International Political Sociology and its contribution to critical thought in International Relations
Keywords:
International Political Sociology, International Relations, critical theory, practice, process, reflexivityCopyright (c) 2022 João Pontes Nogueira, Jef Huysmans; Gonzalo Vitón García
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
For some time, the theoretical debate in international relations has occupied an ambiguous place in the discipline. For some, the remarkable diversity of theoretical production expresses the dynamism of a field that has grown thanks to its capacity for dialogue with a wide range of disciplines from the humanities and social sciences, and even the exact sciences. Others, however, see this process as a symptom of the decline of the discipline, reflected in its fragmentation and inability to produce a more or less coherent (or consensual) set of research problems. We could also mention a current of opinion that sees the supposed exhaustion of International Relations as a process that we should not regret, since the evolution of the field would be irremediably associated with a colonial power project that produced unequal and discriminatory world orders. For the latter, the theories of International Relations offer few possibilities for the construction of a critique of world politics and, therefore, would not deserve significant intellectual investment. This view echoes the controversial debate about the 'end of IR theory' waged in the pages of the European Journal of International Relations in 2013 (Dunne, Hansen, and Wight 2013). This declaration of death seems premature, yet the current state of the debate may suggest a fund of truth for pessimistic assessments. Had the 'critical turn' project fallen victim to its own success? Has the drive towards greater theoretical pluralism produced a fragmentation that impedes the evolution of the discipline? Has the critique of the limits of international studies - in particular its supposed universality - compromised our ability to think of the international as a planetary political space? This diffuse dissatisfaction with international theoretical work has a very broad scope, reaching both Anglo-American and continental European academic cultures and the many other continents where research in International Relations is conducted today, testifying to the increasingly global breadth of the discipline. The paradox that stimulates the reflection developed here - proposed in this issue of Relaciones Internacionales journal - expresses, precisely, this tension between a pluralism, transdisciplinarity and diversification that are indispensable for the relevance and expansion of the area, and its survival as an academic discipline whose research paradigms and programmes give it coherence and legitimacy.
The answers to the problem in question are, as we suggest, very varied, ranging from the colonisation of international studies by the humanities to the return to geopolitics, to mention only two of them. It would not be pertinent, in this context, to evaluate all the attempts to give direction to a drifting discipline. The aim of this article is more modest. It is to situate the subfield of international political sociology (IPS) in the process indicated above, that is, in the intellectual pluralization of the field in the last twenty years; as well as to indicate its contribution to the restructuring of the lineage of critical thinking in International Relations. To this end, we unfold the argument in two propositions: international political sociology emerges from the collective intellectual project known as the 'critical turn' in International Relations; and secondly, IPS seeks to articulate critical thinking at the borders of the international and the discipline, problematizing the ontological status of both. Based on these two points of departure, the article is organised in three steps. The first section discusses how IPS emerges as the expression of an intellectual lineage dedicated to rethinking the 'modern international' through a new topology; that is, through an alternative conception of the place of politics and the problematisation of its spatio-temporal assumptions. We will see how IPS proposes to imagine the international from the problematization of the practices of border production. The second section discusses some of the main concepts from which IPS rethinks the international or, in other words, how and where social and political relations are structured in what we may call transversal spaces. To this end, we analyse how networks, fields and assemblages contribute to the task of proposing a less restrictive topology of the international. Finally, in the third section we address how SPI conceives its research project from a processual and relational logic that privileges the production of the new, practices and flows in order to open spaces for a politics that affirms difference, divergence and the continuous transformation of what exists.
Downloads
References
Abrahamsen, R., y Williams, M.C. (2009). Security Beyond the State: Global Security Assemblages in International Politics. International Political Sociology, 3 (1), 1-17.
Adler-Nissen, R. (2013). Bourdieu in international relations: rethinking key concepts in IR. Routledge.
Agnew, J., y Corbridge, S. (1995). Mastering Space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy. Routledge.
Albert, M. (2016). A theory of world politics. Cambridge University Press.
