A fragmented globe symbolizes the need for inclusive global perspectives.

Beyond 'Us vs. Them': How Rethinking Global Perspectives Can Foster True Diversity

Avery Sinclair in Global Affairs August 2025 • 4 min read.

"Is Eurocentrism holding back global collaboration? Discover how reframing our understanding of International Relations can promote inclusivity and break down barriers in a hyper-connected world."

Since the 1980s, scholars in International Relations (IR) have focused on the 'geo-epistemological' dynamics shaping the diversity of the discipline worldwide. However, the emphasis has been largely on 'American' and ‘non-Western' perspectives, often overlooking the contributions and viewpoints of European scholars.

This article aims to address this gap by examining the identity dynamics that marginalize European cases in discussions about diversity and hegemony within International Relations. Through anthropological and sociological lenses, using concepts like 'misery of position' coined by Pierre Bourdieu, it explores how postcolonial and Eurocentric narratives can explain this imbalance.

Ultimately, the article advocates for a balanced ethnocentric stance to foster a more inclusive relational model and promote pluralism. It questions why European perspectives are often sidelined and seeks to restore them in global conversations.

Europe's Overlooked Role in International Relations: Why Does It Matter?

A fragmented globe symbolizes the need for inclusive global perspectives.

The discussion around diversity and knowledge circulation in International Relations (IR) often starts with the perceived marginality of European contributions. While American parochialism and Eurocentrism are identified as key obstacles to a truly global IR, there has been significantly less academic exploration of contemporary Eurocentrism among European scholars compared to studies of American parochialism. Despite the considerable contributions of European scholars—exemplified by the Copenhagen School and the English School—and the application of European Social Theorists like Foucault and Bourdieu, the focus remains disproportionately on contributions from the 'Global South'.

Publications that examine European national cases tend to be isolated, lacking connection to broader debates about hegemony and diversity. This is surprising given the increasing emphasis on 'global dialogic' and reflexive approaches within the discipline. Although the pursuit of dialogue is common, the way European IR is approached raises questions about the genuineness of this dialogue, as mapping specificities predominantly concerns IR outside Europe. The voices, perspectives, and practices of scholars studying IR within Europe remain largely unknown, resulting in a loss of potential contributions beyond the well-known European schools.

Limited Focus: The existing literature often overlooks European contributions, focusing instead on American and 'non-Western' perspectives.
Disconnect: Studies on European national cases are often disconnected from the broader discussions on hegemony and diversity in IR.
Marginalization: Despite the emphasis on global dialogue, European voices are often marginalized, hindering a comprehensive understanding of the field.

This marginalization is paradoxical, particularly considering the reflexive ambition of the literature, which encourages scholars to examine their own practices to facilitate better knowledge circulation. Subconscious professional patterns are often reproduced when the social contexts of academic production are ignored. Therefore, only by studying our own standpoints as European scholars can we fully participate in meaningful exchanges with IR scholars worldwide. This article seeks to initiate this change by reflexively exploring the identity dynamics that explain the marginality of European cases in the study of hegemony and diversity in IR. It also provides tools to overcome this challenge, emphasizing that reflexive investigation of European scholars' relations to 'IR in Europe' is a vital first step towards better understanding their relationship with other IR communities and, consequently, enhancing diversity in the field.

Moving Forward: Embracing Balanced Perspectives for a More Inclusive IR

The journey toward a truly global and inclusive International Relations discipline requires a shift in perspective. By acknowledging and addressing the ingrained biases and limitations imposed by Eurocentrism, scholars can foster a more balanced and equitable exchange of ideas. It's about creating a space where diverse voices, including those from Europe, are not only heard but valued for their unique contributions to the global understanding of international relations.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

Why is there a need to re-evaluate the focus of diversity in International Relations, particularly concerning European contributions?

The discussion around diversity in International Relations has predominantly focused on 'American' and 'non-Western' perspectives, often sidelining the contributions of European scholars. While Eurocentrism is acknowledged as an obstacle to global International Relations, the exploration of contemporary Eurocentrism among European scholars themselves is lacking. This oversight needs addressing to foster a more balanced and inclusive understanding of international relations, ensuring that diverse voices, including European ones, are valued and integrated into the global conversation.

How does the concept of 'misery of position,' as defined by Pierre Bourdieu, relate to the marginalization of European perspectives in International Relations?

The concept of 'misery of position,' coined by Pierre Bourdieu, can illuminate how European scholars might perceive their own contributions as less significant or relevant in the broader International Relations discourse, especially when compared to 'American' or 'non-Western' perspectives. This perception can lead to a self-marginalization, where European scholars might hesitate to engage with broader debates on hegemony and diversity. By understanding this dynamic, the discipline can work to counteract it, encouraging a more confident and assertive participation from European scholars.

What are the implications of overlooking European contributions in the context of global dialogic and reflexive approaches within International Relations?

Overlooking European contributions undermines the genuineness of global dialogic and reflexive approaches in International Relations. When the focus remains disproportionately on contributions from the 'Global South,' the potential for a truly comprehensive understanding of international relations is diminished. Reflexivity, which encourages scholars to examine their own practices, is hindered when the social contexts of academic production in Europe are ignored. This results in a loss of valuable perspectives and limits the field's capacity to address complex global challenges effectively.

In what specific ways do the Copenhagen School and the English School exemplify the overlooked contributions of European scholars to International Relations?

The Copenhagen School, known for its work on securitization theory, and the English School, with its emphasis on international society, represent significant intellectual contributions from European scholars that are sometimes overshadowed in broader International Relations discussions. These schools have provided unique frameworks for understanding global politics, yet their specific insights and approaches are not always fully integrated into mainstream debates on hegemony and diversity. Recognizing and engaging with the work of the Copenhagen School and the English School can enrich the field and promote a more nuanced understanding of international relations.

What steps can be taken to promote a more balanced ethnocentric stance and foster a more inclusive relational model within the discipline of International Relations?

To promote a balanced ethnocentric stance, scholars need to engage in reflexive investigations of their own standpoints and biases, particularly regarding 'International Relations in Europe'. This involves acknowledging the unique perspectives and contributions of European scholars while also remaining open to insights from other regions and traditions. By fostering a more inclusive relational model, the discipline can create a space where diverse voices are not only heard but also valued for their unique contributions to the global understanding of international relations, ultimately leading to a more equitable and interconnected global community.