EUCHINA

Social Science Area Studies

 People/individuals of society  Specific area

 Scientific method  Culture/religion
Systemic, empirical and  Ex: Chinese/Japanese/European
qualitative + quantitative  studies
generalization: one explanation
that applies to all.
 Ex: sociology, political
science

Comparative politics
 Domestic politics (comparative methods)
 Need for this in order to understand the what/why of things
 All about description (know only what’s happening; no need to explain why)
 Uniqueness/particularity
 Started before WW1 – colonization during this time. Need to understand the
colonies to dominate them.
 Originally for strategic purposes/domination
 Social scientists criticizes this – does not contribute to any theoretical
concept
 Descriptive language, all about history (just a skill for social scientists)

Article: Harry Harding 1984

2 generations of Chinese scholars
1. 1st generation: 1960’s
 Descriptive, under conceptualized, traditional, formal (official
sources/documents)
 Criticism: overgeneralized, under conceptualized, cannot theorize
2. 2nd generation: 1970’s/Red Guards
 Informal, used western methods, specific
 Criticisms: biased, misused western methods, cannot be trusted
(because sources from CCP alone)

Context: china is closed at this time

Problem of both: not easy to come up with theories – not easy to
understand china
Article: Elizabeth Perry 1989
 3rd generation: 1980’s
1. Walder
 Urban setting of state owned enterprise (patron-client relation)
2. Shue
 Rural setting
 Agricultural, collectivization

Both state-society relation using comparative politics

More transparent
Used comparative politics
Conceptualization
Theorizing

Because china opened at this time.

China  wants economic growth  through trade + foreign investment
 to attract, need to be transparent and provide accurate information so
3rd generation was able to theorize

Theory
 Paradigm
 Give lense to see the world
 Guide to policy making/fp
 Ex: US FP after 9/11
Spread democracy against terrorist + democratic peace theory

Article: Buzan and Acharya (2007) + Qin Yaying (2007)

 No non western IR
 Hegemonic status  always right?
 Westphalian
 Local conditions/discriminations against non-west institutions
 Lack of internationalness
 Dominance of philosophy, political theory and history
 Euro centrism

“Inter-nationalness”
 Equal relationship of states
 China: the world is unequal  cannot understand sovereignty  all they see
is hierarchy; no legal equality

Why is there no Chinese IRT?

1. Lack of internationalness
 There is no equal conception of states
 Tributary system
 Forbidden city, Beijing: China is in the middle, the rest are
barbarians

 Domestic politics is an enlargement if the world (same way of

governing in and out of the country)

2. Dominance of the west

 Confucianism collapsed
 Mao: hated Confucianism, made china backwards

3. Lack of theoretical hard core (physical and metaphysical)

 Physical: Power, military income
 Metaphysical: ideas, tianxia (space under heaven) based from
tributary system

WESTERN IR (norms) EASTERN IR

 Westphalian system  Tributary systems = world of

 Materialistic gains unequals, tianxia, culture, morality
 Individualistic (emperor: son of heaven = has
 Hegemonic in nature morality to rule over china)
 Sovereignty is most important  Human relations + soft
institutionalism
 Culture specific (tradition)
 Ruling by morality
 East Asia development model
(state led dev’t model)

For those who agree to IRT in a global scope

Robert Cox + Gram Sci (hegemonic status)

 Discovered right path (western IRT)
 Hegemonic status
 Systematic generalization ex: anarchy

Do not agree:
 Diff history, culture
 Different with east&west

Is contemporary IR enough to explain CFP? (Western IR)

YES NO
  Western dominance
 Interdependence of china
- Acting like a typical great power
in the west = contemporary IR
enough to explain China
 Different norms
 Eurocentric biased
- Will depend on china’s
behavior
- If china behaves differently –
maybe create another IR
based on china
- If yes, just like a western great
power, no need to create new
IR

Importance of theorizing
- Inform FP decision making
Ex: democratic peace treaty
- To come up with a single answer
-
Significance of history and culture
- Affects policy
- Explains policy
- Link with future
- Avoid mistakes of the past
- Understand others behalf

Theoretical significance of culture + history

 Yes – application to FP, historical/lessons, cultural
 No – states adaptation, different culture for different countries & regions;
different history

Implications of history + culture to explain CFP

 Kirby: centrality, contemporary and autonomy
 Crammer-Byng – cultural values

Culture related to area studies

 Because it is specific
 “Can culture and history become and independent variable?”
 Cause = to explain a certain phenomenon
 If independent
Political scientists = matters
 If dependent
Political scientists = does not matter
 Most culture cannot explain phenomenon because it is too specific,
particular, embedded in a country (so cannot generalize) = so cannot
theorize, useless in political science.
 Use rational choice (cost-benefit analysis & defines what kind of institutions
we will have) to explain behavior and role of institutions (determines
rational choice)
 Culture = dependent variable

“But is it POSSIBLE for culture to be an independent variable?”

 Constructivist: YES
- Role of china can make it possible; significant influence: scholars
try to explain FP based on Chinese history. Culture
- So maybe culture and history can be an independent variable

EAST-ASIAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL

 What made it possible?
Confucianism (culture)
For the west: development based in culture

Weiber (what made U.S succeed?)

