Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cambridge Review of International Affairs on 30/07/2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09557571.2019.1641470
Accepted author manuscript, 239 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Relationality and rationality in Confucian and Western traditions of thought
AU - Qin, Yaqing
AU - Nordin, Astrid
N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Cambridge Review of International Affairs on 30/07/2019, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09557571.2019.1641470
PY - 2019/7/30
Y1 - 2019/7/30
N2 - This paper provides a theoretical sketch of relationality within the field of International Relations (IR). It argues, contrary to what many IR scholars hold, that representation is practice: academic representation reflects the background of a community of practice and highlights what is embodied therein. Therefore, different cultural communities have different practices and draw from different background knowledge. Rationality, which serves as the dominant foundation for background knowledge within many Western communities of practice, permeates mainstream IR theory. Relationality performs a similar role in traditionally Confucian communities of practice, where relations enjoy a distinct ontological status over individual rationality. A relational theory assumes (1) that self-existence coincides with other-existence and coexistence, and (2) that self-interest coincides with other-interest. Based on these assumptions, it argues that relations select, meaning that in a social situation actors base their action on relations in the first place and that rationality is and can only be defined in terms of relations. The article uses the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as an example to elaborate its theoretical point.
AB - This paper provides a theoretical sketch of relationality within the field of International Relations (IR). It argues, contrary to what many IR scholars hold, that representation is practice: academic representation reflects the background of a community of practice and highlights what is embodied therein. Therefore, different cultural communities have different practices and draw from different background knowledge. Rationality, which serves as the dominant foundation for background knowledge within many Western communities of practice, permeates mainstream IR theory. Relationality performs a similar role in traditionally Confucian communities of practice, where relations enjoy a distinct ontological status over individual rationality. A relational theory assumes (1) that self-existence coincides with other-existence and coexistence, and (2) that self-interest coincides with other-interest. Based on these assumptions, it argues that relations select, meaning that in a social situation actors base their action on relations in the first place and that rationality is and can only be defined in terms of relations. The article uses the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as an example to elaborate its theoretical point.
U2 - 10.1080/09557571.2019.1641470
DO - 10.1080/09557571.2019.1641470
M3 - Journal article
VL - 32
SP - 601
EP - 614
JO - Cambridge Review of International Affairs
JF - Cambridge Review of International Affairs
SN - 0955-7571
IS - 5
ER -