International Relations in Europe: Traditions, Perspectives and Destinations (Routledge Advances in International Relations and Global Politics)

International Relations in Europe

This book critically examines the discipline of International Relations in Europe. It presents the state of the art, focusing particularly on International Relations theory and theoretical debates in Western and Central European countries. The authors seek to strengthen knowledge about different ways of cultivating the discipline; to intensify pan-European communication concerning IR theory; to contribute to improving the quality of theorizing; and finally to consider future directions for the discipline in Europe. The main issues addressed include: • • • • • •

The historical development of the discipline Factors driving IR theorizing The institutional and cultural context of theorizing ‘Home-grown’ theory-building vs. theory import Patterns of traditional and new discourse The diversity of disciplinary traditions

This will be a key volume for everyone interested in International Relations and IR theory, particularly those with an interest in Europe. Knud Erik Jørgensen is Jean Monnet Professor of European Politics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. Tonny Brems Knudsen is Associate Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus, Denmark.

Routledge advances in international relations and global politics

1 Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis France, Britain and Europe Henrik Larsen 2 Agency, Structure and International Politics From ontology to empirical enquiry Gil Friedman and Harvey Starr 3 The Political Economy of Regional Co-operation in the Middle East Ali Carkoglu, Mine Eder and Kemal Kirisci 4 Peace Maintenance The evolution of international political authority Jarat Chopra 5 International Relations and Historical Sociology Breaking down boundaries Stephen Hobden 6 Equivalence in Comparative Politics Edited by Jan W. van Deth 7 The Politics of Central Banks Robert Elgie and Helen Thompson

8 Politics and Globalisation Knowledge, ethics and agency Martin Shaw 9 History and International Relations Thomas W. Smith 10 Idealism and Realism in International Relations Robert M.A. Crawford 11 National and International Conflicts, 1945–1995 New empirical and theoretical approaches Frank Pfetsch and Christoph Rohloff 12 Party Systems and Voter Alignments Revisited Edited by Lauri Karvonen and Stein Kuhnle 13 Ethics, Justice and International Relations Constructing an international community Peter Sutch 14 Capturing Globalization Edited by James H. Mittelman and Norani Othman

15 Uncertain Europe Building a new European security order? Edited by Martin A. Smith and Graham Timmins 16 Power, Postcolonialism and International Relations Reading race, gender and class Edited by Geeta Chowdhry and Sheila Nair 17 Constituting Human Rights Global civil society and the society of democratic states Mervyn Frost 18 US Economic Statecraft for Survival 1933–1991 Of sanctions, embargoes and economic warfare Alan P. Dobson 19 The EU and NATO Enlargement Richard McAllister and Roland Dannreuther 20 Spatializing International Politics Analysing activism on the internet Jayne Rodgers 21 Ethnonationalism in the Contemporary World Walker Connor and the study of Nationalism Edited by Daniele Conversi 22 Meaning and International Relations Edited by Peter Mandaville and Andrew Williams

23 Political Loyalty and the NationState Edited by Michael Waller and Andrew Linklater 24 Russian Foreign Policy and the CIS Theories, debates and actions Nicole J. Jackson 25 Asia and Europe Development and different dimensions of ASEM Yeo Lay Hwee 26 Global Instability and Strategic Crisis Neville Brown 27 Africa in International Politics External involvement on the Continent Edited by Ian Taylor and Paul Williams 28 Global Governmentality Governing international spaces Edited by Wendy Larner and William Walters 29 Political Learning and Citizenship Education Under Conflict The political socialization of Israeli and Palestinian youngsters Orit Ichilov 30 Gender and Civil Society Transcending boundaries Edited by Jude Howell and Diane Mulligan

31 State Crises, Globalisation and National Movements in NorthEast Africa The horn’s dilemma Edited by Asafa Jalata 32 Diplomacy and Developing Nations Post-Cold War foreign policymaking structures and processes Edited by Justin Robertson and Maurice A. East 33 Autonomy, Self-governance and Conflict Resolution Innovative approaches to institutional design in divided societies Edited by Marc Weller and Stefan Wolff 34 Mediating International Crises Jonathan Wilkenfeld, Kathleen J. Young, David M. Quinn and Victor Asal 35 Postcolonial Politics, The Internet and Everyday Life: Pacific Traversals Online M.I. Franklin 36 Reconstituting the Global Liberal Order Legitimacy and regulation Kanishka Jayasuriya 37 International Relations, Security and Jeremy Bentham Gunhild Hoogensen

38 Interregionalism and International Relations Edited by Heiner Hänggi, Ralf Roloff and Jürgen Rüland 39 The International Criminal Court A global civil society achievement Marlies Glasius 40 A Human Security Doctrine for Europe Project, principles, practicalities Edited by Marlies Glasius and Mary Kaldor 41 The History and Politics of UN Security Council Reform Dimitris Bourantonis 42 Russia and NATO Since 1991 From cold war through cold peace to partnership? Martin A. Smith 43 The Politics of Protection Sites of insecurity and political agency Edited by Jef Huysmans, Andrew Dobson and Raia Prokhovnik 44 International Relations in Europe Traditions, perspectives and destinations Edited by Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen

International Relations in Europe Traditions, perspectives and destinations

Edited by Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen

First published 2006 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2006 Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen for selection and editorial matter; individual contributors, their contributions This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.” All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN10: 0-415-35983-X (hbk) ISBN10: 0-203-08814-X (ebk) ISBN13: 978-0-415-35983-2 (hbk) ISBN13: 978-0-203-08814-2 (ebk)

