Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism

Astrid H.M. Nordin; Graham M. Smith; Raoul Bunskoek; Chiung chiu Huang; Yih jye Hwang; Patrick Thaddeus Jackson; Emilian Kavalski; L. H.M. Ling; Leigh Martindale; Mari Nakamura; Daniel Nexon; Laura Premack; Yaqing Qin; Chih yu Shih; David Tyfield; Emma Williams; Marysia Zalewski

doi:10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978

Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism

Astrid H.M. Nordin, Graham M. Smith, Raoul Bunskoek, Chiung chiu Huang, Yih jye Hwang, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Emilian Kavalski, L. H.M. Ling, Leigh Martindale, Mari Nakamura, Daniel Nexon, Laura Premack, Yaqing Qin, Chih yu Shih, David Tyfield, Emma Williams, Marysia Zalewski

School of International Studies

Research output: Journal Publication › Editorial

30 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

What is ‘relational theorizing’ in International Relations and what can it offer? This article introduces a thematic section that responds to these questions by showing two things. First, relational theorizing is not a doctrine or a method, but a set of analyses that begin with relations rather than the putative essences of constitutively autonomous actors. Second, relational theorizing has emerged from different geo-linguistic traditions, and a relational approach to International Relations (IR) can offer the language and space for increased and productive engagement beyond Anglophone scholarship. This thematic section takes a significant step in this direction by staging a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relational IR theorizing. Such an engagement shows points of comparison and contrast, convergence and divergence. In this way, the essays presented here contribute to developing a more ‘global’ IR.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	570-581
Number of pages	12
Journal	Cambridge Review of International Affairs
Volume	32
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978
Publication status	Published - 3 Sept 2019

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Political Science and International Relations

Access to Document

10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978

Cite this

Nordin, A. H. M., Smith, G. M., Bunskoek, R., Huang, C. C., Hwang, Y. J., Jackson, P. T., Kavalski, E., Ling, L. H. M., Martindale, L., Nakamura, M., Nexon, D., Premack, L., Qin, Y., Shih, C. Y., Tyfield, D., Williams, E., & Zalewski, M. (2019). Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(5), 570-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978

@article{1b87d0fb256c40c085631d972b1ffd3e,

title = "Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism",

abstract = "What is {\textquoteleft}relational theorizing{\textquoteright} in International Relations and what can it offer? This article introduces a thematic section that responds to these questions by showing two things. First, relational theorizing is not a doctrine or a method, but a set of analyses that begin with relations rather than the putative essences of constitutively autonomous actors. Second, relational theorizing has emerged from different geo-linguistic traditions, and a relational approach to International Relations (IR) can offer the language and space for increased and productive engagement beyond Anglophone scholarship. This thematic section takes a significant step in this direction by staging a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relational IR theorizing. Such an engagement shows points of comparison and contrast, convergence and divergence. In this way, the essays presented here contribute to developing a more {\textquoteleft}global{\textquoteright} IR.",

author = "Nordin, {Astrid H.M.} and Smith, {Graham M.} and Raoul Bunskoek and Huang, {Chiung chiu} and Hwang, {Yih jye} and Jackson, {Patrick Thaddeus} and Emilian Kavalski and Ling, {L. H.M.} and Leigh Martindale and Mari Nakamura and Daniel Nexon and Laura Premack and Yaqing Qin and Shih, {Chih yu} and David Tyfield and Emma Williams and Marysia Zalewski",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019, {\textcopyright} 2019 Department of Politics and International Studies.",

year = "2019",

month = sep,

day = "3",

doi = "10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978",

language = "English",

volume = "32",

pages = "570--581",

journal = "Cambridge Review of International Affairs",

issn = "0955-7571",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "5",

}

Nordin, AHM, Smith, GM, Bunskoek, R, Huang, CC, Hwang, YJ, Jackson, PT, Kavalski, E, Ling, LHM, Martindale, L, Nakamura, M, Nexon, D, Premack, L, Qin, Y, Shih, CY, Tyfield, D, Williams, E & Zalewski, M 2019, 'Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism', Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 570-581. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978

TY - JOUR

T1 - Towards global relational theorizing

T2 - a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism

AU - Nordin, Astrid H.M.

AU - Smith, Graham M.

AU - Bunskoek, Raoul

AU - Huang, Chiung chiu

AU - Hwang, Yih jye

AU - Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus

AU - Kavalski, Emilian

AU - Ling, L. H.M.

AU - Martindale, Leigh

AU - Nakamura, Mari

AU - Nexon, Daniel

AU - Premack, Laura

AU - Qin, Yaqing

AU - Shih, Chih yu

AU - Tyfield, David

AU - Williams, Emma

AU - Zalewski, Marysia

PY - 2019/9/3

Y1 - 2019/9/3

N2 - What is ‘relational theorizing’ in International Relations and what can it offer? This article introduces a thematic section that responds to these questions by showing two things. First, relational theorizing is not a doctrine or a method, but a set of analyses that begin with relations rather than the putative essences of constitutively autonomous actors. Second, relational theorizing has emerged from different geo-linguistic traditions, and a relational approach to International Relations (IR) can offer the language and space for increased and productive engagement beyond Anglophone scholarship. This thematic section takes a significant step in this direction by staging a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relational IR theorizing. Such an engagement shows points of comparison and contrast, convergence and divergence. In this way, the essays presented here contribute to developing a more ‘global’ IR.

AB - What is ‘relational theorizing’ in International Relations and what can it offer? This article introduces a thematic section that responds to these questions by showing two things. First, relational theorizing is not a doctrine or a method, but a set of analyses that begin with relations rather than the putative essences of constitutively autonomous actors. Second, relational theorizing has emerged from different geo-linguistic traditions, and a relational approach to International Relations (IR) can offer the language and space for increased and productive engagement beyond Anglophone scholarship. This thematic section takes a significant step in this direction by staging a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relational IR theorizing. Such an engagement shows points of comparison and contrast, convergence and divergence. In this way, the essays presented here contribute to developing a more ‘global’ IR.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074618650&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978

DO - 10.1080/09557571.2019.1643978

M3 - Editorial

AN - SCOPUS:85074618650

SN - 0955-7571

VL - 32

SP - 570

EP - 581

JO - Cambridge Review of International Affairs

JF - Cambridge Review of International Affairs

IS - 5

ER -

Towards global relational theorizing: a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relationalism

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this