You can choose your sociology but you can't choose your relations: Tilly, Mann and relational sociology

2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN HOBDEN
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
International System ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Relational Sociology ◽  
Big Service ◽  
International Systems

I would like to thank Daniel Nexon for taking the time to read, reflect, and comment on the article ‘Theorising the International System: Perspectives from Historical Sociology’. His comments are astute, pertinent and challenging. I would also like to thank the editors of the Review of International Studies for offering me space to reply to Nexon's comments. Nexon clearly wishes that I had written a different article. However, although I think that the article he has in mind is one that should be written, I had different intentions in mind. Nexon is clearly doing a big service to International Relations scholars by introducing them to relational sociology, but this was not what I set out to do. I will start therefore with some comments on my intentions in writing the article. I will then offer some points of clarification. Finally I will address Nexon's major criticisms of the article: my failure to acknowledge relational sociology and my critique of the analysis of international systems in the works of Tilly and Mann. My overall argument will be that the dichotomy that Nexon offers between neofunctionalism and relational sociology is not as straightforward as he suggests. He acknowledges this in his final footnote, and it is a point also conceded by Emirbayer in the article that Nexon primarily draws upon. Furthermore, on this point, I think that we share more common ground than Nexon would wish to acknowledge. However our positions on structures are radically different. On this point our differences are, I believe, irreconcilable. What I will attempt to argue is that there are fundamental differences between material and ideational structures which makes it difficult to analyse them cumulatively.

Which historical sociology? A Response to Stephen Hobden's ’Theorising the International System‘

2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
DANIEL NEXON
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Charles Tilly ◽  
Michael Mann ◽  
Immanuel Wallerstein ◽  
Comparative Manner

In a recent article in the Review of International Studies, Stephen Hobden does a great service by initiating a critical evaluation of the potential for historical sociology in international relations theory. Hobden considers seminal studies by Michael Mann, Theda Skocpol, Charles Tilly, and Immanuel Wallerstein, and concludes that each is inadequate for building an historical sociology of the international system. Articles such as Hobden's are particularly important in international relations, where many major theories are dependent upon the assumptions and methods of other disciplines. From time to time, we need to ask, in a comparative manner, just how useful such methods and assumptions really are.

Waltz, Durkheim, and International Relations: The International System as an Abnormal Form

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 669-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Barkdull
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Division Of Labor ◽  
International System ◽  
Moral Basis ◽  
Abnormal Form ◽  
International Systems

Drawing on Emile Durkheim's Division of Labor in Society, I offer a typology of international systems. Previous uses of Durkheim to describe international systems suffer a number of conceptual errors and therefore are at variance with the spirit and intention of Durkheim's work. A deeper reading of Durkheim usefully draws attention to the moral basis for society and thus the problems with defining international systems solely in terms of power distributions. Further, rereading Durkheim offers a much richer typology than the simple distinction between mechanical and organized societies, affording in turn fresh insights into change in the international system. The abnormal forms of the division of labor offer the best description of the contemporary international system.

Hierarchies in International Relations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Lake ◽  
Feng Liu
Keyword(s):  
Roman Empire ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Hierarchical Systems ◽  
International Diplomacy ◽  
Primary Determinant ◽  
Dominant State ◽  
Common Concept ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Systems

In international relations, hierarchy is understood in two related ways. In the most general usage, hierarchy refers to any ranked ordering, most commonly conceptualized in international relations as status rankings. In a more narrow usage, hierarchy refers to relations of authority in which a dominant state sets rules for or possesses more or less authority over one or more subordinate states. So defined, hierarchy in international relations is the antonym to the more common concept of anarchy. This bibliography focuses on the second, more narrow conception of hierarchy. The broader usage is examined in the Oxford Bibligraphies article Status in International Relations by Jonathan Renshon. There have been, of course, historical international systems structured by hierarchy, including the Roman Empire and China, examined by scholars of international relations for their own dynamics or as a contrast to the present international system. We address these historical systems in Hierarchical Systems. Since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, however, the European international system and, through the diffusion of norms and practices, the global system have been understood as characterized by anarchy, or the absence of any authority higher than the nation-state. While not disputing that the current international system as a whole is anarchic, contemporary scholars of international hierarchy claim it is a fallacy of composition to assume that what is true of the system must also be true of its parts. Rather, this emerging literature allows for relations of authority between states at the level of dyads or sometimes regions. Hierarchy is a form of power but differs from power-as-coercion as understood in theories of international politics. Many studies of international relations place power at the center of their analyses, seeing it as the primary determinant of international diplomacy and bargaining outcomes. Authority, however, implies more than just the ability to coerce or even create incentives for states to alter their behavior. Rather, authority implies a “right to rule” in which subordinates accept that the dominant state can regulate legitimately certain limited actions, that they have an obligation to comply when possible with those regulations, and that the dominant state has the right to enforce its regulations in the event of non-compliance. In this way, authority constitutes a social relationship in which limited duties and obligations are recognized by both dominant and subordinate states. A now substantial literature has emerged that aims to explain when and how hierarchy between states will arise, how it functions, and with what consequences. After outlining works that contribute to this unfolding of hierarchy, we turn to historic international systems that were more clearly organized hierarchically.

