Sinofutures Report #1

IR Future: The Rise of Chinese Theories

Table of Contents
Introduction 1

IR Studies in China 2

IR Theories with Chinese Characteristics 3

Tsinghua School: Yan Xuetong 4

Relational Theory: Qin Yaqing 6

Conclusion 7

Bibliography 8

Introduction
The rise of China in the last several decades is almost an economic miracle. This economic rise
has had an impact on several other fields, most importantly on how China looks at itself as a
global actor. The study of global politics exists as a mature academic discipline in the shape of
IR (International Relations). The fundamentals of this field, such as the nature of the
international political system, the importance of conflict, the concepts of power, norms, and
advantage, all of them belong to the sub-discipline of IR theory.

Theories are generally defined as a system of ideas that aim to analyse and explain some
phenomenon. In the field of IR, a holistic definition of theory is provided by Acharya and Buzan,
IR theory must meet at least one of the following conditions: that “others in the academic
community acknowledge it as theory; that it is self identified by its creators as IR theory, even if
this is not widely acknowledged within the mainstream academic community; and, that
regardless of what acknowledgement it receives, the theory’s construction identifies it as a
systematic attempt to abstract or generalize about IR subject matter” (cited in Kim 61).

The context of this report is the rise of Chinese IR theories. It will attempt to explain the
developments in Chinese IR theory as both a novel contribution to the academic field and as a
phenomenon that’s related to China’s rise in international politics.

IR Studies in China
Both David Shambaugh (Shambaugh 339) and Yaqing Qin (Qin 231) have illustrated in their
work the gradual growth and maturation of IR as an academic discipline in China. The first
phase for the discipline lasting from 1949 to 1979 was a period of intentional underdevelopment.
There was little academic debate as the orientation of the discipline was Maoist and its work
consisted mostly of foreign policy analysis or analysis regarding strategies such as ‘leaning to
one side’ or ‘united front’ that were put forward by political leaders. The other major function of
the academic discipline was to train diplomatic cadre for the Communist Party of China. China’s
isolation in the world, the ideological hegemony of Marxism-Leninism, and Soviet policy
influence, all led to a stifling of IR as an academic discipline in China (Shambaugh 341).

It was the next phase after 1978 when China under Deng Xiaoping began opening up to the
world that IR truly gained its foundation as an academic discipline with an end to China’s
international isolation. The professionalization in the discipline also led to an introduction of
academic debates as the Western IR theories started flowing in and gained intellectual influence
in the country. Qin Yaqing sees the development of the international relations academic
community in China post-1978 as essentially a development around three important debates
(Qin 233). The first debate between orthodox scholars and reformist intellectuals was about
whether China should favour its isolation or an opening up to the world. The second debate
about determining the best position for China’s national interest was carried out between realist
and liberal thinkers. The two contending approaches were “material power and international
institutions''. The thirst and the most recent debate in Chinese IR is about the possibility and
direction of the country’s ‘peaceful rise’.

A rapid increase and diversification in Chinese IR community is clear from the new research
trends. A study noted nine topics of new interest to Chinese IR scholars: ethnic relations and
tensions, the role of religions, party politics, crisis management, domestic sources of foreign
policies, human rights diplomacy, the role of the media, mutual images and perceptions, and
global governance (Shambaugh 345). Shambaugh’s own analysis of research trends in Chinese
IR journals showed prevalence of discussion on many IR theories in Chinese academia.
Regarding interest among research scholars for individual IR theories, realism was ranked first,
followed by liberalism and constructivism (Shambaugh 347).

Articles on different IR theories (Shambaugh 347)

The rapid development of IR as an academic discipline in China post-1978 eventually led to the
debates mentioned above, all of which have practical implications for China as a rising power.
All of these debates are aimed at clarifying China’s relation to international society, the norms
for behaviour, and guiding policy action. The statistics discussed above suggest that the
formation of this discipline in China has followed the influx of Western theories and now the
debates in the country are mainly structured around their core assumptions. This leads to the
question of searching for an Chinese IR theory which can perhaps suit China’s specific
experience better by being based on assumptions grounded in its own history and civilization.

