ABSTRACT
Since the publication of Acharya and Buzan’s seminal forum ‘Why there is no non-Western IR theory?’, there has been a great deal of studies that aim to ameliorate the Western parochialism of the study of international relations (IR). This trend includes a strong and increasing commitment to the development of ‘national schools’ among non-Western (in particular, Chinese) IR scholars. However, Acharya and Buzan point out that non-Western IR theory-building enterprise ‘cannot be a conversation among the likeminded’. They add that the project ‘is more likely to fail if it does not draw in the broadest group of scholars, including those in the Western mainstream’. In short, we need a two-way ‘dialogue’ across ‘the West/non-West divide’ in order to transform the current Western-centric IR into a global discipline. A critical question then is how can we ensure such dialogue without descending into a narcissistic turf war? This chapter tackles the how-question head-on in its discussions of the diverse kinds and properties of dialogue.