Contents

List of illustrations Notes on contributors Preface Introduction

ix x xiv 1

KNUD ERIK JØRGENSEN AND TONNY BREMS KNUDSEN

PART I

Countries and regions

17

1

19

France and other French-speaking countries (1945–1994) KLAUS-GERD GIESEN

2

Italy

47

SONIA LUCARELLI AND ROBERTO MENOTTI

3

Germany

72

CHRISTOPH HUMRICH

4

Spain

100

CATERINA GARCÍA SEGURA

5

The Nordic countries

125

JÖRG FRIEDRICHS

6

United Kingdom

149

KNUD ERIK JØRGENSEN AND TONNY BREMS KNUDSEN

7

The Czech Republic PETR DRULÁK AND RADKA DRULÁKOVÁ

172

viii Contents PART II

Cross-cutting perspectives 8

Blank, blind or blinded? Cultural investigations in International Relations

197

199

MORTEN VALBJØRN

9

Approaches to IR: the relationship between Anglo-Saxon historiography and cross-community comparison

225

GERARD HOLDEN

Epilogue

253

BRIAN C. SCHMIDT

Index

270

Illustrations

Figure 5.1

Outlets for the scholarly production of Nordic IR scholars

127

Tables 2.1 2.2 7.1 7.2 7.3

Theoretical and non-theoretical IR articles in major Italian journals, 1998–2000 Articles published by Italians in international journals during the period 1990–2000 Domestic articles in the InR, 1992–2002 Articles from abroad in the InR, 1992–2002 Authors of articles published in the InR and in the InP, 1992–2002

52 56 185 186 192

Contributors

Petr Drulák is Director of the Institute of International Studies, Prague. He has written a Ph.D. thesis on interpretations of the Cold War origins. He is former editor of Mezinárodní vztahy, a Czech quarterly on International Relations, and the review editor of Journal of International Relations and Development. In the Journal of European Public Policy, Journal of International Relations and Development, European Political Science (among others), he has published on International Relations theory, European integration and IR communities in Central and Eastern Europe. Radka Druláková is a Lecturer at the University of Economics, Prague. She has written a Ph.D. thesis on the application of the principle of subsidiarity in the European Union. Her research focuses on justice and home affairs in the European Union. She has published on European integration and on the Czech IR community (Journal of International Relations and Development). Jörg Friedrichs is Research Associate at the International University Bremen. He has written a Ph.D. thesis on European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions (London: Routledge, 2004). The book contains, among other topics, a comparison of knowledge production in the French, Italian and Scandinavian IR communities. He is currently working in a research project on the internationalization of the state monopoly of force. He has previously written a book on political rhetorics in the historiographical work of Thucydides (Würzburg, 2000). Contributions by him have appeared in the European Journal of International Relations, Journal of International Relations and Development and in the Leiden Journal of International Law. Caterina García Segura holds a Ph.D. in political science. She is a Senior Lecturer of International Relations at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona, Spain) and vice-Dean of the Political Science School. Fields of research interest include Theory of International Relations and International Political Economy. She is the author of a book about the

Contributors

xi

external relations of Catalonia and several book chapters and articles about the role of non-state actors in international relations, globalization processes and its consequences, the integration process in South East Asia and so on. Klaus-Gerd Giesen is Professor of Political Science (leave in absence) at the University of Leipzig, Germany, and Associate Professor at the Université d’Auvergne, France. He has previously edited Ideologien in der Weltpolitik (2004), Humanwissenschaften unter Diktatur und Demokratisierung in Brasilien (with Marcos Nobre/Ricardo Terra, 1998), L’éthique de l’espace politique mondial (1997), and has published L’éthique des relations internationales (1992) and L’Europe des surrégénérateurs (1989), as well as numerous articles and book chapters. His contribution in this volume was published in 1995 in the Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen. Gerard Holden completed his doctorate in International Relations at the London School of Economics, and has worked at the universities of Sussex and Frankfurt. His earlier work focused on East–West relations and Soviet foreign policy, and his recent publications have dealt with the intellectual history of IR and the discipline’s literary turn. He is currently working on a study of sport, post-colonialism and international relations. Christoph Humrich is researcher at the University of Bremen’s Institute for Intercultural and International Studies (InIIS, Germany). His research interests include theoretical debates in International Relations, legitimacy and ethics of international governance, theory and analysis of international negotiation systems, and global environmental governance. Before joining the InIIS he was a collaborator in a project within the Research Group ‘Institutionalization of International Negotiation Systems’ at the Mannheim Centre for European Social Research. His Ph.D. thesis focuses on the normative quality and evolution of global environmental order. Knud Erik Jørgensen is Jean Monnet Professor in European Politics (Ph.D.) in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus. He has been the editor of Cooperation and Conflict. He has previously edited (with Karin Fierke) Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2001); (with Thomas Christiansen and Antje Wiener), The Social Construction of Europe (London: Sage, 2001); European Approaches to Crisis Management (The Hague: Kluwer International, 1997); Reflective Approaches to European Governance (Basingstoke: Macmillan 1997). He has written numerous journal articles and book chapters. Currently he is preparing a handbook on EU politics and a new textbook on IR theory.

