Showing papers in "Journal of International Political Theory in 2023"
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors argue that socio-symbolic orders, or worlds, are not instantiated as such; rather, they must be established and reestablished in the face of one another.
Abstract: Postfoundational political thought is characterized by a distinction between “politics” (a socio-symbolic order that delineates what is knowable and thinkable) and “the political” (the instantiation of a socio-symbolic order). This article critically engages with the postfoundational thought of Jacques Rancière to rethink “the political” in the context of the pluriverse, a matrix of multiple distinct yet interconnected worlds. In so doing, this article challenges the idea that “care” is not properly political. Specifically, I argue that in the context of the pluriverse, socio-symbolic orders, or worlds, are not instantiated as such; rather, they must be established and, importantly, reestablished in the face of one another. From this vantage point, caring for and maintaining worlds—especially worlds marginalized by relations of power in the global political economy—is of political and ethical significance. This article thus offers a decolonial and feminist approach to thinking about the political as it (a) destabilizes the Westerncentric assumption that there is one-world, and takes different worlds as worlds seriously; and (b) centers issues of care and reproduction, demonstrates how they are politically and ethically salient, and thereby contributes to the project of foregrounding the political import of care.
1 citations
TL;DR: Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics by Maggie Fitzgerald as discussed by the authors is a new book that not only manages to escape these familiar categories, but also breaks new ground in global ethics.
Abstract: The questions and issues that make up the field of global ethics have, for several decades now, largely been understood through the binary framework of ‘cosmopolitanism’ and ‘communitarianism’. Despite the widespread criticism of the limitations of this dualism, and some attempts to ‘qualify or hyphenate core terms’ it has proven ‘remarkably difficult to escape or transcend’ the cosmopolitanism-communitarianism framework (Sutch, 2018: 35). Maggie Fitzgerald’s new book, Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics, manages not only manages to escape these familiar categories, but to break new ground in global ethics.
TL;DR: The authors argue that competition over resources, border control and conflict are likely to increase in the climate age, and that the failure of UN-led attempts to address the climate crisis explains the negative relationship between nationalism and peace in the international order.
Abstract: A recent debate emerged on the possibility of rendering nationalism compatible with addressing the climate crisis. E. H. Carr’s analysis of nationalism and global reform is relevant to this debate. Carr’s analysis highlights a negative relationship between nationalism and peace in the international order; a relationship that extends to, and is exacerbated by, climate change. This analysis is relevant to the contemporary debate on nationalism and climate change in three ways. First, it shows that competition over resources, border control and conflict are likely to increase in the climate age. Second, it explains the failure of UN-led attempts to address the climate crisis. Third, it problematises mid-way solutions to render nationalism compatible with addressing the climate crisis – whether these are realist, liberal institutionalist or green nationalist. Carr’s work however does not simply present a pessimistic outlook on the climate crisis; it also offers a positive lens to think of the crisis as an opportunity. Times of crisis to Carr are times of opportunity for humanity to re-define its sense of purpose. The emergence of issuespecific climate movements and sector-specific green projects is testimony to the presence of this opportunity today to move beyond nationalism, towards multi-scalar identity frameworks.
TL;DR: Bain this article argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, but still stands as a landmark in the marginalization of religion as an influential force in politics.
Abstract: William Bain sustains his audacious claim to write a landmark in international relations thought. His view that the medieval theological debate between imposed order and immanent order structures contemporary thought about international order is largely compelling, especially in light of his demonstration that certain thinkers such as Hobbes and Grotius served as transmission belts, carrying this debate into modernity. He also persuasively shows that imposed order, or nominalism, dominates today’s schools of international relations thought, while immanent order only whispers its dissent. I raise two questions in critical conversation. First, while Bain argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, nevertheless Westphalia stands as a milestone in the marginalization of religion (though not political theology) as an influential force in politics. Second, while Bain demurs from choosing between imposed and immanent order on normative grounds, his claim that the choice is a matter of faith appears to be a choice for imposed order. Clarifying this normative question is an apposite task for this important author’s next book.
TL;DR: In this article , an alternative reading of relationality and difference is proposed, one that is keeping with a more open, plural and therefore critical understanding of both concepts. But this reading is focused primarily on Fitzgerald's ontoepistemological reading of relations and difference.
Abstract: The article engages with Maggie Fitzgerald’s Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics. It focuses primarily on Fitzgerald’s ontoepistemological reading of relationality and difference, suggesting an alternative reading of both concepts, one that is keeping with a more open, plural and therefore critical understanding.
TL;DR: This article reviewed Wiliam Bains book and places it in the wider discussion of Seciularization vs. Secularism taking place in the social science in general, and placed it in a wider discussion.
Abstract: This article reviews Wiliam Bains book and places it in the wider discussion of seciularization vs. secularism taking place in the social science. in general.
