Rethinking the individual through Chinese ontology: Implications for International Relations theory and humanitarian intervention
| Date | 01 November 2016 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0263395716636122 |
| Published date | 01 November 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Special Section: Resurrecting IR TheoryGuest Edited by Kyle Grayson (Newcastle University, UK), Martin Coward (The University of Manchester), and Robert Oprisko (Independent Scholar) |
Politics
2016, Vol. 36(4) 413 –427
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0263395716636122
pol.sagepub.com
Rethinking the individual
through Chinese ontology:
Implications for International
Relations theory and
humanitarian intervention
Aleš Karmazin
Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague, Praha, Czech Republic
Abstract
Through utilizing correlative ontology, which is derived from ancient Chinese philosophy, this
article offers a redefinition of the individual (subject), which subsequently helps to problematize the
‘particular versus universal’ distinction. It is then shown how correlative ontology might be useful
for criticizing and stimulating the English School of International Relations and its two main views
(i.e. solidarism and pluralism) on humanitarian intervention. The significance is that correlative
ontology helps to challenge ‘solidarism qua universalism’ and ‘pluralism qua particularism’.
Keywords
Chinese philosophy, humanitarian intervention, ontology, particular versus universal, the English
School
Received: 26th February 2015, Revised version received: 30th September 2015; Accepted: 7th October 2015
Introduction
In the 2013 special issue of the European Journal of International Relations (EJIR),
Dunne et al. (2013) argued for integrative pluralism as a promising way to stimulate
International Relations (IR) theorizing and, more specifically, guide engagement of dif-
ferent theoretical perspectives. They emphasize the importance of integrative pluralism
through differentiating it from its main alternatives, more specifically, (1) the ‘unity
through pluralism’ approach, which aspires to unite different theoretical positions
through using a clearly defined scientific method, and (2) cherishing existence of multi-
ple theories, where plurality is the goal by itself. According to Dunne et al. (2013: 407),
Corresponding author:
Aleš Karmazin, Institute of Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University in Prague,
U Krize 8, Jinonice, Praha 158 00, Czech Republic.
Email: ales.karmazin@fsv.cuni.cz
636122POL0010.1177/0263395716636122PoliticsKarmazin
research-article2016
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial