notes (keypoints only): - when the colonies became independent nations, they were liberalised on Western terms - the newly independent colonies had to model themselves after Western states but this was met with not much sucess ("Western countries are better at being Western countries") - some states (E.g China, Israel, Turkey) were able to emulate the Western model but this came with nationalism and oppression of ethnic minorities - the western sovereign state system is a failed system that generated nationalism and war, which is why we had WW1, WW2, and now the EU and things like that to maintain peace - by looking up and copying the West to create a strong state, the new countries 'inherit' this flawed system - if we want to think in non-Western terms, we should look to the past and observe how the world functioned before Western domination (e.g Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, but today this seems impossible because of rigid laws) - globablization is causing further changes (e.g becoming nomads)
@pachi a 💯% correct!!! Western identity politics has ruined the world! Moreso the Muslim world. Look at the bunch of failed states we have across the Middle east!
This is called the true academic sense, free from all kind of identity and psychological burden, simply stating what things are as it is....! Thanks Erik - greetings from Nepal.
We were assigned this as PhD students in IR, and its really brilliant. A horizon-widening explanation that is a breath of fresh air after stale Eurocentricism.
Love your insights and overall sumary regarding this topic. I'm from China and the road towards breaking/finding/rebuilding a new model of ir is truly botherdome and often makes us feel hopeless, especially in this time where the western world is ganging up to trick the netizens into believing there is no future for China. Being Chinese, however, I'm fully confident thst we can find a way through our rich history and find the way that fits ourselves and successfully manoevering the IR that we face in this era.
I would also like to add Brazil to the list of non-western states that try to follow Europe's example of nationalism and failed. When Brazil became independent in 1822 it was a state before being a society, that is to say we had an organized central government with an army and a constitution before we actually had a national identity or ideas, costumes, and stories that could unite us as a community. The result was that instead of existing to repel foreign invaders in the 19th century, our army was a mechanism of violent enforcement from the capital, Rio, to all the regions that rebelled against it. The same European ideas led us also to reject our true population, that is the descendants of the Indigenous and African population in Brazil, and instead tried to import European migrants at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century as a way to "whiten" the county, seen at the time as the only way to build a true "civilized" nation. In the 1930s national thought became more sophisticated and the idea of "multiracial democracy" was born, but by looking at the color of skin and the regions where our presidents, senators, and generals come from it is clear that "racial democracy" was only another way to legitimize the rule mostly white, European-descendent elites who lived in the Southeast of the country, while people of color and from the North and Northeast of the country were relegated to a secondary position. To me, it's tragic because nowadays both the left and the right try to point to "outsiders" as the great enemy of Brazil, be it the communists of American imperialism when, in my opinion, our history is one of fratricide, of Brazilians killing other Brazilians. A story that continues to this day, Brazil has something like 40k homicides every single year, and when you look at the people dying it is clear that they are those who were left outside of the national consolidation process, the victims, the perpetrators, and even the police officers, all come from the same class of disenfranchised people who had to be suppressed so that a "national identity" could be created.
Thank you for this Prof Ringmar. I have been working on an assignment for my Honours degree and this has been helpful for me because I did not fully understand the concept.
I know this a year later since you had to do your assignment. I'm currently doing mine and I just wanted to ask a quick question as I am a bit confused. so I'm required to identify a non-western IR theory and discuss its tenets, origins and shortcomings. I was just wondering what theory you'd choose?
lecture, a very different perspective of the world and that in so simple words. Thank you so much Prof Erik Ringmar. I would be glad to learn more from you.
Prof. Ringmar was so clear in what is now Alternative or Non-Western IR Theory. I think if he could have mentioned the social contract theory, it would have made the things more clearer as it is the first step in the direction of nation-state formation. The SCT, which nobody could prove can be contrasted with the fact that human beings need cooperation because of their very Human nature. Social contract theory involves violence in its nature as as you need to force people to give up their individual wills for the sake of general will, while on the other hand assabiya, or human social organisation is based on necessity and need rather than on force or violence. The modern nation-state, as Weber puts it is legitimacy of violence,or force. Much more thinking needs to be done to establish IR Theory as an alternative to the Western thinking IR.
