The core claims of the practice turn in International Relations (IR) remain ambiguous. What promises does international practice theory hold for the field? How does the kind of theorizing it produces differ from existing perspectives? What kind of research agenda does it produce? This article addresses these questions. Drawing on the work of Andreas Reckwitz, we show that practice approaches entail a distinctive view on the drivers of social relations. Practice theories argue against individualistic-interest and norm-based actor models. They situate knowledge in practice rather than “mental frames” or “discourse.” Practice approaches focus on how groups perform their practical activities in world politics to renew and reproduce social order. They therefore overcome familiar dualisms—agents and structures, subjects and objects, and ideational and material—that plague IR theory. Practice theories are a heterogeneous family, but, as we argue, share a range of core commitments. Realizing the promise of the practice turn requires considering the full spectrum of its approaches. However, the field primarily draws on trajectories in international practice theory that emphasize reproduction and hierarchies. It should pay greater attention to practice approaches rooted in pragmatism and that emphasize contingency and change. We conclude with an outline of core challenges that the future agenda of international practice theory must tackle.

The Play of International Practice

This introductory article explores the multiple synergies between international practice theory and diplomatic studies. The timing for this cross-fertilizing exchange could not be better, as the study of diplomacy enters a phase of theorization while practice scholars look to confront the approach to new empirical and analytical challenges. The article first defines diplomacy as a historically and culturally contingent bundle of practices that are analytically alike in their claim to represent a given polity to the outside world. Then the key analytical wagers that practice theory makes are introduced, and debates currently raging in the discipline are briefly reviewed. Next, it is suggested what a practice theory of diplomacy may look like, discussing a variety of existing works through their common objective to explain the constitution of world politics in and through practice. Finally, a few research avenues to foster the dialogue between diplomatic studies and practice theory are outlined, centered on...

Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: A research agenda:

Antje Wiener examines the involvement of local actors in conflicts over global norms such as fundamental rights and the prohibition of torture and sexual violence. Providing accounts of local interventions made on behalf of those affected by breaches of norms, she identifies the constraints and opportunities for stakeholder participation in a fragmented global society. The book also considers cultural and institutional diversity with regard to the co-constitution of norm change. Proposing a clear framework to operationalize research on contested norms, and illustrating it through three recent cases, this book contributes to the project of global international relations by offering an agency-centred approach. It will interest scholars and advanced students of international relations, international political theory, and international law seeking a principled approach to practice that overcomes the practice-norm gap.

Contestation and Constitution of Norms in Global International Relations

In a recent article Emanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot argued that attention to 'practices' could help IR scholars overcome ontological gaps and provide a new basis, on which the discipline could be established. Four such dichotomies are particularly salient: between the material and the meaningful, the rational and the practical, between agencies and structures, and between the forces of stability and of change. By failing to provide a theoretical basis for a synthesis, however, this project will fail. What a 'practice' is, and how ontological gaps should be understood, cannot be determined outside of the context of a theory. The article reviews theoretical attempts to deal with the dichotomies Adler and Pouliot identified and investigates the role of practices in the study of international relations. (Less)

The search for dialogue as a hindrance to understanding: practices as inter-paradigmatic research program

This article builds on the practice turn’s welcome move to redirect our attention to the unconscious habitual practices that constitute most of daily social life, including in world politics. Since...

Change in international practices

Introduction Now that the “practice turn” in social theory has reached International Relations (IR), a new great debate seems to be in the offing. Observers of previous “turns” might be skeptical of the promissory notes, not only because of experience, but also because this new focus on “practices” seems even less well defined. The spectrum ranges from adherents of “implicit knowledge” and habits a la Polanyi to Giddean grand theory focusing on the dialectics of agency and structure. It encompasses “social” epistemology stressing the communal aspects of knowledge production, Bourdieu’s emphasis on “ habitus ” and doxa , and Oakeshott’s “habits” and “knowing how” rather than “knowing why.” Thus, the call to foreground practices might make for heated debates but illumination by low wattage, given the heterogeneity of the different vocabularies. Such problems are usually “solved” by a “working definition” imposing some order. Yet, frequently “working definitions” hide deep conceptual disagreements and emerge from intense negotiations among the participants in a research project. While such a preliminary agreement might be the price for getting along, nothing in this procedure guarantees that this “consensus” is “fruitful,” as it depends on who participates and on who is setting the terms of the debate. Two of the more recent “collective” research programs – one on “ideas,” the other on “judicialization” – illustrate these problems: By nobly forgoing any engagement with the common uses of the crucial terms and their theoretical reflections, and by settling conceptual issues largely by fiat, we were treated to an amicable but rather shallow conversation among friends.

Friedrich Kratochwil

Papers

Making Sense of 'International Practices'