Ashley, R. (1986). The Poverty of Neorealism. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics. Columbia University Press.
Barnett, M.N. (1997). Bringing in the New World Order: Liberalism, Legitimacy and the United Nations. World Politics, 4 (49), 529-551.
Basaran, T. (2008). Security, Law, Borders: Spaces of Exclusion. International Political Sociology, 4 (2), 339-354.
Basaran, T., Bigo, D., Guittet, E.P., y Walker, R.B.J. (Eds.) (2016). International Political Sociology: Transversal Lines. Routledge.
Bigo, D. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of Practices, Practices of Power. International Political Sociology, 5 (3), 225-258.
Bigo, D. (2016). Sociology of Transnational Guilds. International Political Sociology, 10 (4), 398-416.
Bigo, D., y Walker, R.B.J. (2007). International, Political, Sociology. International Political Sociology, 1 (1), 1-5.
Bigo, D., y Walker, R.B J. (2007). Political Sociology and the Problem of the International. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 35 (3), 725-739.
Bleiker, R. (1997). Forget IR Theory. Alternatives, 22 (1), 57-85.
Brown, C. (1994). 'Turtles All the Way Down': Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23 (2), 213-236.
Chatterjee, P. (2004). The politics of the governed: reflections on popular politics in most of the world. Columbia University Press.
Cox, R.W. (1986). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. En Keohane, R.O. (Ed.). Neorealism and Its Critics (pp. 204-254). Columbia University Press.
Cox, R.W. (1987). Production, Power and World Order. Columbia University Press.
Cox, R.W. (1992). Towards a Post-hegemonic Conceptualization of World Order: Reflections on the Relevancy of Ibn Khaldun. En Rosenau J.N. y Czempiel E. O. (Eds.). Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics (pp. 132-159). Cambridge University Press.
Cox, R. W., y Sinclair, T. J. (1996). Approaches to World Order. Cambridge University Press.
Deleuze, G., y Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press. (Traducido por B. Massumi).
Deleuze, G., y Parnet, C. (1977). Dialogues. Flammarion.
Dezalay, Y., y Garth, B.G. (2011). Hegemonic Battles, Professional Rivalries, and the International Division of Labor in the Market for the Import and Export of State-Governing Expertise. International Political Sociology, 5 (3), 276-293.
Plessis, G. (2018). When pathogens determine the territory: Toward a concept of non-human borders. European Journal of International Relations, 24 (2), 391-413.
Dunne, T., Hansen, L., y Wight, C. (2013). The end of International Relations theory? European Journal of International Relations, 19 (3), 405-425.
Elden, S. (2006). Contingent Sovereignty, Territorial Integrity and the Sanctity of Borders. SAIS Review, 26 (1), 11-24.
Enloe, C. (2016). Flick of the Skirt: A Feminist Challenge to IR’s Coherent Narrative. International Political Sociology, 10 (4), 320-331.
Enloe, C.H. (2007). Globalization and militarism: feminists make the link. Rowman y Littlefield.
Escobar, A. (2008). Territories of difference: place, movements, life, redes. Duke University Press.
Foucault, M. (2002). The order of things. Routledge.
George, J. (1994). Discourses of global politics: a critical (re)introduction to international relations. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Gill, S. (2003). Power and Resistance in the New World Order. Palgrave Macmillan.
Goettlich, K. (2019). The rise of linear borders in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 25 (1), 203-228.
Haas, E. B. (1964). Beyond the nation-state: functionalism and international organization. Stanford University Press.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. Stanford University Press.
Helmig, J., y Kessler, O. (2007). Space, Boundaries, and the Problem of Order: A View from Systems Theory. International Political Sociology, 1 (3), 240-256.
Herz, J. (1976). The Nation-State and the Crisis of World Politics: Essays on International Politics in the Twentieth Century. David McKay Company, Inc.
Hoffman, M. (1987). Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16 (2), 189-206.
Holsti, K.J. (1991). Change in the international system: essays on the theory and practice of international relations. E. Elgar Pub.
