Advertisement

Beyond geography and social structure: disciplinary sociologies of power in international relations

  • Kevin McMillan
Forum

Throughout their relatively brief history, studies examining the academic International Relations (IR) discipline have manifested an abiding concern with power and its uneven ‘distribution’. In this, of course, they mirror the object of their analysis. The same might also be said of the approach they typically use to study disciplinary power: as within IR theory itself, studies of the IR discipline have primarily identified and assessed power in geographical and territorial terms. There are two principal (and often overlapping) variants of this approach: the first, and most familiar, is national (state-centric); the second, increasingly popular, is imperial (world-systemic).

Since the seminal work of Stanley Hoffmann (1977), for example, it has been a truism of IR disciplinary studies that their object is a distinctly ‘American social science’. Though this brisk caption might be understood in various ways, it has been generally held to imply that the global discipline is dominated by...

References

  1. Abbott, Kenneth W. and Duncan Snidal (2000) ‘Hard and Soft Law in International Governance’, International Organization 54 (3): 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, Emanuel (2008) ‘The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO's Post-Cold-War Transformation’, European Journal of International Relations 14 (2): 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agnew, John (2007) ‘Know-Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics’, International Political Sociology 1 (2): 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aydinli, Ersel and Julie Mathews (2000) ‘Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives 1 (3): 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aydinli, Ersel and Julie Mathews (2008) ‘Periphery Theorising for a Truly Internationalised Discipline: Spinning IR Theory out of Anatolia’, Review of International Studies 34 (4): 693–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2001) ‘Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change’, International Organization 55 (3): 553–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friedrichs, Jörg (2004) European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Hellmann, Gunther (2009) ‘Fatal Attraction? German Foreign Policy and IR/Foreign Policy Theory’, Journal of International Relations and Development 12 (3): 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hoffmann, Stanley (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106 (3): 41–60.Google Scholar
  10. Holsti, Kalevi J. (1985) The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Winchester: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Hopf, Ted (2010) ‘The Logic of Habit in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 16 (4): 539–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jordan, Richard, Maliniak Daniel, Oakes Amy, Peterson Susan and Michael J. Tierney (2009) One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries, Williamsburg: Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations, College of William and Mary.Google Scholar
  13. Jørgensen, Knud Erik and Tonny Brems Knudsen, eds (2006) International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations, Milton Park and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Leander, Anna (2008) ‘Thinking Tools: Analysing Symbolic Power and Violence’, in Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash, eds, Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, 11–28, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moravcsik, Andrew (2003) ‘Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real Not Metaphysical’, International Studies Review 5 (1): 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pouliot, Vincent (2008) ‘The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities’, International Organization 62 (2): 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pouliot, Vincent (2010) International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Puchala, Donald (1997) ‘Some Non-Western Perspectives on International Relations’, Journal of Peace Research 34 (2): 129–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith Steve (2000) ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2 (3): 374–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, Steve (2002) ‘The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: “Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline”’, International Studies Review 4 (1): 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tickner, Arlene B. and Ole Wæver, eds (2009) International Relations Scholarship Around the World, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Wæver, Ole (2007a) ‘Still a Discipline after All These Debates?’, in Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds, International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 288–308, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wæver, Ole (2007b) ‘The Social and Intellectual Structure of the IR Discipline’, Paper presented at the 48th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association; 28 February–3 March, Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin McMillan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Political Studies, University of OttawaOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations