the action-oriented pre-hypothesis period from 1949 to 1979, the fundamental errand of insightful works was to give information to the international foreign policies and procedures being created by Chinese political pioneers (Wang, 2002). At the end of the day, IR hypothesis building was an action-oriented business that could be only achieved and realized by the pioneers of the Communist Party of China Therefore Chinese International Relations can only be understood from a Chinese point of view and inapplicable in Western terms. This is because of the fact Western liberal democracy and communism have totally different roots, making them different.

In addition to the above, International Relations hypotheses are the total results of a long and challenging procedure and activities. Because of the scholarly hegemony and dominance of a Western political ideal, coming up with non-Western speculation has been much harder to achieve. Since the 1960s in Communist China, there have been different endeavours to satisfy this objective. Be that as it may, a considerable lot of these endeavours fell into the snare of reverberating the Western centricis of Social Sciences. Chinese endeavors to build up Chinese Schools of International Relations have been headed towards a decent start (Spindler, 2013). Instead of making one Chinese School, a few Chinese ways to deal with IR and world requests have developed. It is consequently increasingly fitting to talk about building Chinese Schools of International Relations. While most of these approaches, for example, the Relational Theory, the Tsinghua Approach and the BoR Theory attempt to go into the worldwide International Relations articulated to by the US the scholarly community by consolidating Western and Chinese political idea, others, similar to Zhao’s Tianxia Approach, center exclusively around antiquated Chinese theory (Rigger, 2014). In spite of this distinction, the speculations share a shared opinion: drawing exercises from authentic ancient Chinese writings for defining methodologies for a rising China. As such, just like the case in Maoist China, China’s international affairs are highly unique and cannot be analyzed from a Euro-North American centric viewpoint.

Additionally, China was influenced by Confucianism whilst Christianity has been at the forefront of influencing Western theories.. This is unlike in the Han Chinese culture where wars were waged from one century to century since time immemorial. The basic Confucian mannequin of society is rooted in a hierarchical family shape similar to that in many standard agrarian civilizations (Hwang, 2011). For usual Chinese ‘foreign policy’ (not a thoroughly phenomenal term) at some point of the Ming dynasty, it was about a benevolent and morally most excellent emperor awaiting loyal subordination from others and reserving the proper to punish them if they disturbed China’s peace or good order (Zhang, 2015). This model can be, and is, prolonged to the political and international realms, as it was under the principle of Tianxia which utilized Confucian relational logic to ‘all under heaven’. There is support in the literature for the view that this still applies in modern foreign affairs policy terms, with Confucian cultures being more inclined to hierarchy and bandwagoning than to sovereign equality and balance of power (Harris, 2014). Unlike in China where many unmerciful wars were fought some European states adopted the just war tradition. This was highly influenced by Catholicism making Western International Relations theories inapplicable to the Chinese context which was influenced by Confucianism. The motive of the Christian inspired just war tradition doctrine is to make certain that warfare is morally justifiable via a series of criteria, all of which must be met for hostility to be considered just. Whilst Confucianism inspired some Chinese to be morally just this was different from the just war tradition. For instance, there were concepts like the ‘right to go to war’ (jus ad bellum) and ‘right behaviour in war’ (jus in bello) (Pu, 2019). The first issue is the morality of going to war, and the second being the ethical conduct within the war which ancient Han states did not consider when going to war. With Western systems influenced by the Christian religion and Catholic tenets whilst Chinese religions were influenced by Confucianism it is therefore clear why Western International theories are inapplicable for the Chinese context since religion shapes a society’s culture and approach in International Affairs. Therefore analysts should understand Confucianism first before trying to analyse China from a Eurocentric viewpoint.

Also, Mao Zedong’s personal ideology (influenced by Chinese traditions and anti-Western) shaped China’s International Relations policies during the 20th century. The centralization in thoughts has been apparent traits in Chinese common culture as reinforced by Mao Zedong usually exhibits Chinese collectivism whilst the lifestyle in the United States is pluralism which usually reflects individualism. The collectivism is common in China, in all areas from family, school, company, and in the society. For instance, when the young people begin to go to school, they have instilled such a belief system that the class is a collectivity, and if the class receives correct grades, the college students are proud of it, then, if they behave badly, they must be shameful (Kristensen, 2016). Unlike in the West, collectivism in China is very important whether to a province, a school, a class, a family, a crew and so on. On the other hand in the Euro-North American-centric world individualism is an essential subculture in America. For instance, when most children become adults they move out of their parent’s homes (Hubbert, 2019). Such scholars influenced by the Euro-North American-centric views are therefore the ones who cannot understand the Chinese context making Western International relations theories inapplicable to the Chinese context. The collectivism and individualism are therefore large factors that prevent western hypotheses to be applicable to the Han Chinese.

Additionally, different values are not solely dominating people’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviours, however replicate people’s cognition on the way to do things that also affect the failure of International Relations theories in being relevant to the Chinese context. For instance, due to different cultural backgrounds, Chinese and Westerners have divergent views and values (Hsiung, 2009). On spending issues most Chinese people suggest that one should be conservative at all times with their money. Most of the Chinese people enjoy the feeling of good eating habits well, which is the best happiness in regular thoughts. However, Westerners specifically, North Americans in general often format the price range shut to the limitation, they have a tendency to eat over the budget. Different from Chinese, Americans are willing to spend money on houses, motors and other life products alternatively than eating (Hsiung, 2009). They prefer to enjoy splendid life, such as going camping, vacations and mountain climbing. Small issues like this are also contributory to the explanation of why Western International Relations theories cannot explain the Chinese context. Western International Relations scholars need to put themselves in the Chinese’s shoes so they understand their experiences in order to come up with universally relevant International Affairs viewpoints.

On the other hand to a lesser degree with the end of the Cold War China has been incorporating Western standards into its system like the liberal activities of institutionalism and contributing in progressive world affairs issues as a member of the United Nations security council. For instance, China’s joining of the World Trade Organisation in 2001 and its participation as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council shows that China is advancing from being isolated and being integrated into world affairs. This can be seen in her ratifying conventions on climate change as in the liberal Western practices (Fravel, 2010). In addition to this China also has some realism elements which have made her to be a major superpower in world affairs. For instance her influence in the eastern geopolitics by acting as a regional hegemonic power shows that realism is in the system. China’s use of Machiavellian and Sun Tsu’s realistic strategies (Indo-China region and her dominance on Taiwan) are also signs that the realist theory of International Affairs is unique since states promote national interests at all costs as realists would argue.

Conclusion

Thus, various reasons explain why Western International Relations theories are not applicable to the Chinese context. The growth and development of China and its integration with the global system are two of the most important phenomena in the post-cold war era politics. Though there are numerous studies from the Western world theories on these issues, the fundamental hassle is that Western International Relations theories are insufficient in explaining the Chinese context. The dominant Euro-North America-centric global affairs theories on global relations principles have got their limitations because of different geo-political and geo-cultural roots from which they emanated from. Various reasons have been analysed from a political, economic, social, historical and legal point of view. It is therefore recommended that for Western International Relations scholars to conceptualize the Chinese into a single theory there is a need for them to understand that China is not only different from the West in terms of language but also in culture, ideology and political ideals. China and the Western world views on women and feminism are different making Western International relations theories inapplicable to understand the Chinese system. China’s geographical location in the far East has made it to have different perspectives with the Western word with a different geopolitical issue. China having been influenced by the radical Communist revolution influenced by the ideals of Karl Marx, Lenin and Stalin versus Western states like the United States, France and Britain.