Huysmans, J., y Nogueira, J. P. (2020). International Political Sociology as a Mode of Critique: Fracturing Totalities. International Political Sociology, 1 (15), 2-21.
Innerarity, D., y Kingery, S. (2016). Governance in the new global disorder: politics for a post-sovereign society. Columbia University Press.
Keohane, R.O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
Keohane, R.O. (2002). Power and Governance in a Partially Globalized World. Routledge.
Keohane, R.O., y Martin, L. (1995). The Promise of Institutionalist Theory. International Security, 20 (1), 39-51.
Keohane, R.O., y Nye, J. (1977). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown and Company.
Kessler, O. (2012). World Society, Social Differentiation and Time. International Political Sociology, 6 (1), 77-94.
Koh, T.T.B., Acharya, A., y Institute of Policy Studies (Singapur) (1998). The quest for world order: perspectives of a pragmatic idealist. Institute of Policy Studies: Times Academic Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Blackwell. (Traducido por D. Nicholson-Smith).
Linklater, A. (1990). The Problem of Community in International Relations. Alternatives, 2 (15), 135-153.
Linklater, A. (1996). The achievements of critical theory. En Smith, S., Booth, K., y Zalewski, M. (Eds.). International theory: positivism and beyond (pp. 279-300). Cambridge University Press.
Linklater, A. (1998). The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the Post-Westphalian Era. University of South Carolina Press.
Lipschutz, R.D. (1992). Reconstructing World Politics: The Emergence of Global Civil Society. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (3), 389-420.
Lisle, D. (2017). Waiting for International Political Sociology: A Field Guide to Living In-Between. International Political Sociology, 10 (4), 417-433.
Lundborg, T. (2012). Politics of the event: time, movement, becoming. Routledge.
Massey, D.B. (2005). For space. SAGE.
Mezzadra, S., y Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Duke University Press.
Morgenthau, H.J. (1946). Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. The University of Chicago Press.
Ong, A., y Collier, S.J. (2005). Global assemblages: technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems. Blackwell Publishing.
Ozguc, U. (2021). Rethinking border walls as fluid meshworks. Security Dialogue, 52 (4), 287-305.
Paris, R. (2011). Ordering the World: Academic Research and Policymaking on Fragile States. International Studies Review, 13 (1), 58-71.
Paul, T.V., y Hall, J.A. (Eds.) (1999). International Order and the Future of World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Rajaram, P.K., y Grundy-Warr, C. (2007). Borderscapes: hidden geographies and politics at territory's edge. University of Minnesota Press.
Rose, N. (1996). The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government. Economy and Society, 25 (3), 327-356.
Rosenau, J.N., y Czempiel, E.O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Rygiel, K. (2011). Governing borderzones of mobility through e-borders: The politics of embodied mobility. En Squire, V. (Ed.) The contested politics of mobility: borderzones and irregularity (pp. 143-168). Routledge.
Scheel, S. (Ed.) (2019). Autonomy of migration? Appropriating mobility within biometric border regimes. Routledge.
Seth, S. (2011). Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations. Millennium, 40 (1), 167-183.
Slaughter, A.M. (2004). A new world order / Anne-Marie Slaughter. Princeton University Press.
Squire, V. (2011). The contested politics of mobility: borderzones and irregularity. Routledge.
Stierl, M. (2020). Reimagining Europe through the Governance of Migration. International Political Sociology, 14 (3), 252-269.
Tazzioli, M. (2020). The making of migration: the biopolitics of mobility at Europe's borders. Sage Publications, Ltd.
Tickner, A.B., Wæver, O., y Taylor y Francis. (2009). International relations scholarship around the world. Routledge.
Walker, R.B.J. (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Walker, R.B.J. (julio, 2005). The Doubled Outsides of the Modern International. 5th International Conference on Diversity in Organizations, Communities and Nations, Pekín.
Walker, R.B.J. (2010). After the globe, before the world. Routledge.
Waltz, K.N. (1979). Teoría de la Política Internacional. Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.
Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization, 2 (46), 391-425.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.