xii Contributors Tonny Brems Knudsen is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus. He has published a number of articles on IR-theory, international organization, humanitarian intervention and conflict resolution. He is the author of Humanitarian Intervention and International Society: Contemporary Manifestations of an Explosive Doctrine (forthcoming, Routledge) and (with Carsten B. Laustsen, eds) Kosovo Between War and Peace: Nationalism, Peacebuilding and International Trusteeship (Frank Cass, 2006). Sonia Lucarelli is Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of Bologna at Forlì. Her area of interest includes IR theory, European security and EU foreign policy. Recent publications include Europe and the Breakup of Yugoslavia: A Political Failure in Search of a Scholarly Explanation. (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000); La polis europea. L’Unione europea oltre l’euro (Trieste: Asterios, 2002); and with Roberto Menotti (eds) Studi internazionali: i luoghi del sapere in Italia (Rome: Edizioni Associate, 2002). She is also author of articles and book chapters on the areas of interest mentioned above. Roberto Menotti is a Research Fellow in the Policy Programs at Aspen Institute Italia, Rome, where he focuses on transatlantic relations and is editorial consultant for the Institute’s quarterly journal, Aspenia. Until July 2002, he was Deputy Director at the Centro Studi di Politica Internazionale (CeSPI). He has been a Lecturer at LUISS University and John Cabot University in Rome in international relations and security studies. He has published extensively on international relations and security issues, including a book on NATO enlargement (1999), and a chapter in Enlarging NATO: The National Debates, ed. Gale A. Mattox and A.R. Rachwald (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001), and articles in the Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, and the Journal of International Relations and Development (with Sonia Lucarelli), and Teoria Politica. He published a book on security in the twenty-first century in June 2003 (XXI secolo: fine della sicurezza?, Laterza). Brian C. Schmidt is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University. He is the author of The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A disciplinary History of International Relations (New York: SUNY Press, 1998) and co-editor (with David Long) of Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations (New York: SUNY Press, 2005). He has published articles on disciplinary history and International Relations theory in International Studies Quarterly, Review of International Studies, Millennium, and International Relations. Morten Valbjørn is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, working on the role of cultural diversity and otherness in International Relations, its implications for studying the Middle East and the IR/area studies nexus. He is review editor of

Contributors

xiii

the journal Cooperation & Conflict. He has published a number of articles and book chapters on Middle East comparative and international politics, and on disciplinary development in IR and Middle East Studies. He is the author most recently of ‘Toward a “Mesopotamian Turn”: Disciplinarity and the Study of the International Relations of the Middle East’, Journal of Mediterranean Studies (2004) and ‘Culture Blind and Culture Blinded: Images of Middle Eastern Conflicts in International Relations’ in Dietrich Jung (ed.), The Middle East and Palestine: Global Politics and Regional Conflicts (New York: Palgrave, 2004).

Preface

This book is about the discipline of International Relations (IR) in Europe. It describes how scholars in various parts of Europe have cultivated and developed our field of study. To most scholars these parts of Europe are more or less unknown. In our view, it is truly astonishing to observe the degree to which scholars are unaware of patterns of development, key debates and institutional differences beyond their own national or linguistic boundaries. The book is an invitation to explore these largely unknown worlds of IR and an invitation to reconsider the genealogy of the discipline. The coordinates of European IR are difficult to determine. On the one hand, we note that compared to the USA, the discipline is markedly less ‘disciplined’ in Europe. Previously, such a diagnosis would typically have been deplored. Yet we believe heterogeneity is here to stay and, actually, compared to the rest of the world, Europe is for better or worse pretty normal. Furthermore, we observe that mobility, communication and mutual interest (and research funding) is limited. On the other hand, we witness several countermeasures, such as an improved publication infrastructure, the pan-European conferences and an increasingly dense professional network. In a broader perspective, the official European Union objective of creating a European research area may eventually be turned into reality as regards our field of study. In any case, there is an emerging European transnational IR community, consisting of scholars having national, European and international horizons. While there is a need for consolidating this community, perhaps the time has also come to consider how a truly international discipline could be further developed. This book is intended to be part of the ongoing exploration of the state of the art in various parts of the world. Within a short span of time, we have seen the publication of Brian Schmidt’s The Discourse of Anarchy (1998), Robert M.A. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis’ (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science (2001) and Jörg Friedrichs’ European Approaches to International Relations (2004). In parallel to these endeavours, there has been an avalanche of journal articles. At last there is now a critical mass of material for creating advanced courses on the discipline.

Preface xv We hope this book will be helpful when new courses on disciplinary diversity are designed and when new introductory textbooks are considered. Furthermore, we hope the book will contribute to strengthen communication among IR communities in Europe and beyond. Yet communication across boundaries is notoriously difficult and this book confirms the claim that ideas do not float freely. Habits of thinking, institutional inertia and language gaps constitute formidable obstacles. This project has been long underway, and a number of people and institutions have been crucial to turning the idea into reality. The University of Aarhus Research Foundation has funded the project, making it possible, among other things, to organize a workshop at the European University Institute in Florence. Some of the contributions have been discussed at the pan-European conferences organized by the European Corporation for Political Research (ECPR) Standing Group on International Relations. Other contributions were first presented at a workshop during the ECPR Joint Session of Workshops in Copenhagen. Still other contributions were first presented at the ISA conference in Portland (Oregon). An ECPR research session in 1998 at the University of Aarhus’ conference centre, the Sandbjerg Manor, gave a major injection of inspiration to the project. We are most thankful to John Groom, Wolf-Dieter Eberwein and Ivan Tyulin for their advice and encouragement. We gratefully acknowledge Routledge’s permission to reprint a chapter from Jörg Friedrichs ‘European Approaches to International Relations’ (2004), the Journal of International Relations and Development for permission to reprint a slightly shortened version of Sonia Lucarelli and Roberto Menotti’s article and the Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) for permission to publish a translation of Klaus-Gerd Giesen’s article ‘French Cancan’. We are most grateful to the Routledge team, Heidi Bagtözi, Grace McInnes and Harriet Brinton, for generous support and encouragement as well as commissioning external reviews of the project. Eva Dyrberg Pedersen and Ulla Veronica Willner put together the index and generally assisted in the preparation of the manuscript. We also thank our secretary, Anne-Grethe Gammelgaard, for preparing the final version of the manuscript. Finally, we are most grateful to our contributors. Their patience has been outstanding: may the long maturation time result in a long shelf life for the volume. Knud Erik Jørgensen Tonny Brems Knudsen Aarhus, June 2005