IR Theories with Chinese Characteristics

Hun Joon Kim speaks of three issues that come up when we speak of a theory with national
characteristics (Kim 61). First, it confounds the divide between IR theory which is expected to be
universal and foreign policy analysis which is expected to reflect national concerns. Second, it
speaks to the debate on whether IR theory should be universal or particularistic. And finally, it
addresses an important core question of the discipline - ethnocentrism. So far as the IR
discipline is concerned, the idea of an IR theory with Chinese characteristics is only a part of
globalisation of IR theories more generally. Critical theorists have questioned the Eurocentric
bias of mainstream IR theories, which attempt to be general but are based only on the historic
experience of USA or European states. As an example, Waltz’s structural realism is proposed
as the defining theory of contemporary realist practice but is exclusively focused on great
powers in the international system. Another source of scepticism regarding the global
application of Western IR theories is that they are a systematic development of post-Second
world war years, and reflect a concern for guiding American foreign policy in that time. Some
thinkers also point out that their theoretical core is also based on assumptions fundamentally
grounded in Western traditions of metaphysical thinking (Qin 75). All of these concerns make
globalisation of IR theory a very desirable project.
Chinese intellectuals have long debated the possibility and benefit of a Chinese theory of
international politics. When discussing the question of why there is no Chinese IR theory yet,
Qin Yaqing discussed three factors that make the intellectual project difficult : the
unconsciousness of ‘international-ness’ in the traditional Chinese worldview, the dominance of
the Western IR discourse in the Chinese academic community, and the absence of a consistent
theoretical core in the Chinese IR research. He blamed the disintegration of the native
intellectual culture before Western modernity in the face of colonial contact for the absence of a
hard core around which a theory could be cuilt. It is interesting that he himself proposed a natice
Chinese theory for international politics based on the Confucian concept of ‘Relationality’. This
theory, discussed in the report later, shows an attempt on Qin’s part to revive a theoretical core
that is unabashedly Chinese in origin.

Kim has spoken of Chinese economic rise itself providing a very fertile ground for the production
of a Chinese IR theory. This is based on the assumption that since theories attempt to solve
problems, China’s attempts at defining a new position for itself in the international arena will
need novel innovations just like Western theories provided the US intellectual foundations for
defining and acting in a US-centric world order. China’s development means that Chinese
scholars will become aware of the deficiencies of existing Western IR theories in explaining
global politics and China’s role in it. This realisation will also bring its own puzzles and research
questions, which would become crucial as foundations of new theories. Most importantly, the
rise of China will inevitably lead to questions of legitimacy in an altered global order, meaning
that China will have to alter means of previous discourse in trying to find an independent space
for itself. This is only possible through the means of theory production.

Tsinghua School: Yan Xuetong

Through his unique analysis, Yan Xuetong offers an alternative vision for China’s rise which is
grounded in the political and strategic thought of the pre-Qin era Chinese thinkers. He is a
prolific contributor to the field of Chinese strategic thought and his seminal contribution in this
field can be gauged from the several well-received books he has penned on this subject
including ‘Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power’ ‘Moral Realism and Strategy for
China’s Rise’, ‘Strategic Thinking about China’s Rise’, ‘Pre-Qin Chinese Thoughts on Foreign
Relations’ etc.

Rather than being a standalone contribution to the field of Chinese strategic thought, the
contributions of Tsinghua School in the form of ‘moral realism’ are to be seen as a part of a
larger conversation around creating a Chinese school of international relations drawing on
Chinese history and civilizational experience. Yan’s work is not aimed at just convincing the
reader that substantive strategic thought has been produced and deployed in Chinese history,
he also wants to show how that thought is not mere history but has actual explanatory power
even in the context of today’s international politics. He frequently draws on the work of pre-Qin
thinkers: Guanzi, Laozi, Confucius, Mencius, Mozi, Xunzi and Hanfeizi. The thoughts of these
sage thinkers are looked at from different perspectives to analyse their bearing on political and
strategic concepts - theorisation paradigms, interstate order, interstate leadership, and transfer
of hegemonic power.

The rationale for choosing pre-Qin thinkers is that during the Spring and Autumn period (771 -
476 BC), and the Warring States periods (475 - 221 BC) of Chinese history, the fractured
political order resulted in creation of many independent princely states which had two basic
features of modern states: sovereignty and territory. These pre-Qin states conducted diplomacy,
made alliances, and thought about strategy in very much the same way as modern states do.
This is why the strategic thought of pre-Qin masters can claim continued relevance in today’s
time, both as theory and as a guide to politics and diplomacy. As Yan remarks in one of his
books, “The language and vocabulary of the pre-Qin thinkers were very different from those
used today, yet their way of thinking about problems and their logic were very similar.” (Xuetong
36) In the same book, he devotes an entire chapter to draw out contemporary messages from
Xunzi’s interstate philosophy, in whose analysis the ruler is the independent variable and the
state is the mediating variable, through which the ruler’s beliefs and morality are reflected
through his administration (Xuetong 81).

In trying to enrich IR theory, Yan’s contribution adds several interesting ideas. On a theoretical
level, while he accepts the basic realist assumptions on power and anarchy, he also moves the
discussion of realism beyond mere military and economic power by introducing the idea of
political power in which morality and talent play a key role. This kind of power is accumulated
through able leadership cultivated by a morally righteous leader who can promote peace in the
international order. Another fundamental idea that he introduces is that of hierarchy in
international relations. As per Yan, the norm of hierarchy among states fits the practical reality
of the international world order better than the formal equality of status in a post-Westphalian
world. He borrows from Xunzi’s thought to show how a hierarchical order could contribute to
decreasing interstate conflict by maintaining a balance between a state’s power and its
responsibility towards the world order (Xuetong 113). Larger states should carry greater social
statuses but should also be subjected to more stringent norms.

The central thrust of his theory is not only about enriching IR theory with Chinese strategic
thought, it is a practical and illustrative guide to Chinese policymakers on how these ideas can
help shape China’s rise in the current international order. An important idea in this context of
facilitating China’s rise is about the importance of welcoming and retaining talent in the state.
Yan notes, “Although pre-Qin thinkers have different views of what aspects of political
leadership influence shifts in international power, yet for the most part they think that it has to do
with whether worthy people are employed.” (Xuetong 76) One aspect of great power
competition is the competition for men of great talent, and Yan predicts that once China has
reached a threshold of hard power, the real competition between China and USA will move from
economic and military power to that of inviting and retaining talent. The conclusion reached in
the book is that learning from the pre-Qin thinkers like Xunzi, China’s strategy for ascent must
move beyond a mere materialist and security strategy and include policies to attract the best
people from around the world with no regard and distinction for nationality.

The theory of ‘moral realism’ is unabashedly Chinese in its philosophical origin and cuts straight
through the pervasive eurocentric bias of the field to introduce a novel vision for conceptualising
international politics. It is more than a catalogue of pre-Qin philosophy because it draws on that
philosophy to introduce political concepts such as ‘hierarchy’, ‘political power’, ‘humane
authority’ etc.

Relational Theory: Qin Yaqing

Prof. Qin Yaqing has also sought to enrich the global IR theory by contributing a theory based
on Chinese conception of the world. His theory building is quite reflexive as he devotes a
considerable part of his work in ‘A Relational Theory of World Politics’ to arguments on why
‘culture’ can help in the process of knowledge production and theory construction in the social
sciences. He interrogates the metaphysical component inherent in any theory, which is not
always visible, and yet informs its essence. In this sense, his endeavour to provide a culturally
Chinese theory for world politics follows from the cognition that the current lot of IR theories
already encapsulate a Western worldview and progress towards a ‘global IR’ perspective’ will
require addition of ideas from other cultures.

Just like Yan Xuetong, the aim is not to create a standalone theory but to enrich the global IR
discourse by creating a dialogue between mainstream IR ideas and Chinese dialectics. The
focal point of Qin’s work is the idea of ‘relationality’, how it can be conceptualised and in turn
can help to conceptualise notions of power, cooperation, governance etc. Qin finds in
mainstream IR theories a common metaphysical component of “ontological individualism” (Qin
75). He provides an alternative Confucian basis to look at human society and all the relations
that emanate therefrom, including international relations. This alternative basis, based on
traditional Chinese culture and Confucian metaphysics, is the idea of relationality - that society
is composed of human relationships, rather than individuals by themselves.

If ‘relationality’ is taken as the fundamental concept, then actors - including political actors like
nation-states in the world system, come to be defined by their relationality rather than their
individuality. In this perspective, they express their existence in terms of relating or being related
to other actors. This logical scheme is supplemented by the Chinese dialectical methodology of
zhongyang, which is centered on the harmonious interconnection of polarities, contrasted with
the Hegelian dialectics which emphasize duality and conflict (Qin). This methodoloical
innovation allows Qin to recoceotulaise political conceots like power, cooperation, etc. in
alternative terms of relationality. The main components of this theory - the logic of
interrelatedness, the logic of processes, and the identities of social relations, all of them lead to
the creation of a rich alternative context in which the conduct of international politics can be
viewed bottom-up, flowing from the same cultural processes that guide human social
relationships .

Conclusion: Strategic Sinofutures

To make complete sense of the rise of Chinese IR theory, we will have to examine it in both
academic and non-academic contexts. Within the wider academic dimension, it can be seen as
the final intellectual phase in the broader maturation process of the IR discipline within China. It
is worth noting that the quest for a native vision of international politics follows the assimilation
of intellectual currents from the West. Therefore, the rise of Chinese IR theory is both an
intellectual contribution to a globalising discipline as well as a native fulfillment in terms of
knowledge production. In the light of China's central role in East Asian history, it can also be
seen as an attempt to bend political concepts and ideas to make world politics reflect China’s
own civilizational experience.

In its non-academic dimension, it can be placed in the broader trend of China’s rise leading to
novel demands from domestic material and intellectual resources. China’s development means
that Chinese scholars have to find new ways to explain global politics and China’s role in it.
They have to create new intellectual discourses to justify and legitimise China’s increasing role
in international affairs. Evolution of a new global order in which China plays a new defining role
will need new visions of world order, which is only possible through new theories of looking at
international politics.

The two theories that were analysed in this report are quite different in their origins and analysis.
Despite these differences, we find points of commonality in their intellectual pursuit. First of all is
the use of integrative methodology so that their theories don’t exist in silos but are developed in
a dialogue with the Western IR theories and try to enrich the globalising discipline of IR theories
in general. Second, Chinese IR theories explore China’s history and philosophy to find concepts
with contemporary explanatory power. This reflection on the past for inspiration reflects the
need of a confident power to search for authenticity, and an attempt to fundamentally
differentiate itself from the old world order dominated intellectually by Western countries.

All of these factors make Chinese IR effort important towards understanding Chinese
perspective on the international political future. As the theory generation process is linked to
Chinese rise, its gradual development will lead to self-reflection in the IR discipline and may
reveal the processes that connect history and theory-building. These efforts are also linked to
China’s elites advancing new arguments about China’s future international role, therefore
understanding these theories and the processes involved in constructing them may also have a
pragmatic foreign policy benefit. The relevance of this study to the Sinofutures project is that by
studying the native theories, we will be able to understand authentic Chinese visions for the new
political structure, the new shape of international policy, and the novel international norms for
the for the new world order that is slowly emerging in the shadows of China’s rise.

Bibliography
Kim, Hun Joon. “Will IR Theory with Chinese Characteristics be a Powerful Alternative?”

The Chinese Journal of International Politics, vol. 9, no. 1, 2016, pp. 59-79.

Qin, Yaqing. “Development of International Relations theory in China: progress through

debates.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 11, no. 1, 2011, pp. 231-257.

Qin, Yaqing. “Recent Developments toward a Chinese School of IR Theory.” E-

International Relations, 2016, https://www.e-ir.info/2016/04/26/recent-developments-

toward-a-chinese-school-of-ir-theory/. Accessed 15 May 2021.

Qin, Yaqing. A Relational Theory of World Politics. Cambridge University Press, 2018.

Shambaugh, David. “International relations studies in China: history, trends, and

prospects.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, vol. 11, no. 1, 2011, pp. 339-372.

Xuetong, Yan. Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. Edited by Edmund

Ryden, Princeton University Press, 2011.