Abstract
This study deals with tracing the origins of Eurocentrism, as well as its consolidation in the form of an Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism, as the dominant views in the study of International Relations (IR). These approaches have influenced not only the academic discipline but also the very political structure of the international system, ignoring the voices of the peripheral regions outside the European/Anglo-Saxon center. Larry Buzan and Richard Little have thoroughly documented five problems in the study of IR: Eurocentrism, Presentism, Anarchophilia, State-centrism and Ahistoricism. Some scholars have suggested that the geotemporal perspective should be broadened to address the fact that, within IR, history has long been viewed as an exogenous, if not superfluous, tool. From this I analyze the differences, similarities and convergences of Eurocentrism and ethnocentrism, then I look at the consolidation of Eurocentrism into an Anglo-saxon ethnocentric mentality. Consequently, I explore humanocentrism and propose a new historiography of IR. To achieve this, academics must act from their own perspectives, setting aside ideology, any supremacist epistemology, and the conditioned mindset to emancipate their research from these. Therefore, dominant theories such as realism would not be the only theoretical framework to understand the history of the international system. Researchers must begin to design new forms to collect the historical information coming from all corners of the globe to deconstruct the IR discipline, expanding regional and inter-regional dialogues, training students to develop a critical eye that can challenge the vision of the mainstream, to transform the system towards a truly global, IR.
Presenters
Salimah CossensStudent, Doctoral, National Autonomous University of Mexico /UNAM, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Details
Presentation Type
Theme
KEYWORDS
EUROCENTRISM, ETHNOCENTRISM, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY, GLOBAL HISTORY