Title: Embracing Non-Western Perspectives in International Relations: A Path to Global Harmony In the realm of international relations (IR), the dominance of Western perspectives has long been undisputed, shaping the discourse, policies, and academic curriculum worldwide. However, Erik Ringmar's insightful discourse on non-Western international relations theory challenges this hegemony, advocating for a paradigm shift towards embracing diverse perspectives rooted in non-Western traditions. This essay explores Ringmar's arguments, supported by examples, and delves into the significance of incorporating non-Western viewpoints in understanding and addressing contemporary global challenges. Ringmar elucidates how the Western understanding of international politics, entrenched in state-centric sovereignty and colonial legacies, has permeated academic institutions globally. For instance, the Western emphasis on the nation-state as the primary actor in IR has marginalized alternative perspectives, stifling the voices of non-Western countries and perpetuating a Eurocentric worldview. This is evident in the limited scope of topics covered in mainstream IR discourse, predominantly focusing on Western concerns such as the Cold War, capitalist systems, and geopolitical dominance. Historically, the imposition of Western models of governance on non-Western societies during the colonial era exemplifies the repercussions of Eurocentrism in international relations. Nationalist leaders in colonized territories adopted European-style state structures, often disregarding indigenous socio-political frameworks. For instance, the arbitrary drawing of borders in Africa by colonial powers neglected existing ethnic and tribal boundaries, leading to enduring conflicts and socio-political instability post-independence. Moreover, the legacy of colonialism perpetuated the notion of the state as the primary unit of sovereignty, disregarding pre-existing forms of governance prevalent in non-Western societies. Ringmar illustrates this by contrasting the rigid state borders imposed by colonial powers with historical examples of multi-ethnic empires, such as the Ottoman Empire. These empires facilitated coexistence by allowing diverse ethnic and religious communities to govern themselves according to their traditions, challenging the Western-centric notion of sovereignty. Furthermore, Ringmar advocates for a reevaluation of non-Western governing traditions, such as nomadic societies, as viable models for addressing contemporary challenges. For instance, the resilience and adaptability of nomadic communities in regions like Somalia offer insights into alternative approaches to governance, emphasizing flexibility and decentralized decision-making over centralized state control. By acknowledging and incorporating such diverse perspectives, policymakers can formulate more inclusive and effective strategies for fostering stability and development in fragile states. Additionally, Ringmar underscores the limitations of individual states in addressing transnational issues in an increasingly interconnected world. He highlights the success of international systems like the European Union (EU) in pooling sovereignty and fostering cooperation among member states, transcending traditional notions of state sovereignty. This underscores the potential for alternative models of governance, rooted in shared sovereignty and collaborative decision-making, to address global challenges such as climate change, migration, and economic inequality. Moreover, Ringmar critiques the continued reliance of many non-Western countries on European concepts and ideas, perpetuating a cycle of emulation and inadequacy. For instance, the adoption of Western-style institutions without contextual adaptation has often led to governance failures and state fragility, exacerbating social tensions and hindering progress. By embracing diverse non-European ways of thinking, policymakers can develop more contextually relevant solutions that resonate with local realities and aspirations. In conclusion, Erik Ringmar's advocacy for embracing non-Western perspectives in international relations offers a compelling framework for fostering global harmony and addressing contemporary challenges. By challenging the hegemony of Western-centric discourse and incorporating diverse viewpoints rooted in non-Western traditions, policymakers can formulate more inclusive, equitable, and effective strategies for navigating an increasingly complex and interconnected world. It is imperative to recognize the richness and diversity of human experiences and governance systems to forge a path towards a more peaceful and prosperous future for all.
The notion that you attribute success based on the emulation of the West, is the very issue. You are speaking from the CORE and attempting to appeal to the Periphery to rise up to the CORE but the measure of success is the very CORE.
Erik Ringmar discusses non-Western international relations theory by offering alternative perspectives on governing systems. He suggests that multi-ethnic empires where people can live according to their own laws, such as the Ottoman Empire, could be more conducive to peaceful coexistence than the current Western system based on rigid borders and nationalism. Similarly, he argues that fragmented states like Somalia can benefit from looking at their nomadic traditions and strengthening them rather than trying to adopt European-style institutions. He also notes that even Europe had a successful international system in the Middle Ages like the EU, and that pooling sovereignty may be necessary to address the limitations of individual states in a globalized world
Dejaré los puntos claves en español por si alguien los necesita _Key points in spanish in case someone needs them_ - La visión occidental del mundo tiene base sobre la idea del Estado/Nación soberano que puede decidir sus leyes, su política exterior, sus acciones y donde nadie puede interferir con él. Este estado siempre interviene con otros que son funcionalmente equivalentes entre ellos y que pertenecen a un sistema internacional de Estados. - Existieron otros tipos de organizaciones internacionales en la historia y hay muchas maneras de entender la política internacional diferentes a las impuestas durante las colonias en el siglo XIX. Estas colonias se independizaron y conformaron nuevos tipos de estados iguales a los que antes pertenecieron (europeos). Se continuaron utilizando sus idiomas y sus formas de organización política. Esto no funcionó muy bien y en distintos países no había estado, no había organización, no entraban en los mapas impuestos. Los países no europeos no eran muy buenos siendo europeos. El costo para los países que triunfaron fue alto, asesinatos y persecución a distintos grupos y minorías. - Si realmente queremos pensar en términos no occidentales tenemos que rechazar el modelo y empezar desde cero, desde antes que los europeos aparecieran. En el multicultural medio oriente se adoptó el sistema europeo, provocando conflictos fronterizos e internacionales anteriormente inexistentes en dicho territorio (imperio otomano). Fomentar las tradiciones nómadas y recursos de un país como Somalia podría significar un nuevo comienzo. No necesariamente lo nómada se relaciona al pasado, podría relacionarse al futuro. Las guerras mundiales también fueron una consecuencia del nacionalismo y soberanía de este sistema, y por eso existe la Unión Europea, porque esos estados europeos también fallan.
the speaker argues that while many non-Western countries gained sovereignty, they still rely on European concepts and ideas. He suggests that this reliance on Western ideas has led to some countries becoming almost European, but never quite good enough, while others have failed completely and become failed states. He proposes that to address this issue, we should look back at previous non-European ways of thinking and incorporate them in order to create a better and more peaceful world.
@@ErikRingmar-dg3nw interesting thing is that there is a prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (The last and final Prophet towards humanity) in which he told that Khilafah will return. Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (volume four page 273) narrated from al-Nu’man Ibn Bashir (ra) as saying that the Prophet had stated, “Prophethood will last with you for as long as Allah wants it to last. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be Khilafah according to the method of prophethood, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a hereditary rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be an oppressive rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood.” Then he (saw) fell silent” The Messenger of Allah (saw) has foretold the return of the Khilafah after its demise and destruction. Today we are witnessing the oppressive rule that the Messenger of Allah (saw) informed us of, however we are also nearing the return of the Khilafah that is upon the Minhaj of the Messenger of Allah (saw) that he (saw) stated would once again return.
yea, not even Chinese escaped the eurocentric perspective of society. Instead of looking for something original, more suitable, they Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V communism... of course, an European creation :P As a Colombian, I also consider that our country is way too westernized, in the sense that we blindly integrate everything from USA/EU just because it is from there, not questioning if it works for us or not. But to turn anti-west aint the solution. We should turn away from classifications and just focus on what we see that works and what doesn't in our particular case. Many things from the west works, many only works there and others doesn't work at all. All we need is to develop our own contextualized criteria to choose pragmatically if this or that thing works here or not.
Your critique of Western IR theories is well taken, but Western universities have taught non-Western theories for 50 years. Samir Amin, Walter Rodney, Raul Prebisch, and Mao Zedong are widely reviewed, at least at Columbia, which has a better IR program than Yale.
Are you reading Mao Zedong at Columbia? That must be a few decades ago. The point, as I try to say, is not really to find non-Western IR scholars, there have always been a number of those. Rather, the point is to question to Western state-based model of international relations. None of the people you mention were radical enough in their critique, imho (certainly no Prebisch). Columbia might still be better than Yale, that's sort of a separate matter.
