cover image: doi: 10.20991/allazimuth.1413405 All Azimuth V13, N1, 2024, 27-48


doi: 10.20991/allazimuth.1413405 All Azimuth V13, N1, 2024, 27-48

26 Feb 2024

For instance, the Dependency School, through its critique of the exclusive focus of the mainstream theories on the core capitalist countries, has expanded the horizons of the discipline, shifting the attention of scholars to the peripheral regions. [...] The explication of the stratified characteristic of the international system, wherein the hierarchical structure burgeons under the dominance of the Western countries, stands as an ontological challenge to the established paradigms in IR. [...] The most pivotal contribution of the Dependency School lies in its criticism of liberal modernization theories, which take the developmental level of the West as an ideal reference object and present the economic-political structures of the West as a model for the rest of the world.31 The Dependency School also argues that both traditional Marxist theories and studies of imperialism are Western-ce. [...] Detecting that the rise of the West is rooted in global dynamics rather than its internal factors does not go beyond uncovering the “Eastern origins of Western-centrism,” which strives to discover the East’s role in the rise of the West.37 In this sense, the Dependency School problematizes the negligence of contributions from the periphery to the core’s development, rather than questioning the Wes. [...] This is evident in Ngcoya’s critique of Western cosmopolitanism and its reformulation under the philosophy of Ubuntu.97 Ngcoya compares Kantian cosmopolitanism with the emancipatory cosmopolitanism of Ubuntu and states that Kantian cosmopolitanism assigns the “responsibility to act” to the states, which is itself the source of the problem.98 For the Ubuntu philosophy, on the other hand, the source.
Published in