Search

The 'turn to practice' has become a methodological keystone for the project of a 'New' Constructivism within International Relations. This project aims to use the observable level of everyday, practical activities as a prism for making empirically tractable the processes of world-making that constitute international order. In making the logic of practice the starting point for substantive theorizing, this New Constructivism seeks to provide a methodological platform for more empirically grounded, analytically open conceptions of international order. More 'experience-near' modes of inquiry would thus allow us to come to terms with the increasingly heterogeneous and unruly nature of the International, and help avert further fissuring of an already divided discipline. While sharing the view that more experience-near modes of inquiry promise much in this regard, this article argues that the New Constructivism is in danger of going down a methodological blind alley that severely undermines its ability to achieve its objectives. It shows that the one-sided, meta-theoretically motivated emphasis on the (alleged) direct observability of practice orders in their natural contexts severely stunts our ability to make their logic explicit in concrete empirical analyses. To highlight these dangers, the article provides a close analysis of the methodological implications of the indexicality of meaning (its dependence on 'socially organized occasions of its use'). It closely examines how recent applied practice-theoretical work in International Relations is handicapped by a deeply engrained misconception of indexicality. This shows that we need to accept reflexivity as a necessary ingredient for interpretation, and thus for making explicit the practical logics that constitute the International. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immersed in the flow of activities, diplomats and other international practitioners are simultaneously influenced by past experiences and constantly innovating in response to situations that are never exactly the same. The conceptual tools of International Relations scholars must be capable of capturing this practical reality. To that end, I introduce in this article a relational approach to agency that can make sense of practitioners’ innovative ways of doing things in practice. Practice theorists in IR often emphasize hierarchies, struggle, and the role of habitus in shaping practices. Both building on and departing from them, I dig into the logic of practical sense and discuss Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of regulated improvisations, virtuosos/amateurs, and illusio to grasp agency in practice. I develop the idea that international actors are primarily practical and put improvisations and virtuosity — rather than rationality, cognitive processes, emotions, norm-compliance, path-dependency or even habits/habitus — in the foreground. I contend that this approach holds broader promise for the analysis of international politics than existing conceptions. We have much to gain by focusing on how international practitioners in their local contexts actually improvise in the moment. These improvisations in specific sites are constitutive of the ‘big picture’ of international politics. I take diplomatic practices in embassies and in permanent representations as an illustration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article posits empirical and political reasons for recent ‘micro-moves’ in several contemporary debates, and seeks to further develop them in future International Relations studies. As evidenced by growing trends in studies of practices, emotions and the everyday, there is continuing broad dissatisfaction with grand or structural theory’s value without ‘going down’ to ‘lower levels’ of analysis where structures are enacted and contested. We suggest that empirics of the last 15 years — including the war on terror and the Arab Spring — have pushed scholars into increasingly micropolitical positions and analytical frameworks. Drawing upon insights from Gilles Deleuze, William Connolly and Henri Lefebvre, among others, we argue that attention to three issues — affect, space and time — hold promise to further develop micropolitical perspectives on and in International Relations, particularly on issues of power, identity and change. The article offers empirical illustrations of the analytical purchase of these concepts via discussion of the Occupy Wall Street movement and the Arab Spring uprisings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International Relations has an ‘orthodox set’ of benchmark dates by which much of its research and teaching is organized: 1500, 1648, 1919, 1945 and 1989. This article argues that International Relations scholars need to question the ways in which these orthodox dates serve as internal and external points of reference, think more critically about how benchmark dates are established, and generate a revised set of benchmark dates that better reflects macro-historical international dynamics. The first part of the article questions the appropriateness of the orthodox set of benchmark dates as ways of framing the discipline’s self-understanding. The second and third sections look at what counts as a benchmark date, and why. We systematize benchmark dates drawn from mainstream International Relations theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism/English School and sociological approaches) and then aggregate their criteria. The fourth section of the article uses this exercise to construct a revised set of benchmark dates which can widen the discipline’s theoretical and historical scope. We outline a way of ranking benchmark dates and suggest a means of assessing recent candidates for benchmark status. Overall, the article delivers two main benefits: first, an improved heuristic by which to think critically about foundational dates in the discipline; and, second, a revised set of benchmark dates which can help shift International Relations’ centre of gravity away from dynamics of war and peace, and towards a broader range of macro-historical dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The social theoretic turn inaugurated under the rise of constructivism in International Relations has, among other themes, created a much-enlarged space for treating norms as efficacious explanatory variables in analyses of world politics. In this article, I reconstruct mainstream constructivists’ inclinations toward what I argue are sociological accounts of norms, in which the question of the latter’s justification is comprehensively sidelined. I initially show