@@erikringmar8765 Yeah, it was a long time ago, back when I worked for the World Order Models Project in NYC. It's whole mission was to imagine alternatives to the Westphalian system. I knew and worked with Ali Mazrui among others. In fact, I was the first editor of WOMP's journal, ALTERNATIVES. Look it up.
@@drbuckley1 I know Alternatives! It was a hot publication in the 1990s.For someone who remembers the 1970s, there is a definite sense of deja vu to hear everyone suddenly talking about "non-Western" perspectives. Maybe this time around, the "non-West" can put more power behind their demands.
@@erikringmar8765 I would love to converse about this subject. I am as thoroughly committed to social justice and social change now as I was as an undergraduate. "World Peace through World Law"--a Yale initiative, I must confess--seems further beyond reach today. Indeed, WOMP was a direct descendent of the "Yale School" of international law. The UN is now all but defunct, so it is time to imagine a new international order, hopefully this time without a world war to get the ball rolling.
Interesting, but I don't agree with him on the proposal that we should start fron the 'beginning'. First of all there is no final point to start from a 'beginning' and the other thing is this that in some of the colonies there are some people who were exploited and humiliated by the indigenous people. Take the example of India, here Dalits, the so called untouchables were considered less than humans. It is after the advent of the colonial British empire they started considere as humans. So my point is when we think of non western IR we need not to start from the 'beginning' since those beginning s may be exploitative for some people. And second point of contention is that we all are part of the history and change, every stand point is a particular case to the history. We can't blame the west to dominate the world since they have also set some people free. They are just a particular case and we can also make our case. Non western IR should also include those voices which were crushed by the indigenous dominant people.
People are atomistic and surrender some rights to acquire power from the state. The antecedent as P mentions are groups within societies to manage the affairs of the individuals. Aboriginal groups within these western based societies have some success with social justice and act atomically from the central government with various degrees of success, however, many are failing at basic issues of sustenance and would ultimately fail without government subsidies to ensure housing, clean drinking - water, etc. Because western based ideology transcends that the brightest and the strongest prosper, the notion of a decentralised state may be millennia from actual formation. The developed states may begin such a transformation with a GAI (Guaranteed Annual Income) for their citizens to approach equalitarianism to create a hybrid sort of 'Ringmarian' state with strength n the center that maintains a form of free elections.
So, basically international integration and rejection of nationalism as the driving factor in formation of the state or basically communism is the solution that is being proposed here?
Didn’t necessarily mean communism for communism is also a western product. His point is more about dismantling international system which is primarily built in by western perspective and favors western interest and then reconstructing the it with improvement based on a region primordial tradition from which the precolonial society lived in and sovereign with.
The nation-state was not progress. It was regress. There is a lot we can learn from (non-European) history. The state system is not working. Cf. Palestine. Our present moment in time requires us to rethink.
notes (keypoints only):
- when the colonies became independent nations, they were liberalised on Western terms
- the newly independent colonies had to model themselves after Western states but this was met with not much sucess ("Western countries are better at being Western countries")
- some states (E.g China, Israel, Turkey) were able to emulate the Western model but this came with nationalism and oppression of ethnic minorities
- the western sovereign state system is a failed system that generated nationalism and war, which is why we had WW1, WW2, and now the EU and things like that to maintain peace
- by looking up and copying the West to create a strong state, the new countries 'inherit' this flawed system
- if we want to think in non-Western terms, we should look to the past and observe how the world functioned before Western domination (e.g Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, but today this seems impossible because of rigid laws)
- globablization is causing further changes (e.g becoming nomads)
@Erik Ringmar thank you!
Thank you mate
@pachi a 💯% correct!!! Western identity politics has ruined the world! Moreso the Muslim world. Look at the bunch of failed states we have across the Middle east!
Thanks 👍
Thank you so much!!
This is called the true academic sense, free from all kind of identity and psychological burden, simply stating what things are as it is....! Thanks Erik - greetings from Nepal.
Wow! just wow :")
one has to have so much courage to speak out very openly, very clearly, very fairly with no fear ..
