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: In this article, the authors introduce the concepts of epistemic infrastructures, epistemic practice, and laboratories and demonstrate how they facilitate interesting insights on knowledge generation in international relations.
Abstract: How are international phenomena rendered knowable? By which means and practical devices is international knowledge generated? In this article, I draw on the case of contemporary maritime piracy to introduce a research framework that allows these questions to be addressed. Arguing that the practices of international knowledge generation are poorly understood, I show how concepts from science and technology studies provide the tools to study these practices empirically. Relying on the practice theory of Karin Knorr Cetina, I introduce the concepts of epistemic infrastructures, epistemic practice, and laboratories and demonstrate how they facilitate interesting insights on knowledge generation. I investigate three “archetypes” of epistemic practices in detail and show how these generate knowledge about piracy for the United Nations. The three archetypes are the quantification practices of the International Maritime Organization, the interpretation work of a monitoring group and the network of a special adviser. The article introduces an innovative agenda for studying knowledge generation in international relations by focusing on the practical epistemic infrastructures, which maintain knowledge about international phenomena.
106 citations
02 Aug 2004
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the problem of social history and the role of self-and agency in history, theorizing practice, and the experience and practice of history.
Abstract: Introduction: Practicing History, Theorizing Practice Part 1: Discourse and the Problem of Social History Part 2: Self and Agency Part 3: Experience and Practice
104 citations
TL;DR: The authors survey the literature on elite decision-making and look at six areas where the insights of cognitive psychology and behavioral economics are particularly relevant for political behavior and where evidence suggests that experienced elites differ from convenience samples.
Abstract: Growing experimental evidence in cognitive psychology and behavioral economics is shaping the way political science scholars think about how humans make decision in areas of high complexity, uncertainty and risk. Nearly all those studies utilize convenience samples of university students, but insights from that work may not be directly applicable to decisions that are made by political elites. We survey the nascent empirical literature on elite decision-making and look at six areas where the insights of cognitive psychology and behavioral economics are particularly relevant for political behavior and where evidence suggests that experienced elites differ from convenience samples. These differences suggest testable implications for theories of political decision making, which we illustrate in one major area of political science theory — crisis bargaining.
99 citations
TL;DR: The use of culture as an explanatory methodology in the study of international history has been criticised by as mentioned in this paper, who argue that it suffers from a lack of analytical rigour in both defining what culture is and understanding how it shapes individual and collective policy decisions.
Abstract: The rise of the ‘cultural turn’ has breathed new life into the practice of international history over the past few decades. Cultural approaches have both broadened and deepened interpretations of the history of international relations. This article focuses on the use of culture as an explanatory methodology in the study of international history. It outlines the two central criticisms often made of this approach. The first is that it suffers from a lack of analytical rigour in both defining what culture is and understanding how it shapes individual and collective policy decisions. The second is that it too often leads to a tendency to exaggerate the importance of the cultural predispositions of individual or collective actors at the expense of the wider structures within which policy-making takes place. The article provides a brief outlined of the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu – which focuses on the interaction between cultural orientations of social actors and the structural environment that conditions their strategies and decisions. It then argues that Bourdieu’s conceptual framework can provide the basis for a more systematic approach to understanding the cultural roots of policy making and that international historians would benefit from engagement with his approach.
96 citations