Introduction Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen

It is a sad but indisputable fact that studies of International Relations (IR) in Europe are rare. In this regard, it is revealing that previous books on the topic are from 1939, 1976 and 1989 respectively. The 1939 volume is the proceedings of a League of Nations sponsored conference in Prague (Zimmern 1939). The Prague meeting was special in the sense that it was the very first international conference aiming at defining the new field of study, International Relations (Amstrup 1989). The 1976 volume, which was sponsored by the Ford Foundation (1976), is a report on European IR entitled International Relations Studies in Six European Countries. The 1989 volume was first published as a special issue of the journal Millennium and subsequently published as an edited book, The Study of International Relations: the State of the Art (Dreyer and Margasarian 1989). In short, three volumes constitute the meagre outcome of the twentieth century. However, the fact that studies of IR in Europe are rare does not mean that there is no such thing as a discipline in Europe, or that there has been little self-reflection in this part of the world. As is often the case in Europe, national, regional and European traditions co-exist. Most wellestablished IR communities have a tradition of engaging in critical selfreflection. Such meta-studies are simply regarded as an essential part of any mature research practice and as a precondition for scientific progress and academic politics. Hence, scholars in the UK, Germany, Scandinavia, Russia, Italy, France and elsewhere have engaged in critical self-reflection. Unfortunately, these studies are, with the partial exception of the UK, little known outside the national or regional communities in which they have been published and debated. This is due not only to an inclination to publish and speak to one’s own IR community when it comes to issues of academic self-reflection, but also to the associated habit of publishing such contributions in the native language.1 One of the ambitions of this book is to change this state of affairs and thus provide for mutual awareness rather than mutual neglect in European IR and beyond. Not even the fiercest critics of the art of meta-study are in a position to claim that a few volumes and some articles are simply too much about disciplinary self-reflection. Indeed, this book argues that

2 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen we need more reflection. It critically reviews the state of the art, focusing in particular on IR theory and theoretical debates in different European countries and regions. The main purpose of the volume is to add to previous work by means of exploring the different ways in which the discipline has been cultivated in different places. Furthermore, the volume aims at strengthening pan-European communication concerning IR theory. Moreover, it is our hope that such communication will stimulate novel thorough theorizing. Finally, we want to open up discussions about desirable or likely future destinations for the discipline in Europe and beyond. Our prime method to reach the objectives is to engage in discourse about IR discourse, or what Barry Buzan (2001: 481) calls self-referential reflections (i.e. analyses and interpretations of the work of key figures within a tradition). The following definition of a meta-study illuminates perfectly well what kind of research the contributors to this volume have been doing: ‘If primary study is a long journey to an unfamiliar place, then meta-study involves frequent pauses for rest, identifying directions, revising travel plans, or even having second thoughts on the final destination’ (Zhao 1991: 381). In other words, if the hard work of writing the chapters qualifies as ‘pauses for rest’, that is what the contributors have done. But they have also identified directions, revised travel plans and presented second thoughts about the final destination of the discipline. The destination of the discipline has, in fact, become a topic much ‘talked about’. While the three volumes mentioned above deal with the teaching of IR or contain fairly sketchy country profiles, this volume focuses on theory and theoretical debates, and provides a more comprehensive coverage than at any time before. Within IR in Europe, there is currently a very lively debate on these issues (Hellmann 1994; Zürn 1996; Smith 2000, 2003, 2004; Jørgensen 2000, 2004; Buzan 2001; Holden 2002; Friedrichs 2004). What this book does is to put some of the pieces of this debate together, and to address the question of current trends and future destinations by means of national or regional as well as cross-cutting perspectives. The book approaches its topic in basically two different fashions. Whereas the first part focuses on national or regional IR traditions and communities across Europe, the second part focuses on three crosscutting issues and perspectives: (1) the unrecognized but ever-present dimension of culture in IR, (2) the transfer of international (political) theory across boundaries, and (3) an epilogue which puts the various parts into perspective. In combination, these two main components of the book present a nuanced picture of the likely and possible future destinations of the discipline in Europe as well as a point of departure for further debate over the likely versus the more ideal destinations. The consistent focus on key aspects of European IR in the chapters on the specific national and regional IR traditions as well as in the cross-

Introduction

3

cutting perspectives is the product of an approach developed specifically for this volume. We call it the cultural-institutional approach, simply because it is constituted by reflections over a number of highly important cultural and institutional factors. These reflections have led us to the construction of a question guide which has informed the writing of the chapters on the individual IR traditions in Europe (countries and regions). While the guide has served exactly as such, and not as a strait-jacket, a common structure focusing on cultural and institutional aspects of the IR traditions of Europe is clearly discernable in the chapters in Part I. Furthermore, the cultural-institutional approach is also the background for our choice of cross-cutting perspectives. It should be added that although the contributors were asked from the outset to take the question-guide and the cultural-institutional approach into consideration when preparing their chapters, the outcome of their investigations have in several ways confirmed the reflections behind this approach and led to further developments of the approach. In the following we present our cultural-institutional approach, and the question-guide it has given rise to, before we return to the three main legs of the architecture of the book for further introduction and reflection, namely the national and regional traditions, the cross-cutting perspectives and the future destinations.

The cultural-institutional approach The cultural-institutional approach developed for and applied in this volume identifies connections between three explanatory variables and the development of theoretical representations of international relations.2 In what follows, we explicate each factor and provide illustrative examples. First, the approach claims that the political culture of the countries in which theorizing takes place has an impact on theorizing. During the twentieth century, the discipline has evolved in the context of very different political cultures. Yet the impact of political culture has not been of prime concern to most scholars engaged in the historiography of the discipline, probably because most of the high-profiled stories that have been told have been about developments in the USA and the UK (i.e. in states enjoying a democratic liberal political culture). Most European countries have not been that fortunate. Caterina García Segura’s account of Spanish IR under Franco’s authoritarian and increasingly isolationist regime is but one example of a very different environment. Petr Drulák and Radka Druláková report on similar conditions in Czechoslovakia. Germany, with its gloomy past and liberal yet semi-sovereign existence in the period after the Second World War and until unification, is a third example of political culture influencing theoretical developments (cf. Chapter 3).

4 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen However, the causal logic between culture and theory development is not very precise. In this respect, liberal political culture can serve as an illustrative example, as it seems to produce different kinds of theorizing and different IR traditions more generally. For instance, the contempt for power politics in Scandinavian political culture has left a significant mark on IR theory and foreign policy analysis ‘made in Scandinavia’. Furthermore, Scandinavian political culture also shows itself in an exceptionally active international engagement in multilateral institutions, development issues and peace research; an engagement which, in turn, has triggered an enduring interest among political elites in international studies. Thus the relative number of university departments teaching IR is remarkable and Scandinavian scholars are responsible for publishing the second largest English-language journal collection in Europe. It is clearly not a mystery that some French scholars regard Scandinavians as quasi-Anglo-Saxons (Smouts 1989) which confirms the impression that IR has evolved differently in different liberal European countries. Second, the cultural-institutional approach claims that the organizational culture of both science bureaucracies and university systems has a profound impact on the way research on international affairs is conducted. The point of departure is that the interplay between university systems and ministries of research and education, not to mention the political system, shows considerable variation across Europe and over time. Furthermore, the balance between university autonomy and reforms introduced from outside is in constant flux. Finally, the demand for knowledge about international affairs shows considerable variation. In some places, practical knowledge, ready for consumption in policy-making, is all that counts. In some respects, this was the case in Czechoslovakia during the communist era, although for some scholars the preference for and focus on empirical studies was also a way of escaping the ideological and dogmatic Marxist–Leninist framework of analysis, as pointed out by Drulák and Druláková in Chapter 7. In other places, the quest for abstract knowledge in the form of theory has been valued and sometimes even encouraged. Thus, while empirical knowledge, not least concerning the EU (the preferred political destination) and Germany (the big neighbour), has remained a high priority in the Czech Republic also after the democratic revolution of 1989 to 1990, there has also been an increasing demand for theory-driven research, although especially from certain quarters within the Czech IR community itself. In Europe as a whole – at annual meetings of professional associations or meetings between academics and practitioners – debates on the right and prudent balance between the two kinds of knowledge (practical and theoretical) have become a classic theme (cf. the exchange between William Wallace (1996) and Steve Smith (1997)). While it is beyond the scope of this brief introduction to go into detail, four examples further illustrate our general point about the link between

Introduction

5

the organizational culture of science bureaucracies and university systems on the one hand, and the way research on international affairs is conducted on the other. As a first example, it has for some time been compulsory that research applications to the European Commission point to potential benefits for ‘small and medium-sized companies’. The political system has introduced the requirement which is more often than not completely irrelevant if not absurd, at least from a scholarly perspective. Hence the impact is most likely reduced to academic cheap talk in research grant applications. A second example is provided by the fact that when meeting British colleagues, it is fairly common to be informed about the latest developments within the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and journal editors throughout the world know about the RAE-triggered manuscript submission cycles. RAE encourages some forms of publication (articles) and discourages other forms – e.g. edited volumes – with the predictable result that it is increasingly difficult to recruit British academics to contribute to edited volumes (like this one). As a third example, incentives for internationalization – read increased mobility and communication within English-language areas – have been provided in Scandinavia but not in France. Hence, Scandinavian scholars have been socialized in the image of US and particularly UK scholarly norms and standard operating procedures. Similarly, it has become a tradition that the Greek contingent at British universities is of a considerable size, while the Turkish contingent is catching up. Clearly, the incentives for student and career mobility are greater in some parts of Europe than in others. However, the interesting thing is what comes out of such mobility not only in the individual countries and regions, but also in Europe as a whole: a more Anglo-American fashioned discipline – or a more distinctly European version of the discipline? Finally, in terms of population, Italy and the UK are roughly of equal size, but in terms of chairs in IR, the UK is about ten times bigger than Italy. No law of nature explains such a difference. Rather, explanations should be identified in university systems and science bureaucracies. As indicated to various degrees in the chapters by Klaus-Gerd Giesen (Chapter 1, France), Sonia Lucarelli and Roberto Menotti (Chapter 2, Italy) and Caterina García Segura (Chapter 4, Spain), political science has never become as autonomous or self-confident vis-à-vis law (and to some extent history and sociology) departments in Southern Europe as in Northern Europe. Neither the political system nor science bureaucracies have made the provision of knowledge about international affairs from a political science perspective a priority.3 This seems to have direct consequences. On the one hand, the impression of rather weak IR disciplines in Southern Europe in terms of institutional autonomy and theoretical innovation remains. On the other hand, the IR traditions of Southern Europe appear to be strong – also when

6 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen compared to Northern Europe – when it comes to the incorporation and understanding of legal questions and international law more generally. Furthermore, the never lost preferences for the methodological and analytical techniques of related disciplines such as international law, history and sociology may also turn out to be an advantage in light of the general recovery of the so-called classical or traditional approach to IR (Bull 1966; Jackson 2000) as a consequence of a number of circumstances, among them the fall of the Berlin Wall (and the associated problems for structural realism), the renewed and increasing success of the traditionalist English School in Europe and beyond since the early 1990s, and the critical and post-positivist turn in IR since the late 1980s. However, just as in the UK (see Chapter 6), the ability of the Southern and Central European IR traditions to take advantage of their roots in the classical academic subjects and approaches seems to depend on their ability to develop more coherent and more advanced theories, general as well as middle range, and for this purpose, the methods and the schooling of political science seem indispensable. Third, the issue of habits and professional discourses within the social sciences and humanities points to more or less internal factors. Both political culture and the organizational culture of science bureaucracies and university systems as discussed above represent broad and to some degree vague factors. They should not be dismissed, yet they should also not be used to explain theoretical development in too much detail. In other words, this is where internal factors like discourse come in. There is a range of such factors. Brian Schmidt (1998) has explored disciplinary discourse, yet his case is the USA, and unfortunately no similar study has been conducted on the case of Europe. Not even Timothy Dunne’s (1998) very detailed and rich study of the English School and the British Committee pays much attention to intellectual connections between IR theory and the general study of politics, sociology, law or economics. In general, it seems slightly unfair to consider political or organizational cultures responsible (e.g. the weak presence of rational choice and game theory in Europe). Furthermore, political culture seems unable to explain very much of the tendency in some places to treat theory as a fetish, representing the highest and most valuable form of knowledge. In other words, we follow Brian Schmidt in pointing to academic discourse as a relevant factor of explanation. Finally, the growth of post-positivist approaches in the UK and the typical Southern European form of ‘the sociology of International Relations’ have probably more to do with developments within professional discourse than with currents in society.

Analysing European IR: the guiding questions In order to become an operational analytical tool, the culturalinstitutional approach needs further specification. In the following we

Introduction

7

outline the questions we deem of crucial importance whenever one is considering the practice of an IR tradition or community (see Chapters 1–7 in Part I). At the same time, these questions have given rise to the identification of three cross-cutting perspectives that seem to invite special attention (see Chapters 8–9 in Part II). In accordance with the above reflections on cultural and institutional factors, the main issues addressed in the guide include (1) the historical development or genealogy of the discipline; (2) factors driving IR and IR theorizing; (3) the issue of ‘home-grown’ theory-building vs. theory import; (4) the most important theoretical contributions (domestically as well as internationally) of the IR tradition or community under investigation; (5) the diversity of disciplinary traditions; and (6) patterns of traditional vs. new discourse. In what follows, these questions are further explained and some of the responses provided by the contributors are briefly touched upon. First, we have asked: How can the historical development of the discipline be characterized? Was the study of IR fuelled by a desire to prevent further wars in Europe (as in Britain and the Benelux after the First World War)? Was it established as a source of knowledge for the making of foreign policy? Was it a product of an ambition of university professors to establish an institutional framework for an independent study of International Relations? In Britain, the search for the discipline’s origins often leads to Wales, to the first university chair established in Aberystwyth. Tellingly, the search for origin by Rittberger and Hummel (1990: 26) leads in the direction of the German Society for Peace (founded 1892), to the colonial institute in Hamburg (founded 1908) and to the Institut für Auswärtige Politik in Hamburg (founded 1923). Following Amstrup (1989), we suggest that the Prague meeting in 1938 makes as good an origin as any for the European version of the discipline as a whole. Indeed, our general point is that the search for origin is essentially futile business, although very functional in terms of identity-building. This function should not be underestimated because power flows from owing the origin, from defining the identity of the discipline and from setting standards for what counts as progress (Thies 2002). Second, we have asked: What factors can we point to as the driving forces in the IR community under consideration? In particular, this question invites a focus on the cultural and institutional factors that drive and have driven the individual IR community and its theory development, the relevance of cross-disciplinary infusions, the importance of Zeitgeists, and the presence of specific cultures or ideologies of significance to the discipline as, for instance, the impact of pacifism and the peace movement in Germany and Scandinavia. Third, we have called for a specification of the origins of theories cultivated or applied in Europe: Are they ‘home-grown’ or imported? We have three reasons to explore the origin of theories and, hence, to ask this question. First, it has

8 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen been an enduring issue for debate, triggering contending views. Thus Michael Zürn (1996) has pointedly asked ‘We Can Do Much Better! Aber muss es auf Amerikanish sein?’4 A similar question was asked in France in the 1950s, and though the answer was strikingly similar, it had very different ramifications (see Giesen, Chapter 1, this volume). Second, different approaches to theoretical work have been employed in Europe, making it possible to assess the pros and cons of each model. According to García Segura (Chapter 4, this volume), Spanish scholars lean towards a ‘theory adaptation’ doctrine (i.e. importing theories, yet giving them a twist in order to make theory better suit specific circumstances).5 French scholars have been inclined to work in splendid isolation from non-Frenchspeaking IR communities (see Friedrichs 2004).6 Third, we assume it makes quite a difference which ‘pool of experience’ has served as a basis for the development of theory. Has the semi-sovereign status of West Germany prompted German foreign policy analysts to be particularly fond of multilateralism (cf. Hellmann 1996)? Does American military predominance explain the hegemonic status of realism within American IR? If theory is abstract reflection on practice, the dimension of nearness and remoteness from practice, often the practice of others, should be expected to have an impact on theorizing. In turn, the issue of abstract concepts and ideas flowing across borders becomes highly relevant but also an attractive challenge (see Holden, Chapter 9, this volume). Fourth, we have asked the contributors to reflect on the most important theoretical contributions and the fault lines of theoretical debate of the IR community under consideration.7 No matter which approach has been cultivated, it is of significant interest to identify the outcome.8 In Chapter 1 on France, Giesen uses three epistemological traditions as structuring device. In this fashion he avoids the categories which have often been used to characterize anglophone IR, therefore avoiding measuring the achievements by the usual kinds of measuring rod. As a consequence, the fault lines of theoretical debate in France and francophone areas look markedly different and the critical challenge is not necessarily a question of catching up with standards defined elsewhere. Rather, the challenge is to define criteria, making it possible to form judgements on quality. Christoph Humrich (Chapter 3) describes how a part of German IR has been inspired by the social theorist Jürgen Habermas; that is, Humrich points out that the connection to Habermas has foremost been used to claim a distinct German identity in IR. However, Humrich argues that the interpretation of Habermas is a very watered-down version of Habermas’ philosophy and that a process of normalization rather than dissent characterizes German IR (on this issue, see also Risse 2000; Hellmann et al. 2003; Holden, Chapter 9, this volume). The fault lines of theoretical debate in Britain demonstrate a third version of theoretical debate. During the 1980s, the UK represented the archetype par excellence of the inter-paradigm debate. Yet the socalled reconvening of the English School (which is essentially a

Introduction

9

continuing, strengthening and more self-confident pronouncement of the progress and dynamic following the end of the Cold War) seems to imply that currently, the British profile is perhaps best characterized as ‘the English School and the rest’. The category of the ‘rest’, however, is an exceptionally broad category, hiding the fact that the UK is a veritable hothouse for theoretical work and in the finest pluralist tradition one can imagine. Thus, if the success of the English School has played a part in turning inter-paradigm and interdisciplinary wars into constructive debates and more friendly twists – leaving aside that sharp conflicts are clearly discernible – it is arguably by acting as a site on which meaningful discussions have become possible (see Chapter 6). Each of these examples illustrates, and each in its own way, how potentially misleading it would be to generalize theoretical developments in Europe. Fifth, what can we say about the diversity of the academic tradition? Does the study of IR take place inside independent IR departments or within departments such as political science, history, sociology, economics or law? What is the importance of research centres and institutes outside universities? In a European context, this is a highly relevant question. In stark contrast to the USA, where the political science/IR combo constitutes an almost homogeneous package, Europe displays a wealth of combinations. Particularly in the UK, we find autonomous IR departments (e.g. Aberystwyth, St Andrews), but also the political science and IR combination. In Scandinavia, the political science/IR combination is also common, whereas in Mediterranean countries IR has predominantly been developed in the shadow (or sun) of law departments. In East Central Europe, it is often economics departments which host international studies. While the relationship between political science and International Relations has been analysed in several European countries (cf. Bonanate 1990; Hayward et al. 1999; Bleek 2001), similar studies on other disciplinary belongings have been significantly less numerous. Sixth, we ask whether we can point to patterns of traditionalism and/or patterns of new discourses in our evaluation of the IR community under consideration. Most chapters highlight the existence of such lines of division, just as each points to specific balances of discursive power. However, patterns change over time and contributors were asked to analyse how these changes have occurred, and to possibly explain why they have changed. In addition to these six main questions designed for the study of national and regional IR traditions, the cultural-institutional approach developed above points to some cross-cutting issues and perspectives which appear to be particularly relevant to a study of European IR as a whole. First, bearing the cultural-institutional approach in mind, it will come as no surprise that we find it important to study not only the relevance of national and regional cultures to the development of the various IR traditions, but also the ability of IR as a global and European discipline

10 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen to understand its own cultural foundations as well as the importance of culture to its subject matter: international relations in practice. Second, our interest in the home-grown or imported nature of various European IR traditions and their theoretical contributions triggers a general and cross-cutting interest in the importance and implications of the transfer of political thought across boundaries. Third, having asked the contributors to point to the most important domestic and international contributions of the respective national IR traditions, we decided to devote a chapter to reflections on the European contribution to IR in general (Epilogue). In the following, Part I – focusing on national and regional traditions – is further introduced and discussed. Afterwards, we return to the three above-mentioned cross-cutting perspectives explored in Part II, before closing this Introduction with some reflections on the future destinations of European IR.

National and regional traditions By presenting chapters on France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic, this book presents the profile of IR communities in seven countries or regions, their interpretations of the nature of international relations and the raison d’être of their field of study. Even if not the only relevant category for study and comparison, national IR communities remain a significant entity for a project like the present one. Still, two of the chapters go beyond a strictly national IR community focus. Hence the chapter on France is really a chapter on Francophone IR communities, thus including France but also parts of Switzerland, Belgium and Canada. Furthermore, while the chapter on Scandinavian IR covers the individual countries, it also points to aspects that are symptomatic for the region as a whole. The chapters in Part I identify a number of interesting aspects of the various IR traditions and communities that have been investigated on the basis of the question-guide and approach introduced above. In particular, three issues should be mentioned: (1) the chapters confirm the relevance of the notion of tradition and point to a variety of traditions within which the discipline has been cultivated; (2) the chapters also document the relative limited reach of several theoretical orientations and empirical findings. Put differently, European research tends to be known primarily within national or regional boundaries; (3) however, the chapters also suggest that existing traditions are under deconstruction. Cultural encounters take place. On the basis of this process, it seems possible to detect the emergence of a European IR identity, aware of its diverse origins, including crucial inspiration from across the Atlantic, yet also aware of its coordinates within a global matrix. Admittedly, the countries and regions included in this study are far from an exhaustive coverage of the new Europe with its more than thirty

Introduction

11

countries. In a certain sense, we deplore the fact that it has not been possible to present an exhaustive analysis. Yet a book with thirty-plus chapters would have been an entirely different project. In other words, there is a large out-group of countries, all presumably having ‘stories to tell’ (to quote García Segura, Chapter 4). Fortunately, studies of some of the outgroup countries are available (Tyulin 1997; Lebedeva 2004). Furthermore, we hope that the present volume will encourage scholars in Turkey, Portugal, the Ukraine and the regions Benelux, the Balkans, Caucasus and East Central Europe to produce such studies in the future. In this way, critical self-reflection will continue to be an important part of the discipline’s research practice.

