Prof. Devin Joshi1
1Singapore Management University, Singapore
Biography:
Devin Joshi is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Singapore Management University and was previously an associate professor at the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver. He holds a BA from Stanford University and a PhD from the University of Washington. His research areas include Global IR, international organizations, Daoist political thought, and ideology. The author of over fifty journal articles in outlets such as International Studies Quarterly, International Studies Review, Journal of Peace Research, and World Development, his books include Strengthening Governance Globally, Globalization and Human Development and Putting Daoist Thought into Practice.
Abstract:
Mirroring distorted patterns of international relations (IR) in the real world, Western institutions have overwhelmingly dominated the production of IR theories taught in the West and globally. Thus, while contending IR paradigms have proliferated since the late Cold War, most IR theories belong to either the 1st dimension (dominant Western IR theories) or the 2nd dimension (non-dominant, Western IR theories). The more recent trend of China and other non-Western states increasing their international influence has now brought some limited attention to the 3rd dimension (elite, non-Western IR theories). For the most part, however, 4th dimension (non-elite, non-Western) IR theories have been ignored by the global IR community. This unfortunately represents a failure to properly and adequately globalize IR theorizing and the IR discipline. To correct this imbalance, I advocate paying greater attention to 4th dimension IR theories identified here as the ‘D-School.’ I illustrate these possibilities via a case study analysis of Daoist IR theory (drawing upon the classical Chinese IR thought of Laozi, Yang Zhu, and Wenzi). This particular branch of the D-school offers us a sophisticated, non-western school of IR theory originating dating back for centuries whose rejection of anthropocentrism, nationalism, patriarchy, and egoism can provide helpful normative guidance to modern foreign policy makers and the general public while being useful to scholars around the world today by offering coherent potential explanations (and hypotheses) pinpointing upstream sources of international conflict and how to avoid them.