Theorizing Agency in Hobbes's Wake: The Rational Actor, the Self, or the Speaking Subject?

2013 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Epstein
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
The Self ◽  
Rational Actor ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe rationalist-constructivist divide that runs through the discipline of International Relations (IR) revolves around two figures of agency, the rational actor and the constructivist “self.” In this article I examine the models of agency that implicitly or explicitly underpin the study of international politics. I show how both notions of the rational actor and the constructivist self have remained wedded to individualist understandings of agency that were first incarnated in the discipline's self-understandings by Hobbes's natural individual. Despite its turn to social theory, this persistent individualism has hampered constructivism's ability to appraise the ways in which the actors and structures of international politics mutually constitute one another “all the way down.” My purpose is to lay the foundations for a nonindividualist, adequately relational, social theory of international politics. To this end I propose a third model of agency, Lacan's split speaking subject. Through a Lacanian reading of the Leviathan, I show how the speaking subject has in fact laid buried away in the discipline's Hobbesian legacy all along.

Forum on Social Theory of International Politics

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-124 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Social Kinds ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Way

It is fitting that one of the last major statements of International Relations theory in the 1990s should be a response to Kenneth Waltz's path-breaking book, Theory of International Politics. Unlike many other critically inclined scholars, Wendt believes that Waltz asked the right questions but supplied the wrong answers. Putting it simply, Waltz incorrectly conceptualized the structure of the international system. The first half of Wendt's book sets out to offer an alternative social theory of international politics to the ‘materialism’ and ‘individualism’ found in Waltz's work (specifically, chapters on ‘Scientific realism and social kinds’, ‘Ideas all the way down? On the constitution of power and interest’, and ‘Structure, agency, and culture’).

A world of their making: an evaluation of the constructivist critique in International Relations

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
RONEN PALAN
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Proper Understanding ◽  
The World ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

IR constructivism maintain that a proper understanding of the way subjects interact with the world and with each other alerts us to the fallacy of conventional IR theory. And yet, for a theory that is so obviously dependent upon a rigorous working of the relationship between social theory and its IR variant, it is curious that, with one or two exceptions, IR constructivists often advance incompatible theories. I argue that the confused manner by which, in particular, ‘soft’ constructivism relates to social theory is not accidental but a necessary component of a theory that asserts, but never proves, the primacy of norms and laws over material considerations, in domestic and international politics.

Understanding and Classifying Constructivisms

2019 ◽  
pp. 43-62
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Social Construction ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
The Social

The chapter discusses various ways that constructivism might be defined, and finds in them a tendency to make constructivisms into at once more than they are (by imbuing them with “naturally” associated politics) and less (by divorcing them from their roots as social theory). The chapter builds an argument that what constructivisms have in common is the ontological assumption of the social construction of international politics as expressed in methodology for doing International Relations research. This assumption should not be understood as taking specific ontologies, let alone methods, methodologies, or politics, as definitional of constructivism. Work can reasonably be described as constructivist if it builds on an ontology of co-constitution and intersubjectivity in the context of a particular set of methodological claims underlying a research exercise about global politics. This brackets what work might be called constructivist but does not associate constructivism either with any specific ontology or with any specific methodology.

scholarly journals Self and other in critical international theory: assimilation, incommensurability and the paradox of critique

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
VASSILIOS PAIPAIS
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
The Self ◽  
The Other ◽  
Self And Other ◽  
International Theory ◽  
Critical Edge ◽  
Critical Approaches ◽  
And Function ◽  
The Way

AbstractThis article is principally concerned with the way some sophisticated critical approaches in International Relations (IR) tend to compromise their critical edge in their engagement with the self/other problematique. Critical approaches that understand critique as total non-violence towards, or unreflective affirmation of, alterity risk falling back into precritical paths. That is, either a particularistic, assimilative universalism with pretensions of true universality or a radical incommensurability and the impossibility of communication with the other. This is what this article understands as the paradox of the politics of critique. Instead, what is more important than seeking a final overcoming or dismissal of the self/other opposition is to gain the insight that it is the perpetual striving to preserve the tension and ambivalence between self and other that rescues both critique's authority and function.

Wendt's world

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVE SMITH
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Social Constructivist ◽  
Standard Account ◽  
Easy Task ◽  
The Social ◽  
Definitive Statement

Alexander Wendt's book, Social Theory of International Politics, is published twenty years after Kenneth Waltz's enormously influential Theory of International Politics. The similarity in their titles is no coincidence, since Wendt wants to build on the insights of Waltz's realism and construct an idealist and holist account of international politics (not, note, international relations). In my view, Wendt's book is likely to be as influential as Waltz's. It is a superbly written and sophisticated book, one that has clearly been drafted and redrafted so as to refine the argument and anticipate many of the likely objections. I think that although I can anticipate the objections of both his rationalist and his reflectivist critics. I am also aware that he makes life difficult for them by defining his ground very precisely, and by trying to define the terms of any debate in which he might be engaged. Criticism of the book is not an easy task. The book is likely to become the standard account for those working within the social constructivist literature of International Politics. It is a book that has been eagerly awaited, and it will not disappoint those who have been waiting for Wendt to publish his definitive statement on constructivism.

Desire all the way down

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROXANNE LYNN DOTY
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
First Principles ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
The Unconscious ◽  
Metaphysical Foundation ◽  
The One ◽  
The Way

Alex Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics demonstrates perhaps more long and hard thought about social theory and its implications for international relations theory than most international relations scholars have dared to venture into. He admirably attempts to do in an explicit manner what most scholars in the discipline do only implicitly and often accidentally: suggest a social theory to serve as the foundation for theorizing about international relations. However, there are problems with his approach, a hint of which can be found in the epigraph he has chosen: ‘No science can be more secure than the unconscious metaphysics, which tacitly it presupposes’. Because metaphysics cannot ultimately be proven or disproved, it is inherently insecure. The insecurity and instability of the metaphysical presuppositions present in Social Theory are not difficult to find, and what Wendt ends up demonstrating, despite his objective not to, is the absence of any secure, stable, and unambiguous metaphysical foundation upon which IR theory could be firmly anchored. Indeed, what Social Theory does illustrate is that there is no such ultimate centre within the discipline except the powerful desire to maintain the illusion of first principles and the essential nature of things. If I may paraphrase Wendt, this is a ‘desire all the way down’ in that it permeates his relentless quest for the essence of international relations. Two goals characterize this desire: on the one hand, to take a critical stance toward more conventional international relations theory such as neorealism and neoliberalism; on the other, to maintain unity, stability, and order within the discipline. Social Theory oscillates between these two goals and in doing so deconstructs the very foundations it seeks to lay.

Empires, systems and states: great transformations in international politics

2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cox ◽  
Tim Dunne ◽  
Ken Booth
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
The Other ◽  
International History ◽  
Post War ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

‘History is too important to be left to the historians”.The relationship between history, international history and international relations has never been an easy or a particularly amicable one. To talk of a cold war may be something of an exaggeration, but it does capture something about the way in which the various subjects tended to regard the other for the greater part of the post-war period. Thus practising historians and international historians appeared to have little time for each other, and together had even less for those seeking to establish the new discipline of International Relations.

scholarly journals Structural Realism, Classical Realism and Human Nature

2009 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Brown
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Evolutionary Psychology ◽  
Human Nature ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
Clear Cut ◽  
Classical Realism ◽  
The Way

Kenneth Waltz's Theory of International Politics is a modern classic, and deserves to be read the way classic texts ought to be read, i.e. in context and in its own terms. Recovering the context in this case is difficult because of the changes in the discourse since 1979, but one difference between the contemporary and the current reception of the text does seem clear — Waltzian structural realism (or neorealism) is now, but was not then, seen as breaking with the traditions of classical realism. How is this discontinuity to be understood? Part of the answer lies in the rhetoric employed by participants in this debate, but, more substantively, there is a genuine disagreement between neorealism and classical realism over the role played by human nature in international relations. Waltzian neorealism appears, contrary to the tradition, to reject any major role for human nature, describing theories that emphasise this notion as `reductionist'; however, on closer examination, the picture is less clear-cut. Waltz's account of human nature can be related quite closely to the major strands in the realist genealogy, but at a tangent to them. Interestingly, and perhaps unexpectedly, it is also compatible with at least some of the findings of contemporary evolutionary psychology.

Ideas part-way down

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT O. KEOHANE
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Major Work ◽  
Classic Work

Social Theory of International Politics is in my view a major work in our field, fully deserving of this symposium in the Review of International Studies. Indeed, I think that Alexander Wendt's book is virtually certain to become a classic work on international relations theory, standard on graduate reading lists. Wendt's distinctive combination of scientific realism, holism, and what he calls ‘idealism’, will certainly spark much conversation and, it is to be hoped, a great deal of thought.

The Rise of Democracy

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Hobson
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
18Th Century ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Negative Perceptions ◽  
Degree Of Acceptance ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Very High ◽  
The Way

Little over 200 years ago, a quarter of a century of warfare with an ‘outlaw state’ brought the great powers of Europe to their knees. That state was the revolutionary democracy of France. In the intervening period, there has been a remarkable transformation in the way democracy is understood and valued – today, it is the non-democratic states that are seen as rogue regimes. This book looks at the historical contrast between the strongly negative perceptions of democracy in the 18th century and the very high degree of acceptance and legitimacy in contemporary international politics. It considers democracy’s remarkable rise from obscurity to centre stage in contemporary international relations, and uses history as a foundation for developing a normative defence of democracy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document