TL;DR: This article argued that much of the confusion surrounding rationalism/rationality in IR arises due to a failure to distinguish between rationalism as an epistemological position and rationality as an ontological position (the rational actor assumption).
Abstract: The commitment to the rational actor model of state behavior is said to be a core assumption of realist theory. This assumption is listed in most textbook accounts of realism. Yet is rationality a core supposition of realist theory, and if so, what kind of rationality is implied in these claims? Debate on the relationship between realism, and what is often labeled as rationality is replete with misunderstandings. Authors deploy terms such as rationality, rationalism, and rational actor in diverse and contradictory ways. This article aims to cut through this confusion and provide an account of the different ways in which these terms are used in the field of International Relations (IR). We argue that much of the confusion surrounding rationalism/rationality in IR arises due to a failure to distinguish between rationalism as an epistemological position (the observer rationality assumption) and rationality as an ontological position (the rational actor assumption). We use this distinction to examine carefully the relationship between the concepts of rationalism/rationality in realist theory.
TL;DR: Theology is a neglected resource in international relations scholarship; it is, more often than not, characterised as a threat to political order because it is seen as a cradle of fanaticism and irrationality as discussed by the authors .
Abstract: Theology is a neglected resource in international relations scholarship; it is, more often than not, characterised as a threat to political order because it is seen as a cradle of fanaticism and irrationality. Postsecular scholarship challenges this view by exploring the persistence of theological ideas and religious belief in political discourse and practice. Political Theology of International Order is my own contribution to this type of scholarship. This article engages responses from five distinguished scholars. It considers the implications of taking theology seriously when theorising international order; the veracity of narratives that frame the study of international relations; and new directions and possibilities that arise out of the book.
TL;DR: A brief introduction to the roundtable on William Bain, Political Theology of International Order is given in this paper , with a discussion of the issues raised by the round table participants.
Abstract: A brief introduction to the roundtable on William Bain, Political Theology of International Order.
TL;DR: Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics as mentioned in this paper , a contribution to decolonial scholarship in international political theory, focuses specifically on the question of how to build a pluriversal ethics.
Abstract: The decolonial concept of the pluriverse challenges the idea of a single world with different paradigms, and instead points to a matrix of multiple distinct yet connected worlds. In so doing, the pluriverse highlights radical ontological and epistemological difference and the implications of such difference for politics. Care and the Pluriverse: Rethinking Global Ethics, my own contribution to decolonial scholarship in international political theory, focuses specifically on the question of how to build a pluriversal ethics. This article engages with Kimberly Hutchings, Fiona Robinson, and Vivienne Jabri’s commentaries on the book, and ultimately argues that vulnerability can serve as a generative meta-ethical orientation for building the pluriverse with care.
TL;DR: The authors argue that interpretivism not only offers a better account of situated agency, but also provides the English School with one way to move beyond the description and classification of institutions in international society towards better explanations of international relations.
Abstract: This article responds to Charlotta Friedner Parrat’s critique of our argument that the English School of international relations should embrace a more thoroughgoing interpretivism. We address four of Friedner Parrat’s objections to our argument: that our distinction between structuralism and interpretivism is too stark; that our understanding of the relationship between agency and structure is problematic; that our approach would confine the English School to the study of intellectual history; and that the English School should eschew explanation. We argue that if the School is to use structuralism, it must be clearer about how it understands structures and their relationships to agents. We argue too that interpretivism not only offers a better account of situated agency, but also that it provides the English School with one way to move beyond the description and classification of institutions in international society towards better explanations of international relations.
TL;DR: The authors supplement William Bain's Political Theology of International Order by sketching out two historical threads that are inseparable from the histories of European thought and order that occupy the book, which have important implications for the place of political theological difference and for the status of colonialism, hierarchy, and resistance.
Abstract: This review supplements William Bain’s Political Theology of International Order by sketching out two historical threads that are inseparable from the histories of European thought and order that occupy the book. There are gestures toward both strands along the margins of Bain’s account, in a few observations and footnotes. They also have important implications for the place of political theological difference in this story and for the status of colonialism, hierarchy, and resistance. First, I expand on some of the book’s references to non-Christians and discuss the place of Islamic theology. Second, reflecting on Luther in relation to Muslim empires and adapting Bain’s acknowledgment of Grotius’s justifications for colonialism, I highlight the significance of hierarchy, enmity, and violence for a number of the thinkers mentioned, especially what their political theologies authorize in relation to non-Christians. These two sets of observations can help us imagine a complementary story less about international order than about the politics of proselytization and colonization. It also raises questions about the work that political theology as an analytic can do, especially when we globalize political theory and international political thought. I conclude by pondering the place of resistance in relation to imposed order and immanent order.
TL;DR: The importance of nominalism in structuring our present is explored in this article , where the authors discuss the key conceptual underpinnings of our contemporary discussions about order, but they underplay the importance of the nominalism.
