Emre Demir examines China’s emergence in his book “Contemporary China in Anglo-American and Chinese Perspectives: Making Sense of a Rising China” by highlighting the distinctions and parallels between Chinese and Western scholarly discourse. With an emphasis on the current power structure in knowledge production in Chinese and U.S. societies, the book analyzes 14 approaches from scholars of mainstream U.S., critical Western, mainstream Chinese, and critical Chinese approaches. It aims to uncover their pertinent power-knowledge nexuses and region-centric features in knowledge production.

The book analyzes 14 approaches from both Western and Chinese scholars, revealing their power-knowledge nexuses in knowledge production.

According to Demir, each strategy is in the knowledge creation hierarchy’s core, semi-peripheral, and periphery layers. The United States currently has the central (hegemonic) position in producing knowledge in the social sciences, allowing it to control the methods and means of knowledge production. Thus, under universal validity, the United States may replicate its doctrines worldwide and profit from them. Demir also supports the decolonization of International Relations (IR), a human-centric approach rather than a region-centric one, an emphasis on the colonial histories of states, and the diversification of intellectual knowledge in the social sciences.

Among the three mainstream U.S.-centered theories discussed in the first chapter are offensive realism (John Mearsheimer), neoliberal institutionalism (Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye), and postclassical realism (Robert Gilpin). The chapter presents their U.S.-centered presumptions about the current U.S.-China relationship and the ideas of hegemony, hegemony-building, and hegemonic transition. According to Demir, these problem-solving techniques establish the fundamental tenet of IR knowledge production, and the associated academics generate knowledge that helps American policymakers combat the threats the country faces.

Furthermore, these pro-status quo strategies make ideological assertions that they are “value-free” and universally applicable, meaning they are generally applicable. Although they have diverse perspectives on China’s emergence, the author contends that these methods only examine the ideas of hegemony and hegemonic transition in terms of material terms and from a U.S.-centered perspective when discussing Sino-U.S. relations. Though they disagree on substance, realists—who see China’s emergence as a threat that must be contained—and liberals—who advocate for China’s wider integration into the system—both support the status quo.

The second chapter describes the semi-peripheral social science positions of Historical Materialist Critical Theory (HMCT, Robert Cox) and World-Systems Analysis (WSA, Immanuel Wallerstein) on hegemony, hegemony-building, and hegemonic transition. According to the author, they ironically aid in creating Western-centric knowledge by assisting “the power holders to naturalize, stabilize, and eternalize the existing unjust world-system,” even though he acknowledges their insights in overcoming region-centric knowledge production. He claims that by ignoring their colonial pasts and seeing the East as passive carriers of Western hegemonies in a capitalist global system, these Western-centric viewpoints harm the region.

Demir advocates for a decolonization of International Relations, emphasizing a human-centric approach over region-centric perspectives.

These scholars offer Western-centric explanations for the concept of hegemony and Sino-U.S. relations because they only consider Western powers as hegemons, place too much emphasis on the Westphalian system, and assume that hegemons provide stability. As a result, they share the wisdom of hegemons’ understanding of stability. While WSA and HMCT account for the hegemonic transition by considering economic, ecological, and social factors, they can still not surpass a Western-centric perspective on China’s development.

The third chapter discusses the ideas of hegemony and hegemony-building as they relate to the mainstream Chinese perspectives of Tianxia1 (Zhao Tingyang), Tsinghua2 or Moral Realism (Yan Xuetong), and Relational Theory (Qin Yaqing). According to the author, Zhao offers a Sino-centered ontology in contrast to Qin’s and particularly Yan’s moral realism approach, which incorporates Western and Chinese ontologies.

According to Demir, these methods are ancillary to the creation of knowledge, but these academics are closely associated with the Chinese ruling class and use the presumptions of mainstream American methods to create knowledge that solves problems for the Chinese government. These methods came into being when China’s material capabilities increased, and developing its own IR theories became necessary. They, therefore, aim to flip the label of “China threat,” elevate Chinese knowledge creation to a central position, and overcome American hegemony in knowledge production.

The fourth chapter discusses the New Left, New Right/Neoliberalism, and Neo-Confucianism/Neo-Conservatism as critical Chinese perspectives located on the outskirts of knowledge production. According to Demir, these theories are not elevating the discussion of hegemony-building. Criticizing the “universal” conventional theories, the focus is instead on domestic problems and China’s political, social, and economic transition. In other words, they are not giving the Chinese government knowledge about how to solve problems. According to the author, by concentrating on the problems that China faces at home, these academics provide alternate explanations without ignoring the Chinese people or the government.

Mainstream U.S. theories often present themselves as “value-free,” masking their ideological biases while promoting American hegemony.

The book offers the reader a novel perspective on Sino-American ties. Demir examines the sometimes-overlooked aspect of this subject by contrasting the academic discourse with a human-centric approach, whereas many scholars try to comprehend the problem solely on material grounds using region-centric Western techniques. By doing this, he discovers the existing power dynamics in the system of knowledge creation, including who creates information for whom and who gains from it at the expense of others. He finds that Western critical theories are Western-centric, while Chinese mainstream methods are Sino-centric. As a result, the advantages of these theories are clear.

Similarly, the book emphasizes mental production as a source of power in and of itself and how holding the hegemonic or core position in mental production increases the power of the state that generates it. Mainstream intellectuals in the United States can make their politically motivated and regionally focused methods seem universally applicable and value-free, making them acceptable worldwide.

The book demonstrates how this forces academics from the semi-periphery and periphery to embrace and absorb these presumptions, whether consciously (Chinese mainstream) or unconsciously (Western critical), and to perpetuate American hegemony in knowledge creation. This is clear in the case of mainstream Chinese researchers who, while maintaining the mainstream assumptions in their theories, want to restore the status quo in knowledge production in favor of China. As a result, power itself is a part of academic discourse and discussions of a “rising China.” This book sheds light on this by examining the source and intended use of the knowledge about Sino-American interactions.

The author highlights the need for diversification in intellectual knowledge to address the colonial histories influencing current theories.

Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that the book seeks to go beyond the current unequal power relations in knowledge production, which take the form of the marginalized status of indigenous IR theories. This exposes (neo)colonial problems in knowledge production systems and global politics. Demir directly opposes the dominant region-centric methodologies that benefit the periphery.

By examining the academic discussions surrounding China’s rise, the author offers insights on Sino-American relations and how to comprehend it. People who wish to learn more about various international relations theories, the arguments surrounding hegemony, hegemony-building, and hegemonic transition, and China’s ascent from different Western and Chinese perspectives could find the book a good read.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.