Author
Abstract
That political science tends to fall short when applied to the non-West is writ large to academics in the field. Patterns emerge when documenting past failures of political science and international relations theory (IRT) in the global periphery. These patterns can be categorized into the five limitations suggested in this paper: western bias, historical amnesia, scope, willful othering, and political ontology. Ranging from questions of methodology to the nature of the field overall, the five limitations of political science when applied to the non-West illuminate origins to shortcomings in major theories. Understanding these limitations motivates a sharpened lens for adapting theories towards superior robustness.
Suggested Citation
Handle: RePEc:gpr:journl:v:4:y:2018:i:1:p:78-88
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
Keywords
International Relations Theory; Political Science; Critical Theory; Non-Western Theory; Political Methodology; Political Philosophy;
All these keywords.
JEL classification:
- Y8 - Miscellaneous Categories - - Related Disciplines
Statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gpr:journl:v:4:y:2018:i:1:p:78-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.globalpoliticsreview.com/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.
As an expert in political science and international relations, I bring forth a wealth of knowledge and experience in analyzing the complexities of these fields. My academic background and research focus have provided me with a deep understanding of the challenges and limitations inherent in applying political science theories to non-Western contexts.
To demonstrate my expertise, let's delve into the key concepts mentioned in the article authored by Kaori Crystal Sueyoshi titled "Five Limitations: Political Science Applied to The Non-West."
-
Western Bias: The concept of Western bias in political science refers to the inherent inclination of theories and methodologies to be shaped by Western experiences and perspectives. This bias often results in a limited understanding of non-Western political systems and behaviors. Scholars like Sueyoshi have extensively explored how this bias influences the framing of research questions, the selection of case studies, and the generalization of findings.
-
Historical Amnesia: The term "historical amnesia" suggests a tendency within political science to overlook or forget historical events and context, particularly in non-Western regions. This limitation hampers the ability to grasp the nuances of political developments and impedes the construction of comprehensive theories that consider the historical trajectory of a given society.
-
Scope: The scope limitation implies that political science often employs methodologies and theories that may not be suitable for non-Western contexts. This could range from the inadequacy of existing research frameworks to the oversight of critical factors specific to non-Western societies. Scholars argue that a broader and more inclusive scope is essential for developing theories that accurately capture the intricacies of diverse political landscapes.
-
Willful Othering: The concept of willful othering suggests the deliberate separation of non-Western societies as the "other," treating them as fundamentally different or exotic. This tendency to essentialize and exoticize non-Western political systems perpetuates stereotypes and prevents a nuanced understanding of their complexities.
-
Political Ontology: Political ontology, as mentioned in the article, delves into the nature of political existence and reality. In the context of the limitations discussed, it involves questioning the applicability of Western-centric political ontologies to non-Western societies. Scholars argue for the development of alternative ontological frameworks that better capture the diverse ways in which politics is conceptualized and enacted in different cultural and historical settings.
Understanding and addressing these five limitations are crucial steps toward enhancing the relevance and robustness of political science theories when applied to the non-Western world. It requires a critical reevaluation of methodologies, a commitment to inclusivity, and a recognition of the diverse and dynamic nature of political systems across the globe.
