Non-western challenges to Eurocentrism: The case of Chinese IR

The Eurocentric nature of the IR discipline has been discussed recently. Scholars criticize Eurocentrism for being unable to understand and analyze the problems of the non-Western world. Therefore, many studies attribute considerable significance to the efforts for developing a non-Western IR. Through these discussions, seven main premises appear to be constructing the Eurocentrism of IR: Western exceptionalism, racism, universalism, the Eurocentric framing of world history, Western civilizational superiority, Orientalism and the theory of progress. Not satisfied with this situation, many scholars argue for the necessity to overcome Eurocentrism and strive to reach a non-Western IR, which is neither establishing a new -centrism nor specifically designed for only certain regions/states. The Chinese School of IR is one of such attempts and is the focus of this study. Scholars of the Chinese School optimistically observe their success in overcoming Eurocentrism and believe that the Chinese School has the potential to establish a non-Western IR approach. Thus, this study aims to understand to what extent the Chinese School is successful in overcoming Eurocentrism. The seven premises of Eurocentrism are considered as the tool of comparison to be applied to the Chinese School of IR. As a result of this analysis, it is observed that the Chinese School replaces Eurocentrism with Sino-centrism, which stands as a challenge to the glorified West and Western ideas. However, it also reproduces Eurocentric logic of parochialism. Creating a new -centrism does not match the aim of non-Western IR, which strives to emancipate the discipline from centrist approaches. Through such an analysis, this study reveals the hidden traps in the search for a non-Western IR that would lead unintentional reproduction of Eurocentrism.