ABSTRACT
It is rare that a recognized voice from the non-Western world makes an impression in International Relations (IR) theory. Although most studies point to the structural and institutional constraints that contribute to such lack of recognition, this chapter argues that a major part of the problem stems from confusion around the definition of what theorizing out of the non-Western world actually is. Based on a review of studies that embody indigenous conceptualizations of international phenomena in the periphery, it first defines such ‘homegrown’ theorizing as original theorizing in the periphery about the periphery. By elaborating on these conceptualizations’ specific methods in building theories, we then provide a typology of homegrown theories and assess each theory building method in terms of its potential for global acceptance and further development. We substantiate our arguments on global acceptance by drawing on a comparison of the citation counts of 18 homegrown theories. In doing so, we try to give voice to some of the most prominent scholarly and intellectual efforts stemming from the periphery, and provide a guide for Western scholars on how to engage with homegrown theorizing in a more intellectually stimulating manner. The chapter concludes by highlighting a number of critical factors in opening up space for different voices in the world of IR.
