نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانش‌آموخته دکتری روابط بین‌الملل دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
علی‌رغم اینکه جامعه دانشگاهی روابط بین‌الملل در دهه‌های اخیر تلاش کرده تا بدون حذف، تغییر بنیادی و با تکیه بر رویکرد «روابط بین‌الملل جهانی» بر وسعت دید نظریه‌پردازی جریان اصلی بیفزاید، به موازات شاهد تلاش نظریه‌پردازان ملی‌گرا برای ایجاد نظریات بومی هستیم که با قدرت گرفتن جریان فکری- حاکمیتی «خودیاری‌گرا» این روند تشدید شده است؛ اما نظریه‌پردازی بومی تا امروز موفق به کسب جایگاه و هویت دانشگاهی مستقل نشده و مورد استقبال پژوهشگران قرار نگرفته است که این عدم شکل‌گیری را برخی به عملکرد جریان اصلی روابط بین‌الملل نسبت می‌دهند. در جریان اصلی نیز برخی نقش روابط بین‌الملل امریکایی را پررنگ‌تر دیده و بر تاثیرگذاری عمیق امریکا در فرآیند نظریه‌پردازی تاکید دارند. مبنای این استدلال، پذیرش نقش «چیره‌طلبانه بین‌المللی» امریکا می‌باشد که موجب تولید و مدیریت وقایع بین‌المللی متعدد دانسته شده که در نهایت برای پژوهشگران بومی‌گرا نیز چاره‌ای جز انتخاب مسائل و تحلیل از منظر تاثیرگذاری عمیق سیاست خارجی امریکا باقی نگذاشته است. در اینجا بحث روند مشروعیت‌یابی از طریق امکان اجرایی شدن نظریات، موضوع مهمی است که «سندروم کیسینجر» را در اندیشمندان غیرامریکایی تشدید می‌نماید. در این پژوهش 500 مقاله علمی- پژوهشی از میان مقاله‌های منتشر شده در سال‌های 1398، 1399 و 1400 مجلات علمی- پژوهشی روابط بین‌الملل ایران مورد بررسی و تاثیرگذاری امریکا بر ادبیات روابط بین‌الملل ایرانی مورد واکاوی قرار گرفته است.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Critical Theories, International Relations, Iranian International Relations, Kissinger Syndrome, US Hegemony
نویسنده [English]
- Sajjad sadeghi
Ph.D, International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
Analyzing international relations (IR) theories reveals that non-Western theories are yet to fully materialize. Some scholars argue that a significant impediment to the recognition of non-Western IR theories is the pervasive influence of the US in the field of IR. They point to the extensive body of IR articles, books, and theories generated by American academic institutions and scholarly communities as a compelling base for their claim. Despite its European origins, the field of IR is argued to have matured and thrived in the US, hence an American social science. In this respect, researchers worldwide have embarked on various studies to assess the impact of American IR on the development of IR science and theory. Some IR scholars posit that the US hegemony following World War II has further entrenched the profound influence of American IR within the scholarly domain of IR. They argue that the US foreign policy in the bipolar world order, due to the US extensive involvement in pivotal international events, has become an inseparable aspect of IR studies. The crux of the argument lies in the fact that IR researchers select their objects of analysis by considering international events and influential factors. In this context, the US has played a central role in virtually all significant international events for approximately a century. Consequently, IR researchers tend to examine international events in line with the influential role of US foreign policy as a crucial variable.
Literature Review
Assessing the approach of IR scholarship is a conventional method to understand the intra-disciplinary and extra-disciplinary factors shaping the discipline of IR. Concerning the explanations provided for the limited success of non-mainstream theorizing, scholars have consistently underscored the influence of US political domination on IR literature and theorization, leading to an academic hegemony characterized by the center–periphery dynamic. In light of these considerations, the extent of American influence on shaping academic scholarship in a given country is a recognized object of analysis, which can shed light on the status of IR discipline in the local and national contexts. Regrettably, the topic has not been examined in the Iranian scientific literature, except the author’s individual research titled “Research Approaches of Iranian International Relations Articles: A Review of Scientific Research Articles Published in 2021." The findings of this research helped discern the strong influence of US foreign policy on Iranian IR scholarship, notably in the selection of research topics and the research process.
Materials and Methods
The current research employed a random selection process and a specific software to choose 500 Persian articles from Iranian journals in the field of IR and political science, spanning from March 2019 to March 2022. The primary focus was to analyze the journal articles with regard to their being influenced by US foreign policy. Grounded theory was used as the research method, yet it is important to note that the aim was not to formulate a specific theory but to test the claim and present a confirmed proposition in light of the research findings. Actually, this method was used to gather information and align it with existing propositions and claims. The reliability of this research was ensured thanks to the systematic inductive process, which allows for an unbiased examination of the research proposition.
Results and Discussion
The findings revealed that Iranian IR researchers predominantly adhere to the framework of mainstream IR theories and exhibit limited inclination towards critical theories or globalized international relations theories. Notably, for every three Iranian articles on IR, one article was found to be focused on US foreign policy as a significant variable. There was the initially speculation that the substantial volume of articles on US foreign policy were attributed to the longstanding tense relations Iran and America over the past four decades. However, upon closer examination, it became apparent that only a limited number of these articles were directly related to Iran-US relations, and most of them were predominantly centered around Iran’s nuclear issue. A significant number of the journal articles had delved into US foreign policy in various world regions. For instance, for Iranian scholars of IR, US foreign policy is an important independent variable in the analysis of topics related to Iraq, ISIS, Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. An evaluative analysis revealed that Iranian IR researchers tend to hold a pessimistic outlook on the performance of American foreign policy, which is closely aligned with the official foreign policy stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The prevailing opinion among Iranian IR scholars is that the active presence of America in international events is not motivated by humanitarian objectives. They contend that US decisions such as the military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the military presence in the Persian Gulf, or the provision of American aid to Israel are devoid of genuine humanitarian goals. Instead, they view American intervention as a source of instability in the international order and a disruptive factor of global peace. The pessimistic perspectives put forth by the majority of Iranian IR researchers echoes what is often termed as Kissinger Syndrome.
Conclusion
The analysis of 500 articles led to several noteworthy conclusions. First, Iranian IR scholars tend to follow the mainstream IR theorizing, demonstrating a distinct separation from critical schools of thought. Second, Iranian IR does not seek to localize IR ideas or enrich its perspectives in line with global IR. Third, Iranian scholarship is critical of the US international role and perceives it as a disruptive factor of regional and global stability and peace, despite the US declared humanitarian foreign policy. Fourth, Iranian IR research focuses on US foreign policy as an independent variable, which can be attributed to America’s extensive involvement in regional and global crises. Finally, while Iranian IR scholarship dedicates itself to issues of significant relevance to the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it often overlooks the performance and impact of Iran’s foreign policy in these areas. Instead, it approaches the relevant issues from the perspective of other variables.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Critical Theories
- Indigenous (Native Studies) Theorizing
- Iranian International Relations
- Kissinger Syndrome
- the US Hegemony
- برچیل، اسکات؛ لینکلیتر، اندرو، (1391)، نظریه‌های روابط بین‌الملل، ترجمه حمیرا مشیرزاده و روح‌اله طالبی‌آرانی، تهران: نشر میزان.
- بوزان، باری؛ آکاریا، آمیتاو، (1390)، نظریه‌های غیر‌غربی روابط بین‌الملل: دیدگاه‌هایی‌درباره آسیا و فراسوی‌آن، ترجمه علیرضا طیب، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات موسسه ابرار معاصر تهران.
- صادقی، سجاد، (1401)، «نقش ایالات متحده امریکا در روند تکوین نظریه‌پردازی روابط بین‌الملل: بررسی نظام ارزشی-هنجاری و مطالعه موردی فردگرایی»، فصلنامه دانش تفسیر سیاسی، سال چهارم، شماره 13، صص 56-93.
- صادقی، سجاد؛ کیوان‌حسینی، سید‌اصغر، (1401)، «امریکا و نظریه‌پردازی روابط بین‌الملل: برداشتی انتقادی از مولفه‌های نظام هنجاری، سیاست قدرت و تولید علم»، فصلنامه سیاست جهانی، آذرماه، دوره 11، شماره 3، شماره پیاپی41، صص 213-239.
- مشیرزاده، حمیرا، (۱۳۹۰)، «تحولات جدید نظری در روابط بین‌الملل: زمینه مناسب برای نظریه‌پردازی بومی»، پژوهشنامه علوم سیاسی، سال ششم، شماره دوم، صص 165-201.
References
- Acharya, Amitva, (2011), “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the West”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 39, No.3, pp. 619-637.
- Acharya, Amitva, (2017), “Toward a Global International Relations?”, E-International Relations, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 1-5.
- Alejandro, Audrey, (2018), Western Dominance in International Relations? The Internationalization of IR in Brazil and India, London: Routledge.