It is up to students like you to carry this mission-to-say forward. It is a win-win situation. Here and Hereafter.
We were assigned this as PhD students in IR, and its really brilliant. A horizon-widening explanation that is a breath of fresh air after stale Eurocentricism.
Feeling very lucky and privileged that I took a course from him.
One of the best Ted-talk I have listened to.
Love your insights and overall sumary regarding this topic. I'm from China and the road towards breaking/finding/rebuilding a new model of ir is truly botherdome and often makes us feel hopeless, especially in this time where the western world is ganging up to trick the netizens into believing there is no future for China. Being Chinese, however, I'm fully confident thst we can find a way through our rich history and find the way that fits ourselves and successfully manoevering the IR that we face in this era.
I would also like to add Brazil to the list of non-western states that try to follow Europe's example of nationalism and failed. When Brazil became independent in 1822 it was a state before being a society, that is to say we had an organized central government with an army and a constitution before we actually had a national identity or ideas, costumes, and stories that could unite us as a community. The result was that instead of existing to repel foreign invaders in the 19th century, our army was a mechanism of violent enforcement from the capital, Rio, to all the regions that rebelled against it. The same European ideas led us also to reject our true population, that is the descendants of the Indigenous and African population in Brazil, and instead tried to import European migrants at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century as a way to "whiten" the county, seen at the time as the only way to build a true "civilized" nation. In the 1930s national thought became more sophisticated and the idea of "multiracial democracy" was born, but by looking at the color of skin and the regions where our presidents, senators, and generals come from it is clear that "racial democracy" was only another way to legitimize the rule mostly white, European-descendent elites who lived in the Southeast of the country, while people of color and from the North and Northeast of the country were relegated to a secondary position. To me, it's tragic because nowadays both the left and the right try to point to "outsiders" as the great enemy of Brazil, be it the communists of American imperialism when, in my opinion, our history is one of fratricide, of Brazilians killing other Brazilians. A story that continues to this day, Brazil has something like 40k homicides every single year, and when you look at the people dying it is clear that they are those who were left outside of the national consolidation process, the victims, the perpetrators, and even the police officers, all come from the same class of disenfranchised people who had to be suppressed so that a "national identity" could be created.
Thank you for this Prof Ringmar. I have been working on an assignment for my Honours degree and this has been helpful for me because I did not fully understand the concept.
I know this a year later since you had to do your assignment. I'm currently doing mine and I just wanted to ask a quick question as I am a bit confused. so I'm required to identify a non-western IR theory and discuss its tenets, origins and shortcomings. I was just wondering what theory you'd choose?
Why don't u do Kautilyas mandal theory@@rayabihondwa9282
thank you professor, for reminded us to rethink about the pre-existed and the forgotten theories.
lecture, a very different perspective of the world and that in so simple words. Thank you so much Prof Erik Ringmar. I would be glad to learn more from you.
Prof. Ringmar was so clear in what is now Alternative or Non-Western IR Theory. I think if he could have mentioned the social contract theory, it would have made the things more clearer as it is the first step in the direction of nation-state formation. The SCT, which nobody could prove can be contrasted with the fact that human beings need cooperation because of their very Human nature. Social contract theory involves violence in its nature as as you need to force people to give up their individual wills for the sake of general will, while on the other hand assabiya, or human social organisation is based on necessity and need rather than on force or violence. The modern nation-state, as Weber puts it is legitimacy of violence,or force. Much more thinking needs to be done to establish IR Theory as an alternative to the Western thinking IR.
Thank you very professor, really impactful.
Excited to watch this! "Befria universitetet" is stellar. Thank you very much!
ha, ha, yes, fast det känns som en annan livstid
@@erikringmar8765 Det kan jag föreställa mig!
This is mind-bending!
Title: Embracing Non-Western Perspectives in International Relations: A Path to Global Harmony
In the realm of international relations (IR), the dominance of Western perspectives has long been undisputed, shaping the discourse, policies, and academic curriculum worldwide. However, Erik Ringmar's insightful discourse on non-Western international relations theory challenges this hegemony, advocating for a paradigm shift towards embracing diverse perspectives rooted in non-Western traditions. This essay explores Ringmar's arguments, supported by examples, and delves into the significance of incorporating non-Western viewpoints in understanding and addressing contemporary global challenges.