how constructivists’ strategy of delineating their approaches from Critical Theory and post-structural analyses sustains social theoretic commitments, which compound this problem. In the second part of the article, I focus on Richard Price’s programmatic attempt to reconcile the constructivist achievements in empirical research on the efficacy of norms with normative theorizing. The idea of building a bridge from ‘isses’ to ‘oughts’ labors, as I demonstrate, from the outset under construction problems, which cannot be resolved on the premises from which Price seeks to operate. Concluding this part, I consider the possibility of supplementing Price’s account with consequentialist normative theory, and demonstrate that this would incur further problems for a normative theoretic framework for the study of world politics. In the final part, I outline key themes of Critical Theory with the aim of addressing some persistent misunderstandings about its scope, social theoretic outlook, and normative commitments. Linking back to the critical appraisal of mainstream constructivism’s norm-sociological commitments, I suggest that despite some important limitations of its own, Critical Theory is in a better position to address ‘isses’ and ‘oughts’ than constructivists’ readings of it would suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article investigates the theoretical added-value of critical realist incursions into International Relations constructivism. While constructivism focuses on providing multi-causal explanations, its conceptual horizon and subsequent methodological framework fundamentally obscure and limit the opportunity to conceptualize social dialectic and multi-causality in world politics. In this respect, a critical realist meta-theory can provide constructivism with a greatly expanded conceptual framework that transcends material–ideational divisions, and a framework that is able to envision more clearly the process of social dialectic. Second, critical realism affords a methodological diversity that can withstand simultaneous constructivist investigations into the material, agential, ideational, or structural. Using the synthesis of critical realism and constructivism, I illustrate by way of example by employing Pakistan’s participation in the ‘war on terror’ as a case study. While constructivism can show that Pakistan’s role in the war on terror was preceded by a legitimizing narrative, it is a critical realist depth analysis that sheds new light on how a complex social reality was achieved through the convergence of multi-causal explanatory factors. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Venue — the institutional setting in which actors interact — is a critical but neglected factor in international norm creation. This article brings together constructivist and rationalist insights to explain both why and how venue affects norm creation and how norm leaders choose among different venues. First, it highlights the importance of negotiation alongside persuasion in norm emergence — the first stage of Finnemore and Sikkink’s (1998) norm life cycle — thus opening space for a full consideration of venues within the constructivist paradigm. Second, it details how venue membership, mandate, output status, rules of procedure/operating procedures and legitimacy affect both the content and the level of international support of an emerging norm. Third, it offers a conceptual framework for understanding how norm leaders choose venues. Finally, it illustrates the impact of venue on norm creation and the dynamics of strategic venue choice by examining venue changes during the movement to ban anti-personnel landmines and the effort to promote international consensus on humanitarian intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This article analyses C.A.W. Manning's The Nature of International Society (NIS) by exploring the constructivist insights avant-la-lettre displayed in this not so prominent opus on international society. The article's objective is twofold. First, to re-establish Manning's argument, which has been distorted by its successors. That is to say, whereas often identified as a source of inspiration by subsequent generations of English School academics, the British mainstream at the same time appears to have missed out on Manning's more metatheoretical, socio-linguistic insights. By exploring his message about the link between knowledge, language, meaning and reality, this article secondly addresses the added value of Manning's work in terms of his analysis of the metaphor of sovereignty games. It is argued that, particularly in the analysis of the constitutive role of language, NIS provides useful insights for the reconvention project of the English School. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Applying the model of 'recognition politics' to international relations can help to explain the identity-based elements of international conflicts that rationalist models leave Out. This article uses psychological theories of identity formation to critically assess the recent move by constructivist scholars (most notably Alexander Wendt) to bring the Hegelian idea of the 'struggle for recognition' into the study of IR. Examining recognition theory in this way shows that while the insights of 'identity theory' developed in the symbolic interactionist tradition lend support to the idea that recognition of the 'other' is essential to constituting the identity of the 'self', much of the experimental work carried out within Social Identity Theory and its related fields fails to support the claim that recognition leads to the formation of an over-arching collective identity. Without a credible mechanism for collective identity formation, recognition theory fails to predict fundamental change in the international system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International norms change over time, but we do not fully understand how and why they evolve as they do. In this article, I explore a general model of international norm change. The model builds on two foundations. First, normative systems themselves generate tensions that lead to change. Those tensions are of two major types: (1) conflicts between the generality of rules and the specificity of concrete experience; and (2) conflicts between separate bodies of rules. Second, specific disputes push these normative conflicts to the fore and provoke arguments about the meaning and application of rules. The outcomes of those arguments necessarily modify the rules. The process of normative change is thus a cycle, linking rules to actions to arguments, which in turn reshape