Historical Sociology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Hobson ◽  
George Lawson ◽  
Justin Rosenberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
Historical Period ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Past ◽  
Modern System ◽  
Constitutive Properties ◽  
International Systems ◽  
Second Wave ◽  
Core Features

Over the past 20 years, historical sociology in international relations (HSIR) has contributed to a number of debates, ranging from examination of the origins of the modern states system to unraveling the core features and relative novelty of the contemporary historical period. By the late 1980s and 1990s, a small number of IR scholars drew explicitly on historical sociological insights in order to counter the direction that the discipline was taking under the auspices of the neo-neo debate. Later scholars moved away from examining the specific interconnections between international geopolitics and domestic social change. A further difference that marked this second wave from the first was that it was driven principally by IR scholars working within IR. To date, HSIR has sought to reveal not only the different forms that international systems have taken in the past, but also the ways in which the modern system cannot be treated as an ontological given. Historical sociologists in IR are unanimous in asserting that rethinking the constitutive properties and dynamics of the contemporary system can be successfully achieved only by applying what amounts to a more sensitive “nontempocentric” historical sociological lens. At the same time, by tracing the historical sociological origins of the present international order, HSIR scholars are able to reveal some of the continuities between the past and the present, thereby dispensing with the dangers of chronofetishism.

Theorising the international system: perspectives from Historical Sociology

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN HOBDEN
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
State Formation ◽  
International System ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
The State ◽  
Historical Account ◽  
International Context ◽  
Recent Interest ◽  
State Context ◽  
Inter State

Recent interest in the work of Historical Sociologists has concentrated on their renewed interest in the state. There is considerable regard for the historical account of state formation and development produced by writers such as Mann, Skocpol and Tilly. Surprisingly there has been less attention paid to another feature of their writings—the locating of states in an inter-state context. This article examines the international context envisioned by four historical sociologists. It argues that, although these writers have been successful at historicising state formations, this powerful account has not been matched with a historical account of international relations. If this project is to move forward, a complementary historical account of international contexts, or global structures, is required.

scholarly journals Introduction

1961 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Knorr ◽  
Sidney Verba
Keyword(s):  
International Trade ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
International System ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Princeton University ◽  
Recent Origin ◽  
Hans Morgenthau ◽  
Important Progress

Unlike the theory of international trade and payments, theorizing on international relations or the international “system” is of fairly recent origin, has attracted relatively few scholars, and—in terms of achievement—is still in a rather underdeveloped stage. But there has in fact been important progress during the last twenty-five years, much of it along tentative, experimental, and not necessarily congruent lines. Nowadays there seems to be new interest in such theorizing and the Center of International Studies at Princeton University thought it useful to collect a reasonably representative sample of recent thinking and, toward this end, to call upon younger scholars in the field rather than on the established leaders, such as Harold Lasswell, Hans Morgenthau, Richard Snyder, Arnold Wolfers, and Quincy Wright.

scholarly journals FORUM: COVID-19 and IR Scholarship: One Profession, Many Voices

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giovanni Agostinis ◽  
Karen A Grépin ◽  
Adam Kamradt-Scott ◽  
Kelley Lee ◽  
Summer Marion ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Research Area ◽  
Multiple Identities ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Intellectual Community ◽  
Current State ◽  
The World ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
El Sistema

