Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Relating self and other in Chinese and western ...

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

  • Nordin and Smith, Otherness and relationality, CRIA for repository

    Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cambridge Review of International Affairs on 20 Mar 2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160

    Accepted author manuscript, 244 KB, PDF document

    Embargo ends: 20/09/20

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published

Standard

Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought. / Nordin, Astrid Hanna Maria; Smith, Graham M.

In: Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 5, 01.10.2019, p. 636-653.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Harvard

Nordin, AHM & Smith, GM 2019, 'Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought', Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 636-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160

APA

Nordin, A. H. M., & Smith, G. M. (2019). Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(5), 636-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160

Vancouver

Nordin AHM, Smith GM. Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2019 Oct 1;32(5):636-653. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160

Author

Nordin, Astrid Hanna Maria ; Smith, Graham M. / Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought. In: Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 2019 ; Vol. 32, No. 5. pp. 636-653.

Bibtex

@article{98111ac18faa4dc5a4d249b0358cc52b,
title = "Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought",
abstract = "Recent debates in International Relations seek to decolonise the discipline by focusing on relationality between self and other. This article examines the possibilities for preserving a particular type of otherness: {\textquoteleft}radical otherness{\textquoteright} or {\textquoteleft}alterity{\textquoteright}. Such otherness can provide a bulwark against domination and colonialism: there is always something truly other which cannot be assimilated. However, two problems arise. First, if otherness is truly inaccessible, how can self relate to it? Does otherness undermine relationality? Second, can we talk about otherness without making it the same? Is the very naming of otherness a new form of domination? This article draws out and explores the possibilities for radical otherness in Sinophone and Anglophone relational theorising. It addresses the difficulties presented by the need for a sense of radical otherness on the one hand, and the seeming impossibility of either detecting it, or relating to it, on the other. By constructing a typology of four accounts of otherness, it finds that the identification and preservation of radical otherness poses significant problems for relationality. Radical otherness makes relationality between self and other impossible, but without radical otherness there is a danger of domination and assimilation. This is common to both Sinophone and Anglophone endeavours.",
keywords = "radical otherness, alterity, Chinese international relations theory, Western international relations theory, Relationality",
author = "Nordin, {Astrid Hanna Maria} and Smith, {Graham M.}",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cambridge Review of International Affairs on 20 Mar 2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160",
year = "2019",
month = oct
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160",
language = "English",
volume = "32",
pages = "636--653",
journal = "Cambridge Review of International Affairs",
issn = "0955-7571",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relating self and other in Chinese and western thought

AU - Nordin, Astrid Hanna Maria

AU - Smith, Graham M.

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cambridge Review of International Affairs on 20 Mar 2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160

PY - 2019/10/1

Y1 - 2019/10/1

N2 - Recent debates in International Relations seek to decolonise the discipline by focusing on relationality between self and other. This article examines the possibilities for preserving a particular type of otherness: ‘radical otherness’ or ‘alterity’. Such otherness can provide a bulwark against domination and colonialism: there is always something truly other which cannot be assimilated. However, two problems arise. First, if otherness is truly inaccessible, how can self relate to it? Does otherness undermine relationality? Second, can we talk about otherness without making it the same? Is the very naming of otherness a new form of domination? This article draws out and explores the possibilities for radical otherness in Sinophone and Anglophone relational theorising. It addresses the difficulties presented by the need for a sense of radical otherness on the one hand, and the seeming impossibility of either detecting it, or relating to it, on the other. By constructing a typology of four accounts of otherness, it finds that the identification and preservation of radical otherness poses significant problems for relationality. Radical otherness makes relationality between self and other impossible, but without radical otherness there is a danger of domination and assimilation. This is common to both Sinophone and Anglophone endeavours.

AB - Recent debates in International Relations seek to decolonise the discipline by focusing on relationality between self and other. This article examines the possibilities for preserving a particular type of otherness: ‘radical otherness’ or ‘alterity’. Such otherness can provide a bulwark against domination and colonialism: there is always something truly other which cannot be assimilated. However, two problems arise. First, if otherness is truly inaccessible, how can self relate to it? Does otherness undermine relationality? Second, can we talk about otherness without making it the same? Is the very naming of otherness a new form of domination? This article draws out and explores the possibilities for radical otherness in Sinophone and Anglophone relational theorising. It addresses the difficulties presented by the need for a sense of radical otherness on the one hand, and the seeming impossibility of either detecting it, or relating to it, on the other. By constructing a typology of four accounts of otherness, it finds that the identification and preservation of radical otherness poses significant problems for relationality. Radical otherness makes relationality between self and other impossible, but without radical otherness there is a danger of domination and assimilation. This is common to both Sinophone and Anglophone endeavours.

KW - radical otherness

KW - alterity

KW - Chinese international relations theory

KW - Western international relations theory

KW - Relationality

U2 - 10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160

DO - 10.1080/09557571.2019.1576160

M3 - Journal article

VL - 32

SP - 636

EP - 653

JO - Cambridge Review of International Affairs

JF - Cambridge Review of International Affairs

SN - 0955-7571

IS - 5

ER -