Toward a “pluriversal” international relations studies in Indonesia
What are the grounds of International Relations (IR) studies? Scholars have pointed out the strong connection between IR and Western knowledge, philosophies, and histories (Barasuol & da Silva, 2016;Blaney, 2002;Blaney & Tickner, 2017a, 2017b;Liu, 2016). Highlighting a Western-centered discipline, recent scholarship in IR has concluded the lack of plurality in IR theorizing, with the call to adopt more diverse means of understanding how the world works in a political sense (Acharya, 2014(Acharya, , 2016)). The consequence of a Western-centered discipline has been that the voices from the Global South are underrepresented and excluded from IR knowledge formation. In addition, the recent exploration of critical theories in IR (Critical Theory, Feminism, Marxism, etc.) has not been perceived as sufficient to eliminate biases in the field, as many have argued about the 'epistemic violence' encountered by scholars in the Global South (Ala et al., 2021;Odoom & Andrews, 2017). With the presence of biases in IR knowledge, this opinion article calls for re-evaluating the pedagogy of IR studies, especially in parts of the globe that do not share a common perspective with the Global North.The historical, cultural, and political contexts of the Global North (Western states) differ from the Global South (Small and Middle powers, primarily located in Africa, Latin America, and Asia). In Latin American, African, and Asian countries, perceptions of how the world works and what matters in global politics contrast with the common literature produced in IR. However, a general belief, predominantly adopted in the Global North, is that IR theories are "…universally applicable, irrespective of the local context, culture, and society" (Ala et al., 2021, p.38). The universal applicability of IR studies impacts the teaching and learning processes in the Global South, as there is a lack of convergence between what is taught and the socio-political realities in their countries. The problem associated with the tendency to universalize this Western-based knowledge is multiplied when higher education curriculums are geared to adopt Western-based perspectives, epistemologies, and ontologies in IR without exploring more diverse perspectives in the field. The core of Western-based knowledge includes IR grand theories, including realism, liberalism, constructivism, and the assessment of empirical investigations from the West to support the claims of those theories.In brief, this opinion article extends the applicability of the 'global pluriversal IR' echoed in Ala, Inoue, and Valencia's 2021 study. It argues that Indonesia, as a country of the Global South, has similarities to Brazil and South Africa regarding the prospects and challenges of diversifying the IR curriculum in the country. Eventually, this article echoes the importance of revealing the potential of Indonesian philosophies as an alternative means to understanding IR theories, transcending the dominant western-centrist IR studies currently adopted in Indonesia. It is further argued that knowledge and ontologies can benefit from plurality through Indonesia's IR worldviews, leading to a higher connection to the social realities in the Global South. The focus is on five prominent undergraduate IR programs, including those under Universitas Hasanuddin, Universitas Padjajaran, Binus University, Universitas Airlangga, and Universitas Indonesia. The study programs are hosted by universities consistently ranked in the top 15 among Indonesian Universities according to the world university rankings of Quacquarelli Symonds and Times Higher Education (QS, 2024;THE, 2024).The argument put forward is as follows. First, the dominance of Western-centered IR theories and sub-areas of IR and the seclusion of Global South perspectives. Second, this article provides some suggestions on measures that can be taken by Indonesian higher education institutions to achieve a 'pluriversal' IR in Indonesia. This includes bridging local Indonesian values to interpret regional Southeast Asian affairs, and as the basis to establish alternative interpretations to world affairs.IR students have been exposed to this Western-centered IR since the early years of their undergraduate studies. Students are expected to be introduced to the Great Debate among IR scholars in the twentieth century, connected to European and US history, Western Powers, and how the Global North perceives the other parts of the globe. Following this, sub-areas of IR are primarily dominated by the American academy, focused on foreign policy, political economy, and international security (Acharya & Buzan, 2010;Baylis et al., 2019;Griffiths, 2020;Putra, 2023a). Consequently, if not left out, local knowledge, such as the norms and contexts that influence Indonesia's foreign policies, has become a minor theme in the IR curriculum. In addition, this article also identifies the problem that IR theories introduced in the early years of an IR student are focused on those Western IR theories, thus shaping the foundations of an IR student's understanding of IR studies. , 2024). These courses form the foundation of how Indonesian IR students think about the study, including the types of theories that would be utilized as analytical tools in assessing cases in the following years.However, the substantive would predominantly be Western-centered, leading to the perception that what matters in the study are the variables highlighted by realism, liberalism, and constructivism. Paradigms of the Global South, for example, decolonization materials or how non-Western states perceive IR, tend to occupy a minor aspect in the foundational stages of IR teaching. Indonesian IR study programs are members of the Association of International Relations Indonesia (AIHII), which facilitates benchmarking curriculums from leading IR programs in the state. It is thus viable to conclude that the curriculum structure adopted in those five IR...