- Buzan, Barry & Acharya, Amitav, (2017), “Why is There no Non-Western International Relations Theory? Ten Years on”, In International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, Vol. 17, No.3, pp. 341-370.
- Cohen, Benjamin J, (2017), International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. London: Routledge.
- Crawford, Robert M.A & Jarvis, Darryl SL, (2001), International Relations still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, NewYork: Sunny Press.
- Eriksson, John R & Norman, Ludving, (2011), “Political Utilization of Scholary Ideas: The Clash of Civilization VS Soft Power in US Foreign Policy”, Review of International Studies, Vol. 37, No. 01, pp. 417-436.
- Friedrichs, Jorg, (2004), European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions, London: Routledge.
- Gofas, Andres&Hamati, Ataya& Onuf, Nicholas, (2018), History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations, London & NewYork: SAGE.
- Grosser, Alfred, (1956), “Letude des relations internationals, Specialite americaine?”, Revue francaise de science politique, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 634-651.
- Harding, Sandra, (1998), Is Science Multicultural? Post Colonialism, Feminism and Epistemologies, Bloomington Indiana University Press.
- Hoffmann, Stanley, (1977), “An American Social Science: International Relations”, Daedalus: Discoveries and Interpretations Studies in Contemporary Scholarship, Vol. 106, No. 3, pp 212-241.
- Holsti, KJ, (1985), The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, London: Routledge.
- Ish-Shalom, Piki, (2009), “Theorizing Politics, Politicizing Theory and the Responsibility that Runs Between, In Perspectives on Politics”, Cambridge Universuty Press, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 303-316.
- Keohane, Robert O, (1984), After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton University Press.
- Keohane, Robert O, (2004), “Theory and International Institutions: Conversation With Robert O Keohane”, Institute of International Studies, University of Californial, Berkeley.
- Keohane, Robert O, (2020), “Understanding Multilateral Institutions in Easy and Hard Times”, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 23, No.1, pp 1-18.
- Krippendorf, Ekkehart, (1987), “The Dominnce of American Approaches in International Relations”, Millennium, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 207-214.
- Kuru, Deniz, (2018), “Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholar, Theory?”, All Azimuth: Widening the World of International Relations, pp. 59-80.
- Lake, David A, (2006), “American Hegemony and the Future of East-West Relations”, International Studies Perspectives, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 23-30.
- Lazarus, Richard S & Folkman, Susan, (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, US:Springer Publishing Company.
- Linklater, Andrew, (1990), Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Luhmann, N. & Bednarz, John & Beacker, Dirk, (1996), Social Systems: Writing Science, Stanford University Press.
- McCourt, David M, (2020), American Power and International Theory at the Council on Foreign Relations: 1953-54, University of Michigan Press.
- Mearsheimer, John. J, (2005), “E.H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On”, International Relations, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.139-152.
- Miliniak, Daniel& Long, James D& Peterson, Susan& Tierney, Micheal J, (2018), “The Global Study of International Relations: Hegemony, Diversity or Insularity”, Security Studies, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 450-496.
- Neumann and O. Wæver, eds, (1997), The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making?, London and New York: Routledge.
- Oatley, Thomas, (2019), International Political Economy, Sixth Edition, London: London: Routledge.
- Pandikttu, Kuruvilla, (2001), A Critical, Contextual and Creative Approach to Gandhi, in Gandhi: The Meaning of Mahatma for Millennium, Washington DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
- Schmidt, Brian C, (2012), International Relations and the First Great Debate: New International Relations, London: Routldge.
- Smith, Steve, (1985), International Relations: British and American Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
- Snidal, Duncan, (1985), “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory”, International Organization, 39, No. 4, pp. 579-614.
- Subotic, Jelena & Steele, Brent J, (2018), “Moral Injury in International Relations”, Journal of Global Security Studies, Vol. 3 , No. 4, pp. 387-401.
- Tickner, Judith Ann, (2013), “Dealing with Difference: Problems and Possibilities for Dialogue in International Relations”, Millennium, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 607-618.
- Turton, Helen Louise, (2016), International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline, London & NewYork: Routledge.
- Wæver, Ole, (1997), Figures of International Thought: Introducing Persons Instead of Paradigms, London & NewYork: Routledge.
- Wæver, Ole, (1998), “The Sociology of Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in IR”, International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 682-727.
- Waltz, N.Kenneth, (1979), Theory of International Politics, Boston: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
- Wohlforth, William C, (1999), “The Stability of a Unipolar World”, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 5-41.
)