The Historiography of China’s “Rise”: A Struggle for Narrative Autonomy in IR Theory

ABSTRACT

The story of International Relations (IR) has always been recounted with a language endemic to the Anglo-liberal political and international experience. This vernacular depicts all states as self-interested expansionists seeking to either promote or antagonise the liberal international order. To advance the meta-theoretical debate on cultural pluralism in IR, this article explores the projection of liberal ontological paradigms onto the historiography of China’s “rise”. The narrative frames from “theories of foreign policy” depict China as a rational calculator seeking material maximisation. The narrative frames from “theories of international politics” depict China as a revisionist state to be evaluated, managed and contained according to the standards set by Anglo-liberal orthodoxy. This article explores China’s “rise” as a struggle for narrative autonomy: a mission to identify and express itself in its own terms. In IR theory, this struggle manifests itself in the concepts of wangquan, zhongyong and tianxia that articulate China’s political and international experience using an indigenous vernacular. By situating these different perspectives in a context of cultural relativity, we provide a conceptual detour around the conventional binary discourse that regulates the present debate: one that seeks to acknowledge ontological difference without descending into historiographical antagonism.

摘要:

国际关系的历史总是以盎格鲁-自由主义政治和国际关系特有的语言来叙述。这种表述将所有国家描述为自私自利的扩张主义者, 寻求促进或对抗自由主义的国际秩序。为了促进国际关系中关于文化多元论的元理论争论, 本文探讨了自由本体论范式在中国“崛起”史学中的投射。“对外政策理论”的叙事框架将中国描绘成一个追求物质最大化的理性行为体。“国际政治理论”的叙事框架将中国描绘成一个修正主义国家, 按照盎格鲁自由主义正统所设定的标准对中国进行评价, 管理和包容。本文将中国的“崛起”作为一种叙事自主性的斗争:一种用自己的语言来识别和表达自己的使命。在国际关系理论中, 这种斗争体现在王权, 中庸和天下的概念中, 这些概念用本土语言表达了中国的政治和国际经历。 通过把这些不同的观点放在文化相对性的背景下, 本文提供了一个规定了当前辩论的二元话语之外的概念选项:一个寻求承认本体论的差异而不陷入史学对立的话语。

KEYWORDS:

• China’s rise
• international historiography
• Chinese schools of IR theory
• pluralism
• narrative
• ontology
• wangquan
• zhongyong
• tianxia

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of the faculty at the Department of International Relations at Tsinghua University, including Yan Xuetong, Sun Xuefeng, Zhao Kejin, Li Li and Qi Haixia, for their comments and encouragement. The authors also recognise the contributions of Xue Li and Yuan Zhengqing from the Chinese Academy of Social Science. Last, but not least, the authors would like to extend their gratitude and appreciation to the three anonymous reviewers whose efforts were crucial to realising the final version of the article.