Abstract: William Bain’s book does a brilliant job excavating some key conceptual underpinnings of our contemporary discussions about order, but he has perhaps underplayed the importance of nominalism in structuring our present.
TL;DR: In this paper , a typology of intended and unintended effects of international norms is developed, which includes prohibitive and obligative effects, as well as two corresponding types of unintended effects, namely permissive and omissive effects.
Abstract: The constructivist research programme on international norms has demonstrated convincingly that, how, and why norms matter. Norms have been shown to constitute the identity of actors, to guide their behaviour into desired directions, and, altogether, to generate the normative basis of the international system. In the course of this intensive debate, its main concepts, such as the question of what constitutes a norm or different norm types, became fuzzy. Also, while the focus on the intended effects of norms certainly encompasses an essential part of the phenomenon, their unintended effects have been largely neglected. Motivated by these shortcomings, the article presents a new systematisation of effects of norms. The typology developed here discerns two types of intended effects, namely prohibitive and obligative effects, as well as two corresponding types of unintended effects, namely permissive and omissive effects.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors understand the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as an example of Carl Schmitt's theorizations, especially in relation to the concept of Great Space.
Abstract: The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) embodies Russia’s latest attempt to restore interconnections among former Soviet countries through economic means rather than military might. The literature on the EAEU views the initiative as a geopolitical tool, a post-imperial escamotage, a platform to enhance reforms, or a counterhegemonic strategy. This article wishes to understand the EAEU as an example of Carl Schmitt’s theorizations, especially in relation to the concept of Great Space. The EAEU resembles the Schmittian Great Space in four main respects: the existence of a regional hegemon with spheres of interest beyond its fixed borders, the expression of an “imperial” community of cultural and historical affinity, the overcome of the rigid Westphalian state model expressed by the jus publicum Europeaum in favor of a large space, and the manifestation of the nomos of the Earth, that is a telluric civilization within the Schmittian contraposition between Land and Sea. The application of the Schmittian Great Space paradigm to the EAEU—in tandem with the proliferation of other regional integration initiatives and organizations—confirms the ongoing global shift from rigid Westphalian nation-states to highly integrated political-economic blocs based on civilizational identity in the frame of a multipolar world.
TL;DR: Bain this article argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, but still stands as a landmark in the marginalization of religion as an influential force in politics.
Abstract: William Bain sustains his audacious claim to write a landmark in international relations thought. His view that the medieval theological debate between imposed order and immanent order structures contemporary thought about international order is largely compelling, especially in light of his demonstration that certain thinkers such as Hobbes and Grotius served as transmission belts, carrying this debate into modernity. He also persuasively shows that imposed order, or nominalism, dominates today’s schools of international relations thought, while immanent order only whispers its dissent. I raise two questions in critical conversation. First, while Bain argues persuasively that political theology persists after Westphalia, which he seeks to debunk as a milestone in secularization, nevertheless Westphalia stands as a milestone in the marginalization of religion (though not political theology) as an influential force in politics. Second, while Bain demurs from choosing between imposed and immanent order on normative grounds, his claim that the choice is a matter of faith appears to be a choice for imposed order. Clarifying this normative question is an apposite task for this important author’s next book.
TL;DR: In this paper , the authors employ a context-oriented interpretation of Kant's right to hospitality to highlight the non-state people's claims to political membership and territory and suggest that in Kant, while the nonstate people are not in a civil condition, they can nevertheless recognize their provisional claims to the territory, which are forceful enough to exclude outsiders.
Abstract: The global justice debates frame the right to political membership and territorial rights by focusing on stateless individuals/refugees as claimants of the former and sovereign states as the claimants of the latter. Kant’s Right to Hospitality is often employed to reinforce this mode of framing rights. However, this mode of framing rights can lead to possible neglect of a people as an equally important right claimant. I employ a context-oriented interpretation of Kant’s right to Hospitality to highlight the non-state people’s claims to political membership and territory. I suggest that in Kant, while the non-state people are not in a civil condition, we can nevertheless recognize their provisional claims to the territory, which are forceful enough to exclude outsiders. Furthermore, the non-state people cannot be forced into a political membership with us or each other because we do not know the nature of obligations they may have towards each other. Recognizing these limits of our understanding can encourage philosophically thought-out modes of reframing indigenous people’s claims in our theoretical debates. In practice, it can promote an insightful attitude in negotiating their terms of political membership and land claims against the sovereign states.
TL;DR: Some of the themes found in William Bain's book, Political Theolog of International Order, were prefigured in his chapter on Hedley Bull's The Anarchical Society as discussed by the authors .
Abstract: Some of the themes found in William Bain’s book, Political Theolog of International Order, were prefigured in his chapter on Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society. This article looks back to that earlier chapter and draws on some of the themes while providing a critical reading of them and Bain’s larger project.