Ringmar elucidates how the Western understanding of international politics, entrenched in state-centric sovereignty and colonial legacies, has permeated academic institutions globally. For instance, the Western emphasis on the nation-state as the primary actor in IR has marginalized alternative perspectives, stifling the voices of non-Western countries and perpetuating a Eurocentric worldview. This is evident in the limited scope of topics covered in mainstream IR discourse, predominantly focusing on Western concerns such as the Cold War, capitalist systems, and geopolitical dominance.
Historically, the imposition of Western models of governance on non-Western societies during the colonial era exemplifies the repercussions of Eurocentrism in international relations. Nationalist leaders in colonized territories adopted European-style state structures, often disregarding indigenous socio-political frameworks. For instance, the arbitrary drawing of borders in Africa by colonial powers neglected existing ethnic and tribal boundaries, leading to enduring conflicts and socio-political instability post-independence.
Moreover, the legacy of colonialism perpetuated the notion of the state as the primary unit of sovereignty, disregarding pre-existing forms of governance prevalent in non-Western societies. Ringmar illustrates this by contrasting the rigid state borders imposed by colonial powers with historical examples of multi-ethnic empires, such as the Ottoman Empire. These empires facilitated coexistence by allowing diverse ethnic and religious communities to govern themselves according to their traditions, challenging the Western-centric notion of sovereignty.
Furthermore, Ringmar advocates for a reevaluation of non-Western governing traditions, such as nomadic societies, as viable models for addressing contemporary challenges. For instance, the resilience and adaptability of nomadic communities in regions like Somalia offer insights into alternative approaches to governance, emphasizing flexibility and decentralized decision-making over centralized state control. By acknowledging and incorporating such diverse perspectives, policymakers can formulate more inclusive and effective strategies for fostering stability and development in fragile states.
Additionally, Ringmar underscores the limitations of individual states in addressing transnational issues in an increasingly interconnected world. He highlights the success of international systems like the European Union (EU) in pooling sovereignty and fostering cooperation among member states, transcending traditional notions of state sovereignty. This underscores the potential for alternative models of governance, rooted in shared sovereignty and collaborative decision-making, to address global challenges such as climate change, migration, and economic inequality.
Moreover, Ringmar critiques the continued reliance of many non-Western countries on European concepts and ideas, perpetuating a cycle of emulation and inadequacy. For instance, the adoption of Western-style institutions without contextual adaptation has often led to governance failures and state fragility, exacerbating social tensions and hindering progress. By embracing diverse non-European ways of thinking, policymakers can develop more contextually relevant solutions that resonate with local realities and aspirations.
In conclusion, Erik Ringmar's advocacy for embracing non-Western perspectives in international relations offers a compelling framework for fostering global harmony and addressing contemporary challenges. By challenging the hegemony of Western-centric discourse and incorporating diverse viewpoints rooted in non-Western traditions, policymakers can formulate more inclusive, equitable, and effective strategies for navigating an increasingly complex and interconnected world. It is imperative to recognize the richness and diversity of human experiences and governance systems to forge a path towards a more peaceful and prosperous future for all.
The notion that you attribute success based on the emulation of the West, is the very issue. You are speaking from the CORE and attempting to appeal to the Periphery to rise up to the CORE but the measure of success is the very CORE.
Erik Ringmar discusses non-Western international relations theory by offering alternative perspectives on governing systems. He suggests that multi-ethnic empires where people can live according to their own laws, such as the Ottoman Empire, could be more conducive to peaceful coexistence than the current Western system based on rigid borders and nationalism. Similarly, he argues that fragmented states like Somalia can benefit from looking at their nomadic traditions and strengthening them rather than trying to adopt European-style institutions. He also notes that even Europe had a successful international system in the Middle Ages like the EU, and that pooling sovereignty may be necessary to address the limitations of individual states in a globalized world
Dejaré los puntos claves en español por si alguien los necesita
_Key points in spanish in case someone needs them_
- La visión occidental del mundo tiene base sobre la idea del Estado/Nación soberano que puede decidir sus leyes, su política exterior, sus acciones y donde nadie puede interferir con él. Este estado siempre interviene con otros que son funcionalmente equivalentes entre ellos y que pertenecen a un sistema internacional de Estados.
