Abstract
AbstractThe study of Eurocentrism has become a hallmark of postcolonial International Relations theories. Of particular concern in this literature has been the resilience of Eurocentrism despite conscious efforts to move towards a post-Eurocentric understanding of world politics. This study argues that while existing works have highlighted many of the reasons why Eurocentrism persists today, it has not been sufficiently identified and conceptualised. In particular, why some policy actors, who have a vested interest in moving beyond Eurocentrism, inadvertently reproduce Eurocentrism? This article proposes to distinguish between different types of inadvertent reproductions. In particular it highlights rhetorical critique, deconstruction, decentring and dehierarchising, as different ways to critique, inadvertently reproduce and partially modify Eurocentrism. To illustrate this situation, this article looks at Turkey's migration policies and documents how Turkish governing elites have openly claimed the need to upend the Eurocentric order, yet have reproduced it in practice.
Highlights
The literature on Eurocentrism[1] has long highlighted the mechanisms through which it tends to reproduce itself
This article aimed to provide some conceptual clarification regarding the politics of anti-Eurocentrism and to better understand the mechanisms through which Eurocentrism gets inadvertently reproduced
To illustrate how some of these work in practice, we looked at the evolution of Turkish policies towards immigration and asylum, which has been used as an area where the Turkish leadership has attempted to challenge Eurocentrism
Summary
The literature on Eurocentrism[1] (in particular as it relates to international politics) has long highlighted the mechanisms through which it tends to reproduce itself. Geopolitical Eurocentrism is predicated on the political impact of a world where Europe or the West is perceived as superior both in material and moral terms Does this mean that any practical attempt at challenging European supremacy is anti-Eurocentric? Zarakol has highlighted how countries such as Russia, Japan, and Turkey have used differing techniques to overcome the stigma of defeat, and a common one was to make the case that their country were ‘Western’, or ‘modern’ or ‘civilized’, and should gain international recognition as such.[32] Students of postsocialist polities have coined the term ‘secondary Eurocentrism’ to refer to this reproduction by non-Europeans.[33] By doing so, they were adopting and reproducing a Eurocentric frame of reference.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
