2015/09/21 by Deniz Kuru · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #International Relations and Foreign Policy #Political Conflict and Governance #International Development and Aid #Eurocentrism #Historiography #Scholarship #Epistemology #Reflexivity #Sociology #Ideology #Social science #Political science #Philosophy #Anthropology #Law #Politics
paper · doi:10.1017/s0260210515000315
openalex publication_date 2015/09/21 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/01
Abstract The role of Eurocentrism in International Relations (IR) has become a focal point for critical scholarship. However, anti-Eurocentric scholars tend to overlook the extent to which Eurocentrism is a tempo-spatial phenomenon whose roots and development need to be analysed in a way that takes its internal differences into account. This article rejects a single notion of Eurocentrism, proposing instead to understand Eurocentrism through its three forms: historical-contextual, ideological, and residual. This differentiation can provide a means for dealing with the challenges of Eurocentrism in a more self-reflexive manner without seeing it as omnipresent and unchanging. It also offers to approach Eurocentric IR from a perspective that considers the role of historiographical differences in understanding the rise of European powers. This means that IR cannot base its explanatory frameworks on a single ( the ) historical record. Understanding the limits of Eurocentrism and of anti-Eurocentrism provides a better means for dealing with the formerʼs problematic impact on IR scholarship.