 Catholicism: observing catholic duties makes God loves us and will save
us
 Protestantism: become rich by working hard; industrious = god loves us
 So because of Protestantism, capitalism developed

Culture & history

 Can explain Chinese FP based on change/continuous

CRAMMER BYNG & KIRBY

 Change  can culture explain CFP?  If yes, continuity

KIRBY
 oct 1, 1949
- China declared as 3rd republic; independence
- Mao Zedong = Chinese people have finally stood up (china is at the
center; centrality) both domestic & foreign relations
- Biggest question: how to deal with foreigners?
- Pattern of continuity in how they deal with foreigners = based on
centrality and autonomy
 - Domestic politics: emperor = middle
- Concept of China: only 1 ego/sentiment
- China is at the center, the rest are barbarians and able to manage
relations with east Asia
- China manages china: east-Asia international relations based on the
tributary system (based on deference + respect)
- Ex: as long as the prince respect the emperor, he provides them
autonomy. As long as states respect China, China provides autonomy

How it works on modern times

1. Domestic
- Chinese essence = national essence; capitalism/ something with
Chinese character based on Chinese essence
2. Foreign relations
- Based on autonomy and centrality
- Kirby: china has no natural allies (pre-modern) it is big, provided
own goods
- Modern: preserve autonomy
- 1940’s: japan occupied china (allied with soviet union & U.S)
China does not know how to make allies, when Soviet Union was
defeated  became allies
- 1960’s: Sino-soviet split
Because they do not understand each other
China does not understand what Soviet Union wants (to dictate) and it
does not want to be under.
- 1960’s-1970’s: china was isolated
- Onwards: tried to make allies but no permanent allies
- 1949: china was not like imperial china
Mao Zedong: china is at the center and maintain its autonomy

How china maintained centrality in the modern world

 Cold war: (bipolar) U.S vs. Soviet Union
US allies: Western Europe + japan + countries in south East Asia
Soviet Union: Eastern Europe
 Where would china go if it wants to maintain centrality?
Be part of non-align movement composed of 3rd world countries

1955: Bandung conference

 African-Asian countries
 Promote change
 Main agenda: to make sure that there will be no colonialism and imperialism
 China wants to be at the center based on 3rd

Crammer-Byng 1973
  Chinese oriented order with superiority based on ethics, cultural and social
values
 Superiority of china
Based on Confucian civilization
Benign hegemon (as long as you respect china, it provides autonomy)
 Tried to theorize tributary system, Confucianism came up with IR theory
based on china
 Theorizing based on Chinese way
 Significance of china’s culture and history on theorizing

D. Kang 2003
 West
- Emphasizes sovereignty (all states are equal, formal equality)
= In reality, formal inequality
- There seems to be balancing in rise of china. States were band
wagoning (based on china’s tradition, tributary system)
 East
- The world is hierarchy (formal inequality)
= Actually, autonomy = informal equality (based on the tributary
system)

States look at china at the center = china provides autonomy, non-intervention

China 2003 – very engaging, participatory, cooperative

President: harmonious society/growth
Creation of Chinese IR depends on behavior

History and its implications to theorizing, analyzing contemporary CFP

Fairbank 1968-1969
 Continuity of china’s superiority
 1950’s1960’s- china isolation
Mao: revolutionary china (vanguard of communism)
Cultural revolution (revolution china through Leninism, communism)
 Emphasize revisionist/revolutionary
 China’s superiority emphasized based on its relationship with the 3rd world

3 traditions
1. Primacy of inner Asia
 Most significant
 What’s important: preserve itself from invasion of
nomads/barbarians
 Inner Asia – afraid of nomadic invasion (Mongols) (Yuan dynasty –
peak of Mongol empire)
 2. Disesteem of sea power
 China = maritime superpower
 Even before western expansion (before Columbus exploration)
 China was a maritime power; exploration for trade; emperor:
wants to find more tributary states
 Sung dynasty (1127)

 Ming dynasty (1368-1644)
During weakness: china started to turn inwards because of invasion


Ching dynasty (1644-1911)
China focused on inner Asia
 1644 – establishment of Westphalia system; concept of states

3. Doctrine of china’s superiority

 Official myth that lasted a million years
 Used to deal with others
 Superiority – labeled as a trick to treat foreigners based on
Confucianism
 China = has virtues, civilized; barbarians = uncivilized – can be
civilized but they have to be part of the tributary system
 Ex: Silk Road – how to be part of a trade? Tributary system (give gifts
to emperor)

China’s superiority
 Leader: U.S = 1st world –US + allies
 Leader: S.U = 2nd world – S.U + E. Europe
 So china goes to 3rd world states because they do not have a leader (non-
aligned states; neither with the 1st or 2nd world)
 For foreigner’s: profit
 For china: face = recognition; they do not want to be embarrassed
 According to Fairbanks
China’s superiority/tradition continuity is good and bad for…
Foreigners = bad; china is self sufficient and if we deal with them we have to
adjust to them
China = arrogant because its big, big power, self-sufficient
Article = 1960’s-1970’s

Kirby – centrality and autonomy

Crammer-Byng: superiority of Chinese culture/ethics (Confucianism, civilization)
Fairbank – doctrine of Chinese superiority

Mancall
 Failure of communication with soviet union
 China vs. soviet union (failed communicating)
WHY?
Very alike, familiar/similar
China-continuity of tradition.
 Soviet union & U.S (communicated very well)
S.U China U.S
Norms Western Eastern Western
Cannot because of different norms
1960’s- Sino-soviet split happened.