博主按：以下是一位比较过中国、巴西、印度的IR对IR的贡献的学者（Peter
Marcus Kristensen）对我的工作的评价：
The
same can be said about the
theoretical work
of Chinese scholar Tang
Shiping, which accounts for seven of the Chinese
articles. 【他的意思是，我的工作更注意贡献广义的知识，而不是local
theorizing 或者local knowledge。】Tang’s articles almost all
seek to advance theory – mostly within a realist
paradigm (offensive, defensive, neo- and
neoclassical) – ranging from a social evolutionary model that
incorporates and theorises both material
and ideational variables,18 and the social
evolution from offensive towards defensive
realism,19 through reviews, specifications and
re-theorisations of the ‘security dilemma’20 and its development
into a dynamic and integrative theory of ethnic
conflict,21 as well as individual articles on
neoclassical realism,22 reconciliation,23 and reputation.24 The
theories advanced are not prefixed as ‘Chinese
theory’ or a ‘Chinese school’, as one might have
expected given the Chinese theory debates mentioned above,
but simply as ‘theory’. The articles build
exclusively on US, and sometimes European, IR
theorists such as Mearsheimer, Butterfield, Herz and Jervis on
the security dilemma. These articles are never
about China per se and in several articles the
only mention of China is in the author affiliation. Instead,
theories are advanced and applied to empirical
cases such as ‘American
military interventionism’.25
文章来源：Peter Marcus Kristensen
(2015) How can emerging powers speak? On
theorists, native informants and quasi-officials in
International Relations discourse, Third World
Quarterly, 36:4, 637-653
文章链接：http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2015.1023288
出于版权原因，我不能把文章上传到网上。如果你的学校没有订阅这份杂志，你又想阅读，可以联系我。
加载中，请稍候......
加载中…
喜欢