- Existieron otros tipos de organizaciones internacionales en la historia y hay muchas maneras de entender la política internacional diferentes a las impuestas durante las colonias en el siglo XIX. Estas colonias se independizaron y conformaron nuevos tipos de estados iguales a los que antes pertenecieron (europeos). Se continuaron utilizando sus idiomas y sus formas de organización política. Esto no funcionó muy bien y en distintos países no había estado, no había organización, no entraban en los mapas impuestos. Los países no europeos no eran muy buenos siendo europeos. El costo para los países que triunfaron fue alto, asesinatos y persecución a distintos grupos y minorías.
- Si realmente queremos pensar en términos no occidentales tenemos que rechazar el modelo y empezar desde cero, desde antes que los europeos aparecieran. En el multicultural medio oriente se adoptó el sistema europeo, provocando conflictos fronterizos e internacionales anteriormente inexistentes en dicho territorio (imperio otomano). Fomentar las tradiciones nómadas y recursos de un país como Somalia podría significar un nuevo comienzo. No necesariamente lo nómada se relaciona al pasado, podría relacionarse al futuro. Las guerras mundiales también fueron una consecuencia del nacionalismo y soberanía de este sistema, y por eso existe la Unión Europea, porque esos estados europeos también fallan.
Thank you, professor.
I think he needs to study more about IR and especially read Buzan and Acharya recent book on None-western IR theories.
ok but how do I cite this in mla ......
All time fauvorites!!! This is amazing!
That was very interesting! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and reflections :)
the speaker argues that while many non-Western countries gained sovereignty, they still rely on European concepts and ideas. He suggests that this reliance on Western ideas has led to some countries becoming almost European, but never quite good enough, while others have failed completely and become failed states. He proposes that to address this issue, we should look back at previous non-European ways of thinking and incorporate them in order to create a better and more peaceful world.
Sweden's greatest intellectual!
Ha, ha, thanks. I'm lapping it up. Although it's a bit like saying "Holland's highest mountain" or "Norway's best pizza."
@@erikringmar8765 Well, it's true. And the fact that you are "exiled" in Turkey further strengthens my point :)
Different cultures have different perspectives - no doubt. But everyone understands one thing: good old-fashioned human greed and aggression.
does western IR try to avoid traditions and culture?
original !
So much captivating original thoughts. Thanks
what did he mean when he said Palestinians who didn't get a country, didn't go away and creating endless problems?
He meant that the Palestinian demand for a return to their homeland clashes with the power of the Israeli occupiers.
This is what soo many factions of Muslims are uttering.... To bring Kbilafah back...
That's right. And the original caliphates were great!
@@ErikRingmar-dg3nw interesting thing is that there is a prophecy of Prophet Muhammad (The last and final Prophet towards humanity) in which he told that Khilafah will return.
Imam Ahmad in his Musnad (volume four page 273) narrated from al-Nu’man Ibn Bashir (ra) as saying that the Prophet had stated, “Prophethood will last with you for as long as Allah wants it to last. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be Khilafah according to the method of prophethood, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a hereditary rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be an oppressive rule, and things will be as Allah wishes them to be. Then He will end it if He wishes to end it. Then there will be a Khilafah according to the method of Prophethood.” Then he (saw) fell silent”
The Messenger of Allah (saw) has foretold the return of the Khilafah after its demise and destruction. Today we are witnessing the oppressive rule that the Messenger of Allah (saw) informed us of, however we are also nearing the return of the Khilafah that is upon the Minhaj of the Messenger of Allah (saw) that he (saw) stated would once again return.
yea, not even Chinese escaped the eurocentric perspective of society. Instead of looking for something original, more suitable, they Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V communism... of course, an European creation :P
As a Colombian, I also consider that our country is way too westernized, in the sense that we blindly integrate everything from USA/EU just because it is from there, not questioning if it works for us or not.
