BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20180101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20190308T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20190308T053000
DTSTAMP:20261103T110821
CREATED:20231223T132906Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130738Z
UID:63058-1552023000-1552023000@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Round Table Discussion on "States of Emergence\, States of Knowledge: A Comparative Sociology of International Relations in China and India"
DESCRIPTION:Topic: States of Emergence\, States of Knowledge: A Comparative Sociology of International Relations in China and India \nSpeaker: Dr. Peter Marcus Kristensen\, Associate Professor\, Department of Political Science\, University of Copenhagen \nCompiled by Rajrajeshwari Singh \n8 March 2019 \nDr Peter Marcus  Kristensen\, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen initiated a  discussion on the topic “States of Emergence\, States of Knowledge: A  Comparative Sociology of International Relations in China and India”.  \n  Kristensen’s paper is an outcome of  interviews conducted with members of the academic community in China and India.  Its aim is to examine the relationship between the geopolitical rise of these countries  in international relations and their knowledge production in the field of international  relations. The paper attempts to explore the theoretical and empirical  relationship between the socio-political condition of emerging/rising powers  and their attempts to theorise International Relations\, which it categorises as state of emergence and state of knowledge. Kristensen  highlighted the need to reject a bifurcation between Western IR and the ‘ir’ of  rising powers\, which is common in the sociological and historiographical  literature. The scholar community in rising powers has a view that is embedded  in the state of emergence in  different ways. Kristensen uses four registers – constitutive\, civic\, infrastructural and psychological – and  examines how the scholar community in India and China interacted with these  registers.  \n  The constitutive register which emerges from the state of emergence is concerned with the larger epistemological  order\, for instance\, the association between the growing global interests and  stakes of the rising powers and the epistemic objectives of their IR  scholarship. This register was more optimistically accepted in China. In India\,  a minority of scholars contended that new ‘Indian’ theories of IR should be  located within the framework of global IR theory. Moreover\, a significant  number of Indian scholars were sceptical of India’s emerging power status.  \n  The civic register is problem oriented and serves as a conjunction of  science and politics to address and solve real world problems. It has two  modes\, one to serve as policy advisor to the state\, and the second to perform  the function of a public intellectual and thereby enrich the public discourse  and understanding. The principal difference between China and India in this  regard is that Chinese scholars are more attuned to the role of policy advisors  whereas their Indian counterparts operate more in the public mode. \n  Infrastructural  register features the condition of economic growth and expansion of resources made  available for research. China has experienced immense growth in IR infrastructure\,  which has enabled a Chinese theoretical discourse to emerge. India’s more  gradual emergence has meant that its IR infrastructure has not expanded to the  extent that it has happened in China. Moreover\, Indian IR remains a-theoretical  and conflated with area studies. \n  Psychological  register is the sensibility or awareness of being located in a country that is perceived  as an emerging power. In China\, this sentiment is widespread\, which has not  only boosted the confidence of Chinese scholars but also their sense of wanting  the world to hear their Chinese voice. There is a similar sense of confidence in  India and receptivity to the views of Indian IR scholars abroad. However\,  Indian scholars also feel that only their contributions on India are valued\,  with Western IR still setting the agenda and confining Indian IR to an inferior  position. \n  Kristensen concluded by pointing  out that China and India differ in the co-productive knowledge with respect to  their histories. Different scholars had a different take on the state of  emergence. The differences between China and India are partly explained by the  more advanced rise of China. There is a stronger sense of ‘Chineseness’ within  China’s scholarly discourse\, something that is absent in India.  \n  The following points were raised in  the ensuing discussion: \n  S. Kalyanaraman pointed out that  Indian IR neglected theory partly because of its strong critique of Western IR  theory with its emphasis upon power politics and its efforts to reform the  international economic and security order through nonalignment and the pursuit  of peace. This situation has begun to change since the end of the Cold War with  India’s turn towards greater realism and its integration into the West-led  international economic and security order.  \n  Rajeesh Kumar highlighted the  multiple paths that the development of Indian IR is likely to take\, influenced as  it is by its own traditions as well as by Western IR theory and the inspiration  provided by the development of IR theory in China. \n  Deepshika Shahi of the University  of Delhi highlighted recent trends in IR theoretical development including her  own work on Advaita as a global IR theory. She also pointed out that India’s  diversity means the prevalence of multiple schools of IR theories.  \n  Nazir Mir highlighted the contribution  of the Indian subaltern school to the IR discourse. In addition\, he pointed out  the influence of external factors on the development of theory in the United  States in addition to the role of America’s self-perception of its role\, status  and interests in international affairs.  \n  Kristensen noted the importance of  avoiding regional labels to IR theories such as London School\, Copenhagen  School\, Chinese IR\, Indian IR\, etc.  \n  Kalyanaraman concluded the round  table by referring to the continuing validity of Martin Wight’s three-way  typology of realist\, rationalist\, and revolutionary approaches to IR as a  useful framework within which to apprehend the thought processes of thinkers  and scholars in non-Western countries.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/round-table-discussion-on-states-of-emergence-states-of-knowledge-a-comparative-sociology-of-international-relations-in-china-and-india
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR