The Play of International Practice
01 Sep 2015-International Studies Quarterly (Wiley/ Oxford University Press (OUP))-Vol. 59, Iss: 3, pp 449-460
TL;DR: The core claims of the practice turn in International Relations (IR) remain ambiguous as discussed by the authors, and it is worth noting that practice approaches entail a distinctive view on the drivers of social relations, arguing against individualistic-interest and norm-based actor models.
Abstract: 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.
Citations
More filters
29 Apr 2020
255 citations
Additional excerpts
...146 Bueger & Gadinger 2015....
[...]
...325 Adler & Pouliott, 2011; Bueger & Gadinger 2015....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors argue that practice theory and relationalism represent the New Constructivism in International Relations (IR) and argue that a practice-relational turn became necessary because the meaning of constructivism narrowed over time, becoming tied to a specific scientific ontology focusing on the role of identity, norms, and culture in world politics.
Abstract: In this theory note, I address two new approaches in international relations theory gaining adherents and producing insightful applications: practice theory and relationalism. Practice theory draws attention to everyday logics in world politics. It stresses how international actors are driven less by abstract notions of the national interest, identities, or preferences than by context-dependent practical imperatives. Relationalism rejects the idea that entities—like states and international organizations—are the basic units of world politics. It replaces them with a focus on ongoing processes. Noting similarities in their arguments to those advanced by early constructivists, I argue that, taken together, practice theory and relationalism represent the New Constructivism in International Relations (IR). A practice–relational turn became necessary because the meaning of constructivism narrowed over time, becoming tied to a specific scientific ontology focusing on the role of identity, norms, and culture in world politics. This ontology unduly narrowed constructivism’s theoretical lenses, which practice theory and relationalism productively reopen.
166 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the multiple synergies between international practice theory and diplomatic studies and suggest 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.
Abstract: 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...
156 citations
Cites background from "The Play of International Practice"
...Others, however, warn against ‘the risk of falling back into a trivial, simplistic understanding of practice as synonymous to political action or “what practitioners do”’ (Bueger and Gadinger, 2015: 3)....
[...]
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: The authors examines power in its different dimensions in global governance and proposes a taxonomy that alerts scholars to the different kinds of power that are present in world politics and demonstrates how these different forms connect and intersect in global Governance in a range of different issue areas.
Abstract: This edited volume examines power in its different dimensions in global governance. Scholars tend to underestimate the importance of power in international relations because of a failure to see its multiple forms. To expand the conceptual aperture, this book presents and employs a taxonomy that alerts scholars to the different kinds of power that are present in world politics. A team of international scholars demonstrates how these different forms connect and intersect in global governance in a range of different issue areas. Bringing together a variety of theoretical perspectives, this volume invites scholars to reconsider their conceptualization of power inworld politics and how such amove can enliven and enrich their understanding of global governance.
155 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that attention to three issues, namely affect, space and time, holds promise to further develop micropolitical perspectives on and in International Relations, particularly on issues of power, identity and change.
Abstract: This article posits empirical and political reasons for recent ‘micro-moves’ in several contemporary debates, and seeks to further develop them in future International Relations studies. As evidenced by growing trends in studies of practices, emotions and the everyday, there is continuing broad dissatisfaction with grand or structural theory’s value without ‘going down’ to ‘lower levels’ of analysis where structures are enacted and contested. We suggest that empirics of the last 15 years — including the war on terror and the Arab Spring — have pushed scholars into increasingly micropolitical positions and analytical frameworks. Drawing upon insights from Gilles Deleuze, William Connolly and Henri Lefebvre, among others, we argue that attention to three issues — affect, space and time — hold promise to further develop micropolitical perspectives on and in International Relations, particularly on issues of power, identity and change. The article offers empirical illustrations of the analytical purchase of t...
132 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The methodological implications of the practice turn are discussed in this paper, where it is argued that the practice focus does not only imply a certain "theory" but also a certain methodology.
Abstract: Political scientists have started to focus on ‘practice’ as the smallest unit of analysis. Following a broader turn in the social sciences, the practice focus provides multiple advantages, including better conceptualizations of short-term social change, getting closer to the everyday activities of those speaking, writing and doing politics, appropriate conceptualization of agency-structure dynamics, or forms of analysis resonating with other communities than scholarly ones. This contribution asks what the methodological implications of the practice turn are. It is argued that the practice focus does not only imply a certain ‘theory’ but also a certain methodology. I advance the term praxiography to speak about the forms of analysis produced by practice researchers. I discuss key guidelines of praxiographic research on two levels: first, general research strategies that provide empirical access points, second, guidelines for data collection in the frame of participant observation, expert interviews, and document analysis. I conclude in arguing that although praxiography is context driven, and hence requires to be tailored to the research problem, it is vital to reflect on the methodological repertoire of praxiographic research.
172 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the full significance of PMCs for international security is often missed because the concept of power framing these discussions is inadequate, and that the power to shape shared understandings of security is particularly neglected.
Abstract: This article suggests that the full significance of PMCs for international security is often missed because the concept of power framing these discussions is inadequate. The power to shape shared understandings of security is particularly neglected. The article argues that the emergence of PMCs has shifted the location of this power from the public/state to the private/market and, even more significantly, from the civil to the military sphere. The article reaches this conclusion in three steps. First, it suggests that PMCs have considerable power to shape the security agenda (Bacharach and Baratz). Second, it suggests that PMCs shape security understandings of key actors and hence their interests and preferences (Lukes's third dimension). These two facets highlight what I term the PMCs' epistemic power, located at the level of agency. Third, the article suggests that the action of PMCs have affected the field of security expertise, empowering a more military understanding of security which, in turn, empow...
160 citations
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: The authors examines power in its different dimensions in global governance and proposes a taxonomy that alerts scholars to the different kinds of power that are present in world politics and demonstrates how these different forms connect and intersect in global Governance in a range of different issue areas.
Abstract: This edited volume examines power in its different dimensions in global governance. Scholars tend to underestimate the importance of power in international relations because of a failure to see its multiple forms. To expand the conceptual aperture, this book presents and employs a taxonomy that alerts scholars to the different kinds of power that are present in world politics. A team of international scholars demonstrates how these different forms connect and intersect in global governance in a range of different issue areas. Bringing together a variety of theoretical perspectives, this volume invites scholars to reconsider their conceptualization of power inworld politics and how such amove can enliven and enrich their understanding of global governance.
155 citations
TL;DR: Adler and Nissen as discussed by the authors presented a series of essays on Bourdieu's concepts and their application in the context of international relations, focusing on the relationship between gender, power, and culture.
Abstract: Series Editor's Introduction Iver B. Neumann, NUPI Preface Emanuel Adler, University of Toronto Introduction Rebecca Adler-Nissen, University of Copenhagen 1. Bourdieu's concepts Vincent Pouliot, McGill University and Frederic Merand, University of Montreal 2. Methodology Vincent Pouliot, McGill University 3. Knowledges Trine Villumsen, University of Copenhagen 4. Power Stefano Guzzini, Danish Institute for International Affairs 5. Strategy Frederic Merand and Amelie Forget, University of Montreal 6. Security Didier Bigo, King's College London/Sciences Po Paris 7. Culture Michael C. Williams, University of Ottawa 8. Gender Vivienne Jabri, King's College London 9. Norms Charlotte Epstein, University of Sydney 10. Sovereignty Rebecca Adler-Nissen, University of Copenhagen 11. Integration Niilo Kauppi, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Strasbourg 12. Citizenship Virginie Guiraudon, Center for European Studies, Sciences Po, Paris
141 citations
TL;DR: The discourse of politics in action: politics as usual by Wodak et al. as mentioned in this paper aims to make the invisibility of the back stage visible to the public through critical discourse analysis (CDA) by dealing with socio-political injustice which is created, disseminated and legitimised through discourse.
Abstract: Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is the framework most widely used to carry out research on political discourse by dealing with the socio-political injustice which is created, disseminated and legitimised through discourse (Hodge & Kress, 1993; Wodak & Meyer, 2002; Fairclough, 1989). However, this injustice does not usually appear on the surface; that is, it is commonplace that, when one discriminates or commits an injustice or when one tries to exploit from inequality, or indoctrinate, the intention, triggered by a certain ideology, is seldom exercised visibly. One of the main tenets of CDA is to make the invisible visible. While the issue of invisibility is not limited to politics, this field is widely ill-famed for doing that. In the meantime, people from different walks of life are curious to know what is going on behind the curtain, in what is being referred to as ‘politics’. In the book The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual, Wodak, working within the framework of CDA, helps to make the invisibility of the back stage visible to the public. It is, as expected, a rigorous undertaking. To do this, Wodak has taken an adventurous journey from the front stage of the political world into the wonderland of the back stage to which a large audience, despite their eagerness, do not have access. Having grown up in a family in which politics was the main topic of discussion and having internalised the dangers that politics can pose, Wodak is able to decode the scenery of this enigmatic context. According to the metaphor, wonderland, just as the line between the fiction and reality in the book Alice in the wonderland is mostly blurred, the reader usually finds it difficult, if not impossible, to draw a clear-cut distinction between the fictitious aspect, the front stage, and the true life, or the back stage, of politicians, mainly because MEPs (Member of the European Parliament) constantly oscillate between the front stage and the back stage. Hence, the writer, by explaining the context of situation and by analysing the interviews conducted with the MEPs, hopes to contribute to making politics more transparent. The book contains six chapters, in addition to the Appendix section. The first chapter, ‘Doing Politics’, is further divided into five main parts. Wodak first provides the reader with the definition of certain terms employed in the book, such as habitus, communities of practice, front stage and back stage. Using examples from the field of politics, the writer gives a vivid description of the theoretical approaches and concepts used in the book. In this chapter, in fact, the ‘thematic relevance’ (a term introduced by Schutz & Luckmann, 1973) of studying ‘politics as usual’ is elaborated . That is, the book intends to find the nature of the problem by scrutinising discursive strategies as well as the linguistic structures that politicians employ, as the strategies and structures they use can be the best means to delve into their true personalities. The book repeatedly emphasises the dependency of politics and ‘doing politics’ on the context of situation. Hence, in chapter two, she – through the application of a DiscourseHistorical approach to CDA – endeavours to analyse political texts (mostly verbal) in their historical, socio-political and organisational contexts. Here, the writer employs the interpretational relevance, introduced by Schutz and Luckmann, to see how the analysis can contribute to the interpretation of the problem introduced in chapter one. In this chapter, the writer continues elaborating on the issue of knowledge and its impact on power: how knowledge
130 citations