But to turn anti-west aint the solution. We should turn away from classifications and just focus on what we see that works and what doesn't in our particular case. Many things from the west works, many only works there and others doesn't work at all. All we need is to develop our own contextualized criteria to choose pragmatically if this or that thing works here or not.
Your critique of Western IR theories is well taken, but Western universities have taught non-Western theories for 50 years. Samir Amin, Walter Rodney, Raul Prebisch, and Mao Zedong are widely reviewed, at least at Columbia, which has a better IR program than Yale.
Are you reading Mao Zedong at Columbia? That must be a few decades ago. The point, as I try to say, is not really to find non-Western IR scholars, there have always been a number of those. Rather, the point is to question to Western state-based model of international relations. None of the people you mention were radical enough in their critique, imho (certainly no Prebisch). Columbia might still be better than Yale, that's sort of a separate matter.
@@erikringmar8765 Yeah, it was a long time ago, back when I worked for the World Order Models Project in NYC. It's whole mission was to imagine alternatives to the Westphalian system. I knew and worked with Ali Mazrui among others. In fact, I was the first editor of WOMP's journal, ALTERNATIVES. Look it up.
@@drbuckley1 I know Alternatives! It was a hot publication in the 1990s.For someone who remembers the 1970s, there is a definite sense of deja vu to hear everyone suddenly talking about "non-Western" perspectives. Maybe this time around, the "non-West" can put more power behind their demands.
@@erikringmar8765 I would love to converse about this subject. I am as thoroughly committed to social justice and social change now as I was as an undergraduate. "World Peace through World Law"--a Yale initiative, I must confess--seems further beyond reach today. Indeed, WOMP was a direct descendent of the "Yale School" of international law. The UN is now all but defunct, so it is time to imagine a new international order, hopefully this time without a world war to get the ball rolling.
@@drbuckley1Amen to that.
Interesting, but I don't agree with him on the proposal that we should start fron the 'beginning'. First of all there is no final point to start from a 'beginning' and the other thing is this that in some of the colonies there are some people who were exploited and humiliated by the indigenous people. Take the example of India, here Dalits, the so called untouchables were considered less than humans. It is after the advent of the colonial British empire they started considere as humans.
So my point is when we think of non western IR we need not to start from the 'beginning' since those beginning s may be exploitative for some people. And second point of contention is that we all are part of the history and change, every stand point is a particular case to the history. We can't blame the west to dominate the world since they have also set some people free. They are just a particular case and we can also make our case. Non western IR should also include those voices which were crushed by the indigenous dominant people.
People are atomistic and surrender some rights to acquire power from the state. The antecedent as P mentions are groups within societies to manage the affairs of the individuals. Aboriginal groups within these western based societies have some success with social justice and act atomically from the central government with various degrees of success, however, many are failing at basic issues of sustenance and would ultimately fail without government subsidies to ensure housing, clean drinking - water, etc. Because western based ideology transcends that the brightest and the strongest prosper, the notion of a decentralised state may be millennia from actual formation. The developed states may begin such a transformation with a GAI (Guaranteed Annual Income) for their citizens to approach equalitarianism to create a hybrid sort of 'Ringmarian' state with strength n the center that maintains a form of free elections.
So, basically international integration and rejection of nationalism as the driving factor in formation of the state or basically communism is the solution that is being proposed here?
You aren’t allowed to say you like communism without being automatically disqualified from intellectual discussion for some reason
@@Official2Shitty I'm a communist myself. I was just surprised to hear him propose such things
Didn’t necessarily mean communism for communism is also a western product. His point is more about dismantling international system which is primarily built in by western perspective and favors western interest and then reconstructing the it with improvement based on a region primordial tradition from which the precolonial society lived in and sovereign with.
۳۰۰۰۰۰۰۰۰
9:41 Congratulations you invented reactionary politics. Your argument sounds absurd.
The nation-state was not progress. It was regress. There is a lot we can learn from (non-European) history. The state system is not working. Cf. Palestine. Our present moment in time requires us to rethink.