Abstract Two types of order exist in society, relational and rational. Much of the mainstream IR literature shows a “rational order” bias, focusing almost exclusively on the latter at the expense of the former. Relational order, rooted more in the reason of nature than human rationality, is spontaneous and more natural in societies, constituting the primary order while rational order, human-designed and made, is secondary, underlain by relational order. Relational order is a dynamic process of continuously harmonizing relations, generated bottom-up, with little external imposition and out of daily practices of ordinary societal members. Its original state is harmony defined in terms of general cooperation. Relational order needs maintenance, for it is never total and the relational process may deviate and go astray. Its maintenance, however, is not to impose an artificial construct to replace its original naturalness. Rather it is to take the process back on track and restore its natural state of harmony. Accordingly, the power to maintain relational order is more “harmonizing power” than the types of power used for rational order, such as coercive, inducive or homogenizing power. Furthermore, since the two types of order are not mutually exclusive, measures and mechanisms of the latter work more successfully if the former functions smoothly. Once relational order goes astray, rational order often fails to operate well. Repairing relations and restoring trust in international society should therefore be the first to consider once the world order goes wrong. Effective leadership in a relational order exhibits the ability to harmonize relations in general and to reorient relations as they are going off track.
Yaqing Qin (Sat,) studied this question.