Why do not have theory of political economy based on foundation of the Third World scholarship?”: Hegemony and Academic Discrimination of Eurocentric Knowledge
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61462/cujss.v46i1.1157Keywords:
Historiography of the discipline, Eurocentrism, Non-Eurocentric Foundation of Political Economy, Hegemony, Science racismAbstract
To begin with a research question, “why do not have theory of political economy based on foundation of the Third World scholarship?” By employing an approach of historiography of the discipline this article argues that knowledge of political economy in term of “theory” have been dominated by Eurocentrism, both liberalism and Marxism, since the 18th and 19th centuries. In case of science of methodologies (liberalism) and path of historical materialism (Marxism), both theories lead to discrimination and science racism to knowledge which bases on non-Eurocentric foundation of political economy in different ways: boundary of study, knowledge resources, and devalued non-Eurocentric knowledge as area studies, not theory. However, Eurocentric hegemony of political economy has been challenged by non-Eurocentric political economy that is the approach of “everyday politics.”
Downloads
References
Acharya, Amitav, and Barry Buzan. 2007. Why is there no non-Western international relations theory?:An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacifif ic 7(3): 287-312.
Al-Ghazali, Muhammad. 2008. The secularist modernist bias of Western social sciences. Islam and Science 6(1): 73-89.
Bates, Robert H. 1997. Area studies and the discipline: A useful controversy?” Political Science and Politics 30(2): 166-169.
-----. 1996. Letter from the president: Area studies and the discipline. Newsletter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics 7(1): 1-2.
Bilgin, Pinar. 2008. Thinking past ‘Western’ IR? Third World Quarterly 29(1): 5-23.
Caves, Richard E. 1976. Economic models of political choice: Canada’s tariff structure. The Canadian Journal of Economics 9(2): 278-300.
Chen, Ching-Chang. 2011. The absence of non-Western IR theory in Asia reconsidered. International Relations of the Asia-Pacifif ic 11(1): 1-23.
Cohen, Benjamin J. 2007. The transatlantic divide: Why are American and British IPE so different?. Review of International Political Economy 14(2): 197-219.
Cox, Robert W. 1996. Gramsci, hegemony, and international relations: An essay in method. In Approach to world order, eds. Robert W. Cox, and Timothy J. Sinclair, 124-143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-----. 1986. Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relation theory. In Neoliberalism and its critics, ed. Robert O. Keohane, 204-254. New York: Columbia University Press.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frank, Andre Gunder. 1967. Capitalism and underdevelopment in Latin America: Historical studies of Chile and Brazil. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Gunaratne, Shelton A. 2009. Globalization: A non-Western perspective: The bias of social science/communication oligopoly. Communication, Culture & Critique 2(1): 60-82.
Graham, Loren, and Jean-Michel Kantor. 2007. Soft’ area studies versus hard social science: A false opposition. Slavic Review 66(1): 1-19.
Hobson, John M. 2006. Civilizing the global economy: Racism and the continuity of Anglo-Saxon Imperialism. In Global standards of market civilization, eds. Brett Bowden, and Leonard Seabrooke, 60-76. New York: Routledge.
-----. 2004. The Eastern origins of Western civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-----. 2012. The Eurocentric conception of world politics: Western international theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-----. 2013a. Part 1 – Revealing the Eurocentric Foundation of IPE: A critical historiography of the discipline from the classical to the modern era. Review of International Political Economy 20(5): 1024-1054.
-----. 2013b. Part 2 – Reconstructing the non-Eurocentric Foundation of IPE: From Eurocentric ‘Open economy politics’ to inter-civilizational political economy. Review of International Political Economy 20(5): 1055-1081.
Hobson, John M., and Leonard Seabrooke, eds. 2007. Everyday politics of the world economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horkheimer, Max. 1982. Critical theory: Selected essays. Matthew J. O’Conell, et al., trans. New York: Continuum.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1996. The clash of civilization and the remaking of world order. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel. 2005. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kindleberger, Charles P. 1970. Power and money: The politics of international economics and the economics of international politics. New York: Basic Books.
Laitin, David D. 2003. The Perestroikan challenge to social science. Politics and Society 31(1): 163-184.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1959. Some social requisites of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy. The American Political Science Review 53(1): 69-105.
Perestroika. 2000. On the irrelevance of APSA and APSR to the study of Political Science. https://archive.org/ stream/OnTheIrrelevanceOfApsaAndApsrToTheStudy OfPoliticalScience/mrperestroika_djvu.txt (Accessed on November 15, 2015).
Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Eveline Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992. Capitalist development and democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven and London: Tale University Press.
Steinmo, Sven. 2005. The emperor had no clothes: The politics of taking back the APSR. In Perestroika! The Raucous Rebellion in political science, ed. Kristen Renwick Monroe, 294-303. New Haven: Yale University.
Stewart, Sharla A. 2003. Revolution from within. University of Chicago Magazine 95(5). http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0306/features/index-print.shtml (Accessed on November 10, 2015).
Thomas, Peter D. 2009. The Gramscian moment philosophy, hegemony and Marxism. Leiden: Brill.
Tullock, Gordon. 1967. The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies and theft. Western Economic Journal 5(3): 224-232
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Public Licensing Terms
Copyright and Licensing Policy
The Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Science publishes all content under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Copyright
All published articles in the Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Science are the copyright of the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University. Authors transfer all rights to the journal upon acceptance of their manuscript for publication.
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 License
Under this license:
-
Attribution (BY): Users must give appropriate credit to the authors, the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, and the Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Science, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. They may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses them or their use.
-
NonCommercial (NC): Users may not use the material for commercial purposes. Commercial use requires prior written permission from both the authors and the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
-
NoDerivatives (ND): If users remix, transform, or build upon the material, they may not distribute the modified material. Adaptations of the work require prior written permission from both the authors and the Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
Open Access Statement
The Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Science provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, in accordance with the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
Self-Archiving Policy
Authors may archive the final published version, preprints, or postprints of their articles in institutional repositories or on their personal websites, provided that they acknowledge the original publication in the Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Science with a complete citation and a link to the journal's website.
Permissions
For any use beyond those covered by the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, please contact:
Editorial Office
Chulalongkorn University Journal of Social Science
Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University
Email: cusocscij@gmail.com
For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, please visit: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
