Permutations and Combinations in Theorizing Global Politics: Whither Realist Constructivism?

2020 ◽  
pp. 193-216
Author(s):  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Critical Theories

This chapter argues that while combinations of realisms and constructivisms provide more leverage in understanding international relations than either of the two approaches alone, two is unnecessarily limiting. It suggests that where two is an improvement, three or more might be better yet. To this end, it looks at the empirical chapters of the book and asks what might be gained by incorporating into their analyses critical theories, decolonial approaches, queer approaches, and feminisms. It concludes by arguing for trading in realist constructivism for ‘ism’ promiscuity.

Understanding and Classifying Critical Approaches

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Copenhagen School ◽  
Critical Approaches

This chapter argues that what various theoretical approaches to IR that describe themselves or are described as critical share in common is that they are political rather than social theories. There are no other common elements to be found across this group of approaches. Various schemas used to typify different sorts of critical theories (e.g., emancipatory/postmodern; feminist/postcolonial/poststructuralist; Copenhagen School/Aberystwyth School/Paris School) signify different political theories with different political content but share political investment in both disciplinary International Relations and global politics. They are explicitly engaged in International Relations theorizing and International Relations research as a political enterprise with political ends.

International Relations' Last Synthesis?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Knowledge Accumulation ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
Constructivist Epistemology

Many scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, have entangled constructivisms and critical theories in problematic ways, either by assigning a critical-theoretical politics to constructivisms or by assuming the appropriateness of constructivist epistemology and methods for critical theorizing. This book makes the argument that these connections mirror the grand theoretical syntheses of International Relations (IR) in the 1980s and 1990s, and have similar constraining effects on the possibilities of International Relations theory. These connections have been made without adequate reflection, in contradiction to the base assumptions of each theoretical perspective, and to the detriment of both knowledge accumulation about global politics and theoretical rigor in disciplinary International Relations. It is not that constructivisms and critical theories have no common ground but instead that the overstatement of their common ground that has become routine among International Relations scholars is counterproductive to the discovery and utilization of their potential dialogues. To that end, this book argues that scholars using the two in conjunction should be cognizant of, rather than gloss over, the tensions between them as approaches and the different tools they have to offer. Along these lines, the book uses the concept of affordances to look at what each has to offer the other, and to argue for a modest, reflective, specified return to (constructivist and critical) International Relations theorizing that has the potential to revive International Relations theorizing by rejecting its oversimple syntheses.

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Zürn
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Political System ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Causal Mechanisms

This chapter summarizes the argument of the book. It recapitulates the global governance as a political system founded on normative principles and reflexive authorities in order to identify the legitimation problems built into it; it points to the explanation of the rise of societal politicization and counter-institutionalization via causal mechanisms highlighting the endogenous dynamics of that global governance system; and, it sums up the conditions under which the subsequent processes of legitimation and delegitimation lead to the system’s decline or to a deepening of it. In addition, the conclusion submits that the arguments put forward in this book are in line with a newly emerging paradigm in International Relations. A “global politics paradigm” is increasingly complementing the “cooperation under anarchy paradigm” which has been dominant for around five decades. The chapter finishes with suggestions of areas for further research.

Another Geopolitics? International Relations and the Boundaries of World Order

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Regan Burles
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Ecology ◽  
International System ◽  
World Order ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Ecological Change ◽  
Ecological Theories ◽  
Problems And Solutions ◽  
Shed Light

Abstract Geopolitics has become a key site for articulating the limits of existing theories of international relations and exploring possibilities for alternative political formations that respond to the challenges posed by massive ecological change and global patterns of violence and inequality. This essay addresses three recent books on geopolitics in the age of the Anthropocene: Simon Dalby's Anthropocene Geopolitics: Globalization, Security, Sustainability (2020), Jairus Victor Grove's Savage Ecology: War and Geopolitics at the End of the World (2019), and Bruno Latour's Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climactic Regime (2018). The review outlines and compares how these authors pose contemporary geopolitics as a problem and offer political ecology as the ground for an alternative geopolitics. The essay considers these books in the context of critiques of world politics in international relations to shed light on both the contributions and the limits of political ecological theories of global politics. I argue that the books under review encounter problems and solutions posed in Kant's critical and political writings in relation to the concepts of epigenesis and teleology. These provoke questions about the ontological conceptions of order that enable claims to world political authority in the form of a global international system coextensive with the earth's surface.

The invisible structures of anarchy: Gender, orders, and global politics

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political System ◽  
International System ◽  
Salient Feature ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
Multiple Orders ◽  
International Anarchy ◽  
The Invisible

This article argues anarchy is undertheorized in International Relations, and that the undertheorization of the concept of anarchy in International Relations is rooted in Waltz’s original discussion of the concept as equal to the invisibility of structure, where the lack of exogenous authority is not just a feature of the international political system but the salient feature. This article recognizes the international system as anarchical but looks to theorize its contours—to see the invisible structures that are overlaid within international anarchy, and then to consider what those structures mean for theorizing anarchy itself. It uses as an example the various (invisible) ways that gender orders global political relations to suggest that anarchy in the international arena is a place of multiple orders rather than of disorder. It therefore begins by theorizing anarchy with orders in global politics, rather than anarchy as necessarily substantively lacking orders. It then argues that gender orders global politics in various ways. It concludes with a framework for theorizing order within anarchy in global politics.

scholarly journals On Remembering Le premier festival culturel panafricain d’Alger 1969

Lateral ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Jayne Kimmel
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Third World ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
Personal History ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
The Past ◽  
Remarkable Event ◽  
History Of ◽  
Pandemic Response

This assembled interview centers both Elaine Mokhtefi and Le premier festival culturel panafricain d’Alger 1969 (PANAF), a festival which she organized and attended as a part of the Algerian Ministry of Information, noting it as an exemplary instance of the power of performance at the nexus of political ideology, activist history, and the subsequent nostalgia for that era of liberation. It is equally an attempt to overcome a distant relationship to each, reflecting on the potential of oral histories to open up new pathways through the past. This history—of entangled international relations negotiated under the guise of a festive performance, a complicated trajectory of global politics which culminated in a remarkable event of celebration and solidarity—remains understudied, a footnote to more “political” concerns of Third World agendas, decolonial reorderings, and capitalist critiques. Yet through Mokhtefi’s testimony, interwoven with searching tendrils of archival detail, we can see that this festival was not a superficial exaltation in extravagance, but a pivotal moment in foreign affairs. More importantly, through her personal history, we can trace the central role that women played in these politics, if often unacknowledged. Edited in 2020, it also counters the pejorative label of non-essential labor applied to most cultural activities during the contemporary pandemic response to COVID-19.

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 Power in Global Nutrition Governance

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 277-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Louise Lie
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Global Partnership ◽  
Health And Nutrition ◽  
Private Actors ◽  
Discursive Power ◽  
Global Nutrition

Abstract Global public-private partnerships for health and nutrition have proliferated since the 1990s—a trend raising important questions about authority and legitimacy in global governance. Yet within the fields of international relations and public health, there has been only limited empirical research into the global politics and power dynamics behind such partnerships. This article explores how and why the Scaling Up Nutrition partnership was established. Drawing on interviews, observations, and document analysis, it demonstrates how public and private actors exercise combinations of instrumental, structural, and discursive power to normalize and institutionalize their interests and values at the global level. The study highlights as such the complexities behind the increased privatization of global nutrition governance and the importance of power analysis to uncover the normative contestations and asymmetries of power behind global partnership creation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document