The Regional Embeddedness of Intertwined Actors

Abstract

The choice of ontology is at its very core political, and is so in many regards. As Colin Wight points out, ‘the [IR] discipline is dominated by discussions on ontological differences’ (2006, 2). For critical realists in particular, what there is or is not in fact frames how they understand the world. With regard to Jackson and others (Edkins 1999; Jackson 2010), I have earlier shown that this perspective only represents one side of the story. It only refers to the dominance of scientific ontology and undermines the importance of philosophical ontology — in other words, the researcher’s connection to the world. I have also shown that, according to post-foundational political thought, questions of ontology crucially dismiss the notion of an ultimate foundation (in contrast to critical realist approaches). Although this does not mean that foundations, grounds or simply ‘what there is’ are questioned as such, it does, however, challenge their exclusive ontological status.