Introducing Sufism to International Relations Theory: A preliminary inquiry into epistemological, ontological, and methodological pathways
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066117751592 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
research-article2018
EJ R
I
Article
European Journal of
International Relations
Introducing Sufism to
2019, Vol. 25(1) 250 –275
© The Author(s) 2018
International Relations Theory:
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066117751592
DOI: 10.1177/1354066117751592
A preliminary inquiry into
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
epistemological, ontological,
and methodological pathways
Deepshikha Shahi
Centre for Global Cooperation Research/Käte Hamburger-Kolleg, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Abstract
One of the most commonly treaded pathways to address the widely recognized
Eurocentric biases in International Relations has been the initiation of intellectual
efforts toward the incorporation of non-Western world views. However, the greater
assimilation of knowledge produced by non-Western scholars from local philosophical-
experiential vantage points — that is, the integration of Chinese, Indian, or Brazilian
outlooks expressed under the rubric “non-Western International Relations” — cannot
make International Relations less Eurocentric or more “Global” if the following
slippery grounds are overlooked: (1) if non-Western International Relations theories
employ non-Western philosophical resources for generating a derivative discourse
of Western/Eurocentric International Relations theories, thereby failing to transcend
the conjectural boundaries of Western/Eurocentric International Relations; and (2) if
non-Western International Relations theories manufacture an exceptionalist discourse
that is specifically applicable to the narrow experiential realities of a native time–space
zone, thereby failing to offer an alternative universalist explanation that grants a broad-
spectrum relevance to Western/Eurocentric International Relations. In the light of
these realizations, the present article aims to explore if “Sufism” — as a non-Western
intellectual resource — is capable of offering a fertile ground for crafting a non-derivative
and non-exceptionalist Global International Relations theory. In order to do this, the
article employs the insights gained from the poetry of a 13th-century Sufi scholar, Jalāl
ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī. The article draws the conclusion that Sufism, as an established
philosophy with a grand temporal-spatial global spread, upholds a “threefold attribute”
Corresponding author:
Deepshikha Shahi, Centre for Global Cooperation Research/Käte Hamburger-Kolleg, University of
Duisburg-Essen, Germany.
Email: deepshikha.shahi@gmail.com
Shahi
251
— namely, epistemological monism, ontological immaterialism, and methodological
eclecticism — which gives it a unique foundational status to formulate a non-Eurocentric
Global International Relations theory.
Keywords
Epistemology, Global International Relations, International Relations theory,
Methodology, Ontology, Sufism
Introduction
One of the most commonly treaded pathways to address the widely recognized
Eurocentric biases in the academic field of International Relations (IR) has been the
initiation of intellectual efforts toward the incorporation of non-Western world views.
However, the greater assimilation of knowledge produced by non-Western scholars from
local philosophical-experiential vantage points — for instance, the integration of
Chinese, Indian, or Brazilian outlooks, often expressed under the rubric “non-Western
IR” — cannot make IR less Eurocentric or more “Global” if the following slippery
grounds are overlooked: (1) if non-Western IR theories employ non-Western philosophi-
cal resources for involuntarily generating a derivative discourse of the same Western/
Eurocentric IR theories (e.g. if the Indian literary classic “Arthaśāstra” is evoked to cre-
ate an Indian version of realism that is identical to Western realism), thereby failing to
produce fresh insights that could transcend the conjectural boundaries of Western/
Eurocentric IR; and (2) if non-Western IR theories deliberately manufacture an excep-
tionalist discourse that is specifically applicable to the narrow experiential realities of a
native time–space zone (e.g. the “post-colonial” and “de-colonial” debates that essen-
tially endorse a rigid division between the delimited and particularist politico-experien-
tial realities of the colonizing and colonialized worlds), thereby failing to put forward a
universalist explanation that grants a broad-spectrum relevance to Western/Eurocentric
IR. In the light of these realizations, the present article intends to explore if Sufism, as an
established philosophy with a grand temporal-spatial spread across the globe, is capable
of conquering the aforementioned slippery grounds.
The article raises the following central question: is the non-Western intellectual
resource of Sufism capable of offering a fertile ground for crafting a non-derivative
and non-exceptionalist Global IR theory? In its attempt to find an appropriate response
to this central question, the article awakens the philosophical insights gained from the
poetry of a 13th-century Persian Sufi scholar, Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī. The
article hypothesizes that the following “threefold attribute” emerging from the gener-
alities of Sufi philosophy — as also exemplified in the specificities of Rūmī’s poetry
— gives it a peculiar exploratory base for considering a non-Eurocentric Global IR
theory: (1) epistemological monism; (2) ontological immaterialism; and (3) methodo-
logical eclecticism.1 While the epistemological dualism characterizing Eurocentric IR
presumes a knowledge-situation marked by an essential subject–object distinction, the
“epistemological monism” underlying Sufism imagines a potential subject–object
252
European Journal of International Relations 25(1)
merger. In contrast to the ontological priority in Eurocentric IR (which more often than
not considers the “science of being” as the obligatory starting point for knowledge
production), Sufism supposes “ontological immaterialism” — an acknowledgment of
a multilayered reality wherein “non-being”/“non-existence”/“nothingness” is the
accepted originating point of “being”/“existence” — as a precondition for knowledge
acquisition. Furthermore, unlike particular reliance upon a compartmentalized meth-
odology for knowledge production in Eurocentric IR (which broadly adheres to either
rationalism/positivism or reflectivism/post-positivism), the “methodological eclecti-
cism” underpinning Sufism advances a heterogeneous platter of methodologies that
advocates an eclectic amalgamation of rationalist, reflectivist, and even extra-rational-
ist/extra-causal methodologies for comprehending reality. The article sets out to sug-
gest how this distinctive threefold attribute of Sufism can be potentially employed to
craft a non-Eurocentric Global IR theory.
The article is divided into three sections. The first section attempts to situate Sufism
in the ongoing discourses on Global IR. The second section evokes Rūmī’s poetry to
extract the distinctive threefold attribute of Sufism that grants it an innovative non-Euro-
centric philosophical lens for envisioning a Global IR. Finally, the third section discusses
the credentials of this Sufi threefold attribute as interconnected threads in the proposi-
tional fabric of a non-Eurocentric Global IR theory.
Eurocentric IR versus Global IR: A dissonant discourse on
non-Western and post-Western?
The limits of “Eurocentric IR” remain a widely recognized scholarly actuality (Acharya,
2011; Capan, 2017; Grovogui, 2006; Hobson, 2012; Hoffmann, 1977; Jones, 2006;
Kayaoglu, 2010; Schmidt, 2014; Wæver, 1998). Lately, the conceptualization of “Global
IR” has evolved as a conscious antidote to these limits. The conceptual parameters of
Global IR encompass all those research works that potentially propose to transcend the
divide between the West and the Rest by tracking any of the following multiple path-
ways: demonstrating a commitment to pluralistic universalism; grounding in world his-
tory; redefining existing IR theories and methods and building new ones from societies
hitherto ignored as sources of IR knowledge; integrating the study of regions and region-
alisms into the central concerns of IR; avoiding ethnocentrism and exceptionalism irre-
spective of source and form; and recognizing a broader conception of agency, with
material and ideational elements that includes resistance, normative action, and local
constructions of global order (Acharya, 2014: 647).
The prescribed multiple pathways to do Global IR seem promising in terms of their
intrinsic determination to surpass the limits of Eurocentric IR. Nevertheless, a fairly
erratic labeling of the research works pursuing these pathways as “non-Western” and/or
“post-Western” has generated a substantial ambiguity. To a great extent, this ambiguity
emanates from the haziness in developing a clear general definition of “non-Western”
and “post-Western” on the one hand, and the dissonance over the particular significance
of “non-Western” and “post-Western” research projects in the programmatic content of
Global IR on the other. While both non-Western and post-Western discourses — as
Shahi
253
viable constituents of Global IR — claim to transcend the boundaries of Eurocentric IR,
there is a lack of transparency on the “perceived motive” behind such transcendence:
whether the motive behind such transcendence entails a displacement...
To continue reading
Request your trial