Abstract:

This paper argues that Chinese international relations understanding has largely inverted the paradigm of classical realism which is premised on the paradoxical dynamic between “moral man and immoral society”, the Niebuhrian thesis which posits that people are likely to sin as members of groups than as individuals, and hence the need to limit institutional powers. Chinese political tradition however is inclined to view individuals more dimly and the need for institutional arrangements that will safeguard group (and societal) solidarity. Relationality scholarship thus finds a sympathetic audience among Chinese intellectuals in which the emphasis is on the managing complex relationships in a community (as diverse as China). Notwithstanding its value in deepening our understanding on some aspects of Chinese political tradition, relationality suffers from the following flaws: (I) it fails to account for the highly party-centric view of Chinese politics; (II) it is formulated to defend Chinese interests and thus lack broader appeal; and (III) it is founded upon an entirely “this-worldly” philosophical tradition and consequently, is unable validate its legitimacy by reference to a “transcendental” source; and (IV) unlike realism which purports to take the world as it is, relationality starts by attempting to “perfect” the international system as it ought to be.