the rules. In order to explore the empirical utility of the model, the article assesses the evolution of the rules of war with respect to the plundering of artistic and cultural treasures. Relying on both secondary and archival materials, the analysis focuses on two crucial turns through the cycle of normative change, the Napoleonic Wars and World War II. The empirical account shows that the cycle of normative change depicted in the abstract does correspond to real-world processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parapublic underpinnings of international relations are cross-border interactions that belong neither to the public world of states nor to the private world of societies. They underpin relations among specific states and construct social purpose in the international realm. Focusing on Franco-German parapublic underpinnings reveals a particular and neglected kind of ‘Europeanization’. Such parapublic activity includes massive state-financed youth exchanges, some two thousand municipal partnerships, and a host of institutes and associations. In their entirety, these parapublic interactions have developed into structural components of the European polity. Rather than directly affecting domestic political affairs, this kind of Europeanizarion connects French and Germans in a certain way. It makes Europeans more European, but without making them less national. This article contributes a concept to properly capture a distinct and substantial type of international activity and to identify its characteristic effects and limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most important and controversial contributions to a vibrant body of new security theories since the 1990s has been the idea of securitization. However, rather than providing a consolidated position the discourse on securitization has only just begun to transform the new idea into a more comprehensive security theory. This article argues that such a theory needs to go beyond the current reflections on securitization by the Copenhagen School. Through internal critique and conceptual reconstruction the article generates an alternative framework for future empirical research and identifies two centres of gravity as a first step towards a more consistent understanding of securitization as a comprehensive theory of security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories on the role of norms in international relations generally neglect the possibility that after their adoption a new battle over their precise meaning ensues, especially when a norm remains vague and illusive. Norm implementation is not only a matter of internalization and compliance, but also of redefinition. Building on insights from rationalist and constructivist approaches, this article advances the idea of recurrent battles for and over norms in international politics. It argues that the analytical tools of international regime theory are instrumental in tracking such battles. This framework is applied to the history and role of subsidiarity as a norm in the competence regime of the European Union between 1991 and 2005. Its main finding is that the issue of subsidiarity was not a matter of norm internalization, but concerned a recurrent battle between old and newly empowered actors over its precise meaning, eventually favouring the member states' prerogative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although International Relations and Middle East Studies share an interest in several aspects of Middle East politics, interdisciplinary research remains surprisingly scarce. This article asks why, despite repeated calls since the inception of these fields, this interdisciplinary gap has never been bridged. It supplements conventional approaches which emphasize a simple intellectual history, with elements of a political economy of the organization and production of knowledge, arguing that while intellectual convergence may be a necessary condition for interdisciplinarity, only a shift in epistemic grounds within which fields understand their scholarship can bring this about, and that this in turn requires a shift in the way knowledge is organized and produced. First, the article provides a genealogy of calls for interdisciplinary scholarship. Second, it locates interdisciplinary relations in the universalist organization of knowledge within which they emerged and which still (re)produce inter- and intra-disciplinary divides today. Finally, it considers the potential for Constructivism to provide an interdisciplinary bridge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While scholars of International Relations and comparative politics have usually treated rhetoric as epiphenomenal, one strand of constructivism has recently returned rhetoric to the heart of political analysis, especially through the mechanism of persuasion. We too maintain that rhetoric is central to political processes and Outcomes, but we argue that persuasion is theoretically and methodologically problematic. We aver that rhetoric's role may be more usefully conceptualized in the Context of coercion, and we advance a stylized model that illustrates how rhetorical coercion operates, explains why it works, and identifies key scope conditions. We subsequently illustrate our model's relevance through a detailed examination of a ‘hard’ case. This article's agenda is twofold. First, it advises scholars in these fields to avoid focusing on unanswerable questions about actors' motives and to examine instead what actors say, in what contexts, and to what audiences. Second, it lays the groundwork for a ‘coercive constructivism’, complementing the liberal version so prevalent today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A variety of constructivists have begun to address emotions in IR, viewing emotional events and memories as important dimensions to the social construction of identity. But it is not clear that constructivist tools, designed in most cases for interpreting discursive representations, are equipped to study affective phenomena. This article offers a critical assessment of constructivism's ability to theorize affects - nonconscious and embodied emotional states - in global politics. Using as an example the ontology developed by Alexander Wendt, the article suggests that common presuppositions in orthodox constructivism in fact obstruct the study of affect and its role in social and political life. To grasp the depth, intensity, and fugitivity of emotional phenomena, constructivism needs to rethink its attachments to reflective agency, ideational processes, and symbolic meaning. Through a brief discussion of the American