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has affected virtually every aspect of life, for individuals, communities, nations, regions, and the international system. In this forum, scholars from around the world with diverse areas of expertise consider the contributions of international relations (IR) scholarship in our understanding of the politics and governance challenges surrounding the pandemic. The seven essays that follow together examine how our current state of knowledge speaks to the theme of ISA 2020: “Multiple Identities and Scholarship in a Global IR: One Profession, Many Voices.” Each essay features a research area and body of scholarship that both informs our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and reflects on how the pandemic challenges us to push our scholarship and intellectual community further. Together, these essays highlight the diversity of our discipline of IR and how its many voices may bring us together in one conversation. La pandemia de COVID-19 ha afectado prácticamente a todos los aspectos de la vida para las personas, las comunidades, las naciones, las regiones y el sistema internacional. En este foro, los académicos de todo el mundo con diversas áreas de experiencia consideran las contribuciones de los estudios de las relaciones internacionales (International Relations, IR) a nuestro entendimiento de la política y los desafíos de gobierno que rodean a la pandemia. Los siete ensayos a continuación analizan en conjunto cómo nuestro estado de conocimiento actual aborda el tema de la Asociación de Estudios Internacionales (International Studies Association, ISA) de 2020: “Múltiples identidades y estudios en una IR global: una profesión, muchas voces.” Cada ensayo presenta un área de investigación y un cuerpo de estudios que conforman nuestro entendimiento de la pandemia de COVID-19 y también reflexionan sobre cómo esta nos desafía a impulsar aún más a nuestra comunidad académica e intelectual. En conjunto, estos ensayos destacan la diversidad de nuestra disciplina de relaciones internacionales y cómo sus numerosas voces pueden juntarnos en una conversación. La pandémie de COVID 2019 a affecté pratiquement tous les aspects de la vie, que ce soit les individus, les communautés, les nations, les régions ou le système international. Dans cette tribune, des chercheurs du monde entier spécialisés dans divers domaines d'expertise réfléchissent aux contributions des recherches en relations internationales à notre compréhension des défis politiques et de gouvernance entourant la pandémie. Les sept essais ainsi réunis examinent la manière dont l’état actuel de nos connaissances aborde le thème de la convention 2020 de l'Association d’études internationales : « Identités et recherches multiples dans des relations internationales globales : une profession, de nombreuses voix ». Chaque essai présente un domaine de recherche et un corpus d’études qui éclaire notre compréhension de la pandémie de COVID 2019 tout en amenant une réflexion sur la façon dont la pandémie nous remet en question et nous pousse à aller plus loin dans nos recherches et notre communauté intellectuelle. Ensemble, ces essais mettent en évidence la diversité de notre discipline des relations internationales et la manière dont ses nombreuses voix peuvent nous réunir dans un débat.

The role of diplomacy in strengthening contemporary international relations

2019 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Abdul Ghafoor Karim Ali ◽  
Younis Talaat Al-Dabbagh
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Economic ◽  
International System ◽  
International Order ◽  
Second World War ◽  
World War ◽  
The World ◽  
International Systems ◽  
Second World

The international system which was established after the end of second world war and the rise of two great states (USA) and (PCCC) (entice), America which represent the liberties states and capitalisms economic, and PCCC which represent the commend systems and social economic. Since the security and diplomatic efforts do the best efforts of reforms. Each relationship between states in the international systems of them has his role historically All states put majority of their efforts against  war and the relationships is going to establish a new international order depending on plurality system in the world.

Societies, states and geopolitics: challenges from historical sociology

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 281-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Jarvis
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
The State ◽  
Classical Realism

Many scholars in International Relations will register surprise and perhaps amusement at the recent 'discovery' of the state by sociologists. They could accurately claim, it has never been similarly neglected in their own discipline. International Relations is about states and the system of states. Classical realism relies on explicit understandings about what states are and their place in the international system.

Historical Theories of International Relations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph MacKay ◽  
Christopher David LaRoche
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Systematic Change ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Historical Inquiry ◽  
Long Run ◽  
History Of ◽  
A Site ◽  
International Thought

History has provided a site of theoretical inquiry for scholars of International Relations since the discipline’s inception. However, serious and sustained historical inquiry has only returned to the foreground of international studies in the last two decades or so, after a prolonged period of postwar uninterest. How can scholars identify moments or processes of systematic change? Does history have a long run structure or trajectory? Moreover, scholars have begun to take seriously the epistemological problem of historicism. International relations scholarship on history during this period addresses the intersection of theory and history in four broad ways. The first encompasses substantive historical studies that take history as a site of theory building about world politics. Here, accounts of early modern Europe, ancient China, precolonial South Asia, European colonial expansion, and other settings have challenged previous historical narratives that assert or assume linear progress or realist cyclicality alike. A second category follows on the first, comprising a plurality of methodological turns. Here, scholars have developed ways of inquiring into history, ranging across macrohistorical or structural analysis, rationalist accounts of international-system building, relational accounts of international hierarchies, discursive accounts of colonialism and resistance, and others. A third focuses directly on theoretical questions drawn from philosophy of history. These works aim to provide not methods of historical inquiry so much as theoretical tools for thinking philosophically about the historical long run itself. Fourth and finally, scholars of the history of international thought have developed contextualist accounts of the intellectual history of international theory. These approaches rethink how theory interfaces with history by interrogating international thought itself.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document