scholarly journals A pragmatic methodology for studying international practices

2019 ◽  
pp. 175508821987917
Author(s):  
Sasikumar S Sundaram ◽  
Vineet Thakur
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Science Inquiry ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Semantic Field ◽  
Central Thesis ◽  
Practice Turn

Practice turn marks an important advancement in International Relations theorizing. In challenging abstract meta-theoretical debates, practice theorizing in International Relations aims to get close to the lifeworld(s) of the actual practitioners of politics. Scholars from different positions such as constructivism, critical theory, and post-structuralism have critically interrogated the analytical framework of practices in international politics. Building upon these works, we are concerned with a question of how to examine the context of international practices that unfolds in multiple ways in practitioners’ performances. Our central thesis is that a distinct pragmatic methodology offers an opportunity to keep with the practice turn and avoid the problematic foundational moves of mainstream practice theorizing. This involves foregrounding three interrelated processes in examining practices: the role of exceptions in the normal stream of performances, normative uptake of the analysts, and the semantic field that actors navigate in political performances. We argue that this methodology is predicated on its usefulness to interpret practices through reflective social-science inquiry.

Happy Anniversary! Time and critique in International Relations theory

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 71-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
KIMBERLY HUTCHINGS
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
International Theory

ABSTRACTAll critical theories lay claim to some kind of account not only of the present of international politics and its relation to possible futures, but also of the role of critical theory in the present and future in international politics. This article argues that if critical international theory is to have a future that lives up to its revolutionary ambition, then it needs to listen more carefully to the voices of postcolonial and feminist critics and take on board the heterotemporality of international politics.

Feudal Europe, 800–1300: communal discourse and conflictual practices

1992 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Structural Theory ◽  
Historical Change ◽  
Fundamental Significance ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Scientific ◽  
Scientific Argument

The discipline of international relations faces a new debate of fundamental significance. After the realist challenge to the pervasive idealism of the interwar years and the social scientific argument against realism in the late 1950s, it is now the turn of critical theorists to dispute the established paradigms of international politics, having been remarkably successful in several other fields of social inquiry. In essence, critical theorists claim that all social reality is subject to historical change, that a normative discourse of understandings and values entails corresponding practices, and that social theory must include interpretation and dialectical critique. In international relations, this approach particularly critiques the ahistorical, scientific, and materialist conceptions offered by neorealists. Traditional realists, by contrast, find a little more sympathy in the eyes of critical theorists because they join them in their rejection of social science and structural theory. With regard to liberal institutionalism, critical theorists are naturally sympathetic to its communitarian component while castigating its utilitarian strand as the accomplice of neorealism. Overall, the advent of critical theory will thus focus the field of international relations on its “interparadigm debate” with neorealism.

9. Constructivism

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. M. Fierke
Keyword(s):  
Social Construction ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Theory Versus

This chapter examines the key debates that have shaped the development of constructivism in International Relations (IR). It first considers the idea that international relations is a social construction, as it emerged from the critique of more traditional theories of IR. It then explores the distinctions among various constructivisms, with particular emphasis on the contrast between those who seek a ‘better’ social science, and hence better theory, versus those who argue that constructivism is an approach that rests on assumptions at odds with those of positivist method. The chapter proceeds by discussing constructivists' critique of rationalism, along with constructivism as a ‘middle ground’ between rationalist and poststructuralist approaches to IR. It also analyses the role of language and causality in the debate between rationalists and constructivists. Finally, it links all these insights to the War on Terror.

The Constructivist–Critical Theory Synthesis

2019 ◽  
pp. 19-42
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Construction ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Progressive Politics

Is there a constructivist–critical theory synthesis? This chapter makes the case that such a synthesis can indeed be found, both in the practice and the politics of the discipline of International Relations. The chapter locates the synthesis both in broader social science debates about social construction and in disciplinary histories of International Relations that see both critical theory and constructivism on the same side of the so-called third debate. The chapter sees the synthesis being expressed implicitly, as a default category for work that does not fit into the realist/liberal synthesis or is outside the neopositivist mainstream. The chapter also sees the synthesis in explicit claims—of nonfoundationalism, of the rejection of metanarratives, or of the embrace of progressive politics. Finally, the chapter sees traces of a synthesis even when critical theory and constructivism are presented as paradigmatically distinct.

Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The World

This text argues that theory is central to explaining International Relations (IR) and that the discipline of IR is much more relevant to the world of international relations than it has been at any point in its history. Some chapters cover distinct IR theories ranging from realism/structural realism to liberalism/neoliberalism, the English school, constructivism, Marxism, critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism, green theory, and postcolonialism. Oher chapters explore International Relations theory and its relationship to social science, normative theory, globalization, and the discipline’s identity. This introduction explains why this edition has chosen to cover these theories, reflects on international theory and its relationship to the world, and considers the kind of assumptions about theory that underlie each of the approaches.

Leaders and Foreign Policy: Surveying the Evidence

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Benedict Dyson ◽  
Thomas Briggs
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Political Action ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Leadership Influence ◽  
Causal Variable

Political Science accounts of international politics downplay the role of political leaders, and a survey of major journals reveals that fewer than 3% of all articles focus on leaders. This is in stark contrast to public discourse about politics, where leadership influence over events is regarded as a given. This article suggests that, at a minimum, leaders occupy a space in fully specified chains of causality as the aggregators of material and ideational forces, and the transmitters of those forces into authoritative political action. Further, on occasion a more important role is played by the leader: as a crucial causal variable aggregating material and ideational energies in an idiosyncratic fashion and thereby shaping decisions and outcomes. The majority of the article is devoted to surveying the comparatively small literature on political leaders within International Relations scholarship. The article concludes by inviting our colleagues to be receptive to the idiosyncrasies, as well as the regularities, of statespersonship.

scholarly journals Two conceptions of international practice: Aristotelian praxis or Wittgensteinian language-games?

2015 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Mervyn Frost ◽  
Silviya Lechner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Language Games ◽  
Central Thesis ◽  
Theory Of Practice ◽  
Practice Turn

AbstractScholars from the recent ‘practice turn’ in International Relations have urged us to rethink the international realm in terms of practices. The principal exponents of the turn, Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot, have refurbished Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice to produce their own account of international practices. In a review of the practice turn, Chris Brown has argued that Bourdieu’s notion of practice shares basic affinities with Aristotle’s concept of praxis. While practice turn scholars may not adhere to a rigid canon of thought, they seem to share an Aristotelian conception of praxis. This reading of the turn to practice, though plausible, captures one part of the story. The central thesis of the present article is that instead of one there are two, distinctive conceptions of practice – Aristotelian and Wittgensteinian – and therefore two distinctive ways in which the character of international practices might be understood. More concretely, the aim is to show that the conception of international practices, rooted in Wittgenstein’s view of practices as language-games, can be particularly illuminating to all those who seek to understand international relations.

scholarly journals POSTSTRUCTURALISM AND ITS PRACTICAL RELEVANCE IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 121-129
Author(s):  
Rifki Dermawan
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Practical Relevance ◽  
International Issues

There are many different theories and approaches in international relations studies. They emerge as tools to understand world politics as well as to prevent the occurrence of wars and conflicts. Poststructuralism is one of them. This article addresses the practical relevance of poststructuralism in international politics. It looks at the role of poststructuralism, which provides a novel view on international issues in the globalized era. There are three major focuses of this paper. First, the discussion on the concept of sovereignty and state in a modern world. Second, the role of discourse in the poststructuralism theoretical framework. Third, the function of poststructuralism as a meta-theoretical critique in international relations. This article concludes that poststructuralism is practically useful in the study of international politics.   Keywords: poststructuralism, theory, international politics, international relations.     Abstrak   Ada beragam teori dan pendekatan yang digunakan di dalam studi ilmu hubungan internasional. Teori dan pendekatan tersebut muncul sebagai alat untuk memahami kondisi peepolitikan dunia dan juga untuk mencegah terjadinya peperangan dan konflik. Poststrukturalisme adalah salah satunya. Tulisan ini membahas relevansi secara praktikal dari poststrukturalisme dalam politik internasional. Tulisan ini melihat peranan poststrukturalisme yang memberikan pandangan baru terhadap isu-isu internasional di zaman globalisasi. Ada tiga fokus utama dari tulisan ini. Pertama, pembahasan mengenai konsep kedaulatan dan negara di zaman modern. Kedua, peranan wacana dalam kerangka teori poststrukturalisme. Ketiga, fungsi poststrukturalisme sebagai kritik metateori di ilmu hubungan internasional. Kesimpulan yang dapat diambil dari tulisan ini adalah poststrukturalisme memiliki manfaat secara praktikal dalam studi politik internasional.   Kata kunci: poststrukturalisme, teori, politik internasional, ilmu hubungan internasional.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document