response to 9/11, the final section develops several propositions on the role of affect in forging political identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a model for the study of norms transfer through state socialization, which combines a Social Constructivist body of theory for ideational change with Social Identity Theory (SIT) for identity formation. The model privileges self- and other categorization processes which according to SIT takes place between all social groups, as the main determinant for the outcome of state socialization. By also reconceptualizing domestic structure into two separate we-groups; state/elite and nation/people, which may have different self- and other categorization dynamics, the model is able to not only account for the common occurrence of different outcomes of socialization in apparently similar cases, but is also able to take the mass domestic level into consideration. The question that is asked is therefore ‘why do the same norms matter so differently to apparently similar agents?’ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a critique of Alexander Wendt's article ""Why a World State is Inevitable." According to the author Wendt's argument suffers from irreconcilable neglect and reliance on agency. The author is not addressing the philosophy of teleology per se. According to the author, by focusing on the inevitable World State, Wendt detracts from debate about agency and conditionality that could make a world state possible. Wendt, one of the founding fathers of constructivist International Relations in the 1980's, abandons the spirit of the constructivist project in favor of a top-heavy structuralism, while arguing for an inevitable world state. With teleology comes the concomitant withering of agency and the core constructivist insight that nothing is inevitable--human history may move forward or backward. For a constructivist, a world state is possible but by no means inevitable. Constructivism's promise relates to the role of both agent and structure in explaining world politics. Structures constrain and shape actor identity and behavior, while the possibility of free will permits structural change. Wend, although, argues for unintentional change through material forces of recognition, anarchy and increasingly destructive weapons technology.

In recent years, constructivists in International Relations have been attempting to 'seize the middle ground' between positivist objectivism and postmodernist relativism. Yet, while useful in rendering the approach more palatable to mainstream researchers, these efforts risk leading to premature ontological closure. We therefore propose that constructivist research be extended to a 'sociational' research agenda. Based on Georg Simmel's process theory of Vergesellschaftung, it joins contemporary constructivists on the epistemological middle ground while liberating itself from some of their ontological restrictions. The sociational perspective endogenizes the actors' corporate identities as a way to trace 'entity processes' such as the creation and dissolution of actors as well as boundary change. Such an analytical shift makes it possible to imagine, and thus also to analyze, past, present and even future worlds constituted by co-evolving social formations, such as nations, ethnic groups, supranational organizations and states. We show how sociational analysis complements and surpasses conventional explanations of cooperation and conflict as applied to the democratic peace and ethnic conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The debate between a moderate version of constructivist theory and rationalist theory centres primarily on the rationality of individual action. The article consists of an in-depth analysis of the 'logic of appropriateness' (LoA) invoked in constructivist theory. The analysis reveals that the LoA is a structural explanation and understanding of individual action. As such, it is untenable as a theory of individual action. The implications of this structural bias are discussed in relation to three core claims of constructivist theory. Moderate constructivist theory claims, first, that norms are constitutive for actors' identities. Second, it claims that agents and structures are mutually constitutive. Third, it claims that changes in ideational structures do occur and lead to changes in political practice. I conclude that the LoA is able to account for the first of these claims, but that by virtue of being able to account for this claim, it is, at the level of a theory of individual action, inconsistent with the second, and unable to effectively account for the third. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Constructivism is regarded as increasingly important in International Relations. More often than not the approach is related to the issue of identity. Constructivism and identity are, however, in a dangerous liaison. This article argues that Alexander Wendt's constructivism needs identity as a central concept but that this very concept threatens to undermine the possibility of his constructivism. It is further suggested that this problem has some relevance to other constructivist approaches positioned in the middle ground between rationalist and reflectivist theorizing. The argument is illustrated with a consideration of the debates around the redefinition of the role of the Federal Republic of Germany to include the possibility of German military involvement abroad. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 1990s have seen the emergence of a new 'constructivist' approach to international theory and analysis. This article is concerned with the relationship between constructivism and critical international theory, broadly defined. Contrary to the claims of several prominent critical theorists of the Third Debate, we argue that constructivism has its intellectual roots in critical social theory, and that the constructivist project of conceptual elaboration and empirical analysis need not violate the principal epistemological, methodological or normative tenets of critical international theory. Furthermore, we contend that constructivism can make a vital contribution to the development of critical international theory, offering crucial insights into the sociology of moral community in world politics. The advent of constructivism should thus be seen as a positive development, one that not only enables critical theorists to mount a more powerful challenge to the dominant rationalist theories, but one that also promises to advance critical international theory itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]