Hobson, John. "Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a post-racist critical IR". Review of International Studies, Vol.33 (2007): 91-116.

Hobson, John. "Is critical theory always for the white West and for Western imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a post-racist critical IR". Review of International Studies, Vol.33 (2007): 91-116.

• "The short answer to the question posed above in the main title is ‘by no means always, but surprisingly far more often than might be expected’. [...] the acute irony is that Gramscian IR and other versions of critical theory often, albeit inadvertently, reproduce the very Eurocentrism that [...] mainstream IR scholars all too frequently slip into" (91).
• Being critical of the West does not necessarily mean that scholarship is not Eurocentric. Instead, eurocentrism is the implicit or explicit belief that the West is the 'natural' center of the world and the norm that other states should be compared to, as well as representing all issues in terms of their impact on the West (93).
• The connected concepts of Eurocentrism and Orientalism were created as an ideology in the 18th and 19th Century as European identity was constructed. These forms of thought made distinctions between the West and East while simultaneously elevating the West at the expense of the East, especially by associating progress and rationality with the West. The divide is best represented by Max Weber's claim that the West is active, while the East is passive (94).
• By the early 19th Century, European scholars had projected claims of Western superiority backwards onto ancient Greece and Rome, creating an ahistorical representation of continuous Western civilization and representing the East-West divide as organic and ancient rather than constructed and modern (94).
• The Neorealist notion of 'hegemonic stability theory' argues that a single dominant nation-state will become the primary driver of global systems and progress by creating and maintaining a system based on its dominance. Most scholars assumed the past hegemons had been Britain and the US, a non-coincidental notion that constructs two anglo-saxon powers as being almost entirely responsible for the progress of civilization during their hegemony (95).
• Gramscian scholarship in IR, which emphasizes the ability of hegemonic powers to cultural reinforce their dominance, also focuses on Western powers including the UK and USA as hegemonic powers you use their power to construct imperialist systems across the global systems they control (96).
• Most Gramscian scholarship makes the same assumption as Neorealist hegemonic stability theory that development is mainly driven by the exclusively Western hegemony, thereby continuing to deny independent development to the East. Since it has not produced a hegemon, Gramscian IR assumes that the East continues to be the passive subject of Western action (96-97).
• Popular Gramscian narratives of globalization also contain Orientalist elements, assuming that the hegemonic power of the West can either force its culture onto the East, or the East will adopt a 'corrupted' version of the neoliberal hegemony based on military-bureaucratic rule (97). The corruption scenario is blatantly Orientalist, portraying deviations from the West as demonstrative of barbarity or political/cultural immaturity (98).
• "As Janet Abu-Lughod explains, ‘The usual [Eurocentric] approach is to examine ex post facto the outcome – that is, the economic and political hegemony of the West in modern times – and then reason backward, to rationalize why this supremacy had to be" (99).
• The critical narratives which stem from post-modern IR are almost entirely focused on the Western perspective, and although they challenge the self-image of the West, they do not suggest alternative situations or serious consider the possibility of change coming from the East. Generally these theories are not constructive and represent the present situation as inevitable (100).
• Feminist scholarship runs the risk of focusing too exclusively on how women, especially Eastern women, are victims of Western and male subordination, furthering the assumption that the East is passive. This is furthered by perceptions that only 'liberated' Western women can make changes, as opposed to 'oppressed' and therefore passive Eastern women. This viewpoint also leads to the assumption that Western women speak on behalf of all women, furthering the marginalization of Eastern women (101-102).
• Feminism is often so focused on Western assumptions and experiences that nearly all Eastern practices towards women are deemed barbaric or in need of abolition. In addition to obliterating native cultural practices like arranged marriages and purdah, these drives also assume that Eastern women have no agency in their lives, ignoring the extensive role of women in creating and reinforcing 'oppressive' practices (102).
• "Since the receding of scientific racism after 1945 cultural racism continues to infuse the global realm" (103).
• The West does not have sole productive power, despite its predominant position in most of modern history, and the interactions between West and East result in borrowing cultural elements between the two sides. Both sides construct themselves in opposition to the other, thus produce unique and hybrid cultural and political institutions (106).
• Globalization is often discussed in terms of Western powers -- starting with the Netherlandish and continuing to America -- creating trade and economic systems, in a way that ignores the fact that global trade networks were firstly created in the Indian Ocean, largely by Arabs and East Africans. It is assumed that the Chinese ban on imports in 1434 ended this domination, but analysis shows that until the 1800s, the global economy was still largely driven by Chinese exports paid for with silver from the Americas (108-109).
• The importance of Eastern peoples continued after the takeover of imperial Western powers in the 19th Century, as many important trade connections -- especially in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean -- were created by Chinese and Indian business operating within Western imperialist systems (109).
• The portrayal of Eastern agency as purely reaction is also incorrect, as Western and Eastern ideas, policies, and actions fed into each other. Western policies were just as reactive to Eastern action as Eastern policies were reactive. This is especially true for relations between West and East, as both sides changed in reaction to the other's actions (110-111).
• Locating racism at the center of East-West relations provides a powerful perspective on global history and politics. The free trade of British hegemony was built on unequal economic relations between Britain and the East, which allowed British industry to flourish while inhibiting Eastern manufacturing (112). American hegemony has been defined by an exceptionalism which justifies paranoia and the destruction or containment of other cultures through constant attempts to civilize or develop other countries (112-113). 
• "A counter-hegemonic bloc needs to work within the interstices of Western discourse to reveal the postracist contradictions and double standards [...] in order to demonstrate how the West currently fails to uphold its own self-referential norms of human justice. Appealing only to Eastern norms would most likely be rejected out of hand by the West with no progress forward possible" (114).
• Creating a non-racist IR requires first recognizing that racism, especially cultural racism, continues to be a factor in international relations in ways not explained by hegemony, great-power relations, or capitalist globalization. Secondly, the barrier between East and West needs to be questioned, demonstrating that this division is artificial (115).