International Political Sociology and International Relations

2021 ◽  
pp. 175-193
Author(s):  
Luis Lobo-Guerrero

Conceptions of “risk” have permeated different forms of governance in both developed and developing countries. Many scholars have theorized how societies, states, organizations, and economic actors cope with uncertainty, giving rise to an international political sociology (IPS) of risk. A major concern of the IPS of risk is how uncertainty has become a central problem for governance. The ways in which risks are assessed and managed are taken as problematic spaces from which to question the roles of states, societies, economic actors, and individuals in coping with uncertainty. The origin of risk research as a disciplined field can be traced to Chauncey Starr’s article “Social Benefits versus Technological Risks” (1969), which offers a way of measuring the social acceptability of risks associated with technological development. Starr’s argument exemplifies what is known as the problem of “the ethical transformation of risk.” Risk as an ethical problem is central to modern debates on the distinction between “risk” and “uncertainty.” International Relations (IR) as a discipline has slowly begun to incorporate theoretical developments in risk theory arising from sociology, economics, and anthropology. Beyond rational choice theory implementations of threat-based conceptions of risk, IR scholars began to be influenced by three main currents of thinking risk: the risk society thesis, the governmentality of risk, and modern systems theory. A host of challenges remain with regard to the development of an IPS of risk, foremost of which is theorizing the ways in which power proceeds through practices of uncertainty.


Author(s):  
Vincent Pouliot

Teaching international political sociology (IPS) is intellectually rewarding yet pedagogically challenging. In the conventional International Relations (IR) curriculum, IPS students have to set aside many of the premises, notions, and models they learned in introductory classes, such as assumptions of instrumental rationality and canonical standards of positivist methodology. Once problematized, these traditional starting points in IR are replaced with a number of new dispositions, some of which are counterintuitive, that allow students to take a fresh look at world politics. In the process, IPS opens many more questions than it provides clear-cut answers, making the approach look very destabilizing for students. The objective of teaching IPS is to sow the seeds of three key dispositions inside students’ minds. First, students must appreciate the fact that social life consists primarily of relations that make the whole bigger than the parts. Second, they must be aware that social action is infused with meanings upon which both cooperative and conflictual relations hinge. Third, they have to develop a degree of reflexivity in order to realize that social science is a social practice just like others, where agents enter in various relations and struggle over the meanings of the world. There are four primary methods of teaching IPS, each with its own merits and limits: induction, ontology, historiography, and classics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 672-697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepak Nair

Face-saving is a ubiquitous yet under-theorized phenomenon in International Relations. Prevailing accounts refer to face-saving as a shorthand for status and reputation, as a “cultural” trait found outside Euro-American societies, and as a technique for defusing militarized inter-state crisis, without, however, an explanation of its source and repertoire. In this article, I argue that it is possible to recover face-saving from cultural essentialism, and that face-saving practices geared to avoid embarrassment are micro-level mechanisms that produce international institutions like diplomacy. Drawing on the work of sociologists Erving Goffman and Pierre Bourdieu, I propose a theory of face-saving that accounts for its source, effects, and variation. I evaluate this theory with a study of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a diplomacy that has long espoused a discourse of “saving face” couched in Asian cultural exceptionalism. I combine a political sociology of ASEAN’s ruling regimes with an ethnography of its diplomats based on 13 consecutive months of fieldwork in Jakarta, Indonesia, to substantiate this wider theoretical argument. I demonstrate that, first, ASEAN’s face-saving practices are rooted in the legacies of authoritarianism rather than essentialist “culture,” and, second, that face-saving practices enable performances of sovereign equality, diplomatic kinship, and conflict avoidance among ASEAN’s diplomats. This article grants a distinct conceptual space to face-saving in International Relations, contributes to international practice theory by situating practices in the context of state–society relations, and offers a novel interpretation of what the “ASEAN Way” of doing diplomacy looks like in practice.


Author(s):  
Jef Huysmans ◽  
Joao P Nogueira

Abstract This paper asks how international political sociology (IPS) can articulate its criticality so that it can continue to engage with lineages that privilege processes and practices emerging from the always fluid and multiple entanglements of fragments without resorting to totalizing logics. IPS and IR more generally have experienced an intensified interest in situated and micro analyses. Engaging the fragmentation of the international, however, has gone hand in hand with pulls towards thinking big and wholes as a condition for critical analysis. We share the position that critical thought needs a conception of the structural if it does not want to remain locked in simply describing un-connected fragments of life. However, the challenge is to do so without making the meaning of fragments derivative of conceptions of wholes that reinsert horizons of totalization. Drawing on Deleuzian thought, the paper opens towards a conception of the structural and its relation to fragments that embraces heterogeneity, multiplicity, and fluidity with the express intent of vacating lingering totalities and foregrounding creativity in life. In a context of fragmenting international relations, we see re-engaging the question of how to separate structural thought from horizons of totalization as a contribution to ongoing debates on the nature and limits of critique. Cet article étudie la manière dont la criticité de la sociologie politique internationale (SPI) peut être articulée afin de continuer à impliquer des lignes qui privilégient les processus et pratiques émergeant d'intrications de fragments toujours plus fluides et multiples sans avoir recours à des logiques totalisantes. D'une manière plus générale, l'intérêt porté aux analyses ciblées et aux micro-analyses dans la SPI et dans les relations internationales s'est intensifié. L'implication d'une fragmentation de l'international est cependant allée de pair avec des enclins à penser grand et à adopter une vision d'ensemble qui conditionnent l'analyse critique. Nous partageons l'avis qu'une conception du structurel est nécessaire à la pensée critique pour éviter qu'elle ne se cantonne à décrire des fragments de vie déconnectés. Le défi est toutefois de le faire sans faire dériver la signification des fragments des conceptions d'ensemble qui réintroduisent des horizons de totalisation. Cet article puise dans la pensée deleuzienne pour s'ouvrir sur une conception du structurel et de sa relation avec les fragments qui englobe l'hétérogénéité, la multiplicité et la fluidité avec l'intention expresse d’évacuer les totalités persistantes et de mettre la créativité au premier plan de la vie. Dans un contexte de fragmentation des relations internationales, nous voyons le réengagement de l'interrogation sur la manière de séparer la pensée structurelle des horizons de la totalisation comme une contribution aux débats actuels portant sur la nature et les limites de la critique. En este artículo se plantea cómo la sociología política internacional (SPI) puede articular su criticidad para poder seguir interactuando con los linajes que privilegian los procesos y las prácticas que surgen de los cambiantes y múltiples entrelazamientos de fragmentos sin recurrir a lógicas totalizadoras. En términos más generales, la SPI y las RR. II. han adquirido un interés más profundo en los análisis situados y los microanálisis. La fragmentación de lo internacional, por su parte, ha ido acompañada de las presiones para pensar en grande y en conjunto como condición para el análisis crítico. Consideramos que el pensamiento crítico necesita una concepción de lo estructural para no quedarse encerrado en la simple descripción de fragmentos de la vida que no están conectados. Sin embargo, el desafío es lograr esto sin que el significado de los fragmentos derive de ideas integrales que reinserten perspectivas de totalización. A partir del pensamiento deleuziano, el artículo se abre hacia una concepción de lo estructural y su relación con los fragmentos que abarca la heterogeneidad, la multiplicidad y la variabilidad con el claro objetivo de dejar de lado las persistentes totalidades y dedicar especial atención a la creatividad en la vida. En este marco de fragmentación de las relaciones internacionales, creemos que volver a plantear la cuestión de cómo separar el pensamiento estructural de las perspectivas de totalización supone un aporte a los debates actuales sobre la naturaleza y los límites de la crítica.


Author(s):  
Vivienne Jabri

The reality of war has always been connected with political, economic, and social dynamics, as opposed to the notion that it is held within the confines of the battlefield. International political sociologists argue that practices of war and peace are positioned at the crux of institutional continuities and societal change, and that it is wrong to presuppose a dichotomy between the domestic and the international. As a result, scholars have become interested in the study of warfare, which, apart from military history, encompasses various themes such as the nature of human conflict and issues of defense policy, logistics, operations, and strategic planning. One particular study is International Political Sociology (IPS), a field of research that is concerned with how wars draw boundaries, how they influence political authority and trajectories of power, and how these are integrated in the global sphere. Meanwhile, International Relations (IR) is a formal subject that addresses the origin of war, how it impacts the dealings of the international system, and the institutional arrangements that might restrict or enhance war as a determinant of state relations. The study of International Relations is rife with various analytical perspectives, from realism to neo-realism and liberal internationalism, all of which exhibit how war continues to have a central place in scholarly disciplines.


Author(s):  
Dirk Nabers ◽  
Frank A. Stengel

International Political Sociology (IPS) emerged as a subfield of International Relations (IR) in the early 2000s. IPS itself may be understood as constituted by a field of tension between the concepts of “the International,” “the Political,” and “the Social.” Against this background, the centrality of anarchy and sovereignty as the fundamental structuring principles of international politics are increasingly called into question. While IPS remains an exciting, creative and important endeavor, researchers are also exploring paths toward what might be called a Global Political Sociology (GPS). Although IPS has become more global in orientation, more sociological with respect to sources, and more political in its stance, three ongoing shifts need to be made in order to transform IPS into GPS: first, insights from disciplines foreign to IR—both Western and non-Western—need to be employed in order to illustrate that specific localities have implications for the global as a whole; second, the continued engagement with causal theorizing must be replaced with contingency and undecidability as the fundamental constituting features of the political; and third, if the international that has been the nucleus of IR activities for decades, but impedes our understanding of politics instead of stimulating it, then alternative ways of theorizing global politics must be explored.


1992 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 596-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin O. Heisler

The transformations of the international system and the regimes of the Soviet Union's successor-states and former allies removed barriers to exit from those countries. Western Europe now confronts possible population movements from the East, at a time when its own societies and institutions are undergoing change: the advent of a single unified market in the European Community; the organization of new, joint security and foreign policy capabilities; and coping with growing manifestations of political and social stress blamed on the presence of immigrants. Existing theories in international relations and migration studies offer little guidance in confronting problems that are at once societal and international. Conceptual and theoretical links across the domestic and international levels of analysis and with migration are needed. An institutional political sociology orientation comprised of elements in the recent literature of several social sciences and neoliberal international relations may provide the necessary intellectual grasp and practical policy guidance. An illustrative application suggests that massive east-to-west migration is unlikely; and it offers grounds for guarded optimism about prospects for stability in and fruitful integration into the Western European ethos by the new regimes in East-Central Europe and the Baltics. However, it points to a more gloomy future for many of the other states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rita Abrahamsen ◽  
Jean-François Drolet ◽  
Alexandra Gheciu ◽  
Karin Narita ◽  
Srdjan Vucetic ◽  
...  

Abstract The rise of radical right-wing leaders, parties, movements, and ideas have transformed not only domestic political landscapes but also the direction and dynamics of international relations. Yet for all their emphasis on nationalist identity, on “America First” and “Taking Back Control,” there is an unmistakable international dimension to contemporary nationalist, populist movements. Yet these movements are also often transnationally linked. We argue that a constitutive part of this globality is the New Right's (NR) own distinctive international political sociology (IPS). Key thinkers of the contemporary NR have, over several decades, theorized and strategically mobilized globalized economic dislocation and cultural resentment, developing a coherent sociological critique of globalization. Drawing on the oft-neglected tradition of elite managerialism, NR ideologues have borrowed freely from Lenin and Schmitt on the power of enmity, as well as from Gramsci and the Frankfurt School on counterhegemonic strategies. Against the temptation to dismiss right-wing ideas as “merely” populist and by implication as lacking in ideological and theoretical foundations, we are faced with the much more challenging task of engaging a position that has already developed its own international political sociology and incorporated it into its political strategies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document