Cross-cutting perspectives Part II presents the three cross-cutting perspectives. Morten Valbjørn (Chapter 8) claims that most IR is either culture blank, culture blind or culture blinded. IR is culture blank in the sense that most research on international relations deliberately leaves out cultural factors, considered to be irrelevant for explanation. Furthermore, (Western) IR is culture blind in the sense of being, typically, unaware of its own cultural origin and foundation as well as the importance of the cultures of other regions and civilizations. Finally, following the recent ‘cultural turn’, mainstream IR has to some extent become virtually blinded by culture as a consequence of its recent discovery. In fact, some scholars can apparently see nothing but culture. In this way, Valbjørn contributes to current debates on cosmopolitan and parochial dimensions of IR theory. Gerard Holden (Chapter 9) engages in a discussion of historiography and cross-community comparison. He notes that the historiographical literature on IR in Anglophone countries is now quite substantial, although there is disagreement on the best method to be used and a degree of uncertainty about the likely consequences of the resolution of these controversies for the present-day discipline. The literature on nonAnglophone IR communities is also growing, but it has so far generated less controversy because the basic argument about the significance of inter-community differences has not been challenged. Holden traces the most recent developments in these two sub-fields and reflects on their significance for research and teaching. It is argued that more attention needs to be paid to the cross-cultural transfer of social science concepts, and some potential case studies looking at the ways in which specific theoretical traditions are taken up and developed in different communities (with particular reference to German thought) are suggested. In the Epilogue, Brian C. Schmidt reviews the chapters and puts them into perspective. While reflecting on the book’s general approach, he also revisits his discursive approach to disciplinary historiography and considers its applicability to the case of Europe.

12 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen

Destinations: towards an international discipline The issues we address in this book should be of significant interest to an international audience, the prime reason being that the discipline is currently undergoing a potentially far-reaching transformation. Once upon a time, we had a traditional set-up in which the discipline was defined as an American social science (Hoffmann 1977). From this form of scholarly hegemony flowed ‘how to do IR’ manuals, best practice norms and ‘authorized’ research agendas. To this scholarly centre flowed an endless number of young scholars, aiming at learning how to properly cultivate the discipline. This traditional set-up is currently being challenged and new centres are in the process of being created in Europe, China, Australia, Canada, India and beyond. In Europe, professional communities used to be organized primarily along national and sometimes regional lines, the latter as in the case of NISA and CEEISA. Yet increasingly these communities have national, regional and European identities (cf. the role played by the ECPR Standing Group on International Relations (SGIR)). The British IR community is perhaps best characterized as being asymmetrically split between the USA and Europe. So far, British scholars have been prone to compare British and American scholarship, thus enjoying their role as junior partner to the huge American community, although without giving up the claim that theorizing on the basis of the ‘classical approach’ has given British IR some advantages when it comes to the ability to understand the big questions about international order, international justice and the constitution of international society. Ideally, this book will prompt more and better comparisons between British and continental European scholarship, for instance, by means of drawing on national reflections (e.g. Bonanate 1990; Hayward et al. 1999; Bleek 2001; Hellmann et al. 2003) or by means of looking into the future by asking, ‘What do we teach our students?’, and answering by comparing widely used textbooks in IR. In any case, such reflections constitute a precondition for creating a genuine and mature European IR community. By focusing on Europe, we aim to complement existing studies of IR communities around the world, for instance, Robert M.A. Crawford and Darryl S.L. Jarvis’ volume, International Relations: Still an American Social Science? (2001), focusing on Canada, Australia and Great Britain. In addition, IR in Japan, China and Latin America has been analysed by means of critical self-reflection.9 Significantly, Takashi Inoguchi and Paul Bacon (2001) point out that in Japan, three out of five main theoretical orientations have been home-grown, though one of these has links back to a classic German tradition. Chinese debates about the future destination of the discipline are equally interesting, displaying some of the same characteristics as debates in Europe. In other words, should IR in China have Chinese characteristics or should Chinese scholars adopt contemporary

Introduction

13

American standards (for different attitudes, see Callahan 2001; Song 2001)? In turn, if IR should have Chinese characteristics, what would such characteristics be? It is our hope that this volume, representing Europe, will contribute to the ongoing global dialogue about a future truly international discipline.

Notes 1 For instance, a wealth of information and interpretation has been provided by Czempiel (1986), Rittberger and Hummel (1990), Risse (2000), and Hellmann et al. (2003). The French case has been described by Smouts (1989), Giesen (1995, ch. 1) and Friedrichs (2004), and the Italian case by Bonanate (1990). The state of the IR art in Scandinavia has been reviewed, among others, by Jönsson (1993), and the Danish scholars Henrik Breitenbauch and Morten Valbjørn are currently conducting research for their Ph.D. theses on issues of the discipline. 2 The approach has previously been briefly introduced by Jørgensen (2000). 3 The role of geo-politics in the public sphere seems to be indicative of the strength of the discipline, i.e. the weaker IR is, the stronger the role for geopolitics (cf. the cases of Italy, Russia and Turkey). 4 Michael Zürn suggested an answer in the negative, yet he has always, in practice, demonstrated the opposite. 5 Interestingly, a similar approach characterizes the practice of scholars in Latin America (see Tickner 2003). 6 In this respect, Raymond Aron has been an exception. He published in the USA and was part of the US scene. 7 In this context, it is important to specify which kind of theory we are talking about (cf. Meyers 1990; Brown 1997). 8 This is particularly the case if the outcome has been published in a language which is not among the larger languages. 9 For studies on IR in Latin America, Japan, India, China, North America, Africa and the Middle East, see Tickner (2003), Inoguchi and Bacon (2001), and Song (2001). For a general discussion of the prospects of a genuinely international discipline, see Wæver (1998) and Jørgensen (2004).

References Amstrup, N. (1989) The Study of International Relations. Old or New? A Historical Outline (1500 to 1939), Aarhus: Department of Political Science. Bleek, W. (2001) Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland, München: Verlag C.H. Beck. Bonanate, L. (1990) Guide Agli Studi di Scienze Sociali in Italia. Studi Internazionali, Torino: Edizione della Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli. Brown, C. (1997) Understanding International Relations, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Bull, H. (1966) ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’, in K. Knorr and J.N. Rosenau (eds) Contending Approaches to International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Buzan, B. (2001) ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR’, Review of International Studies 27(3): 471–88. Callahan, W.A. (2001) ‘China and the Globalisation of IR Theory: Discussion of Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics’, Journal of Contemporary China 10(26): 75–88.

14 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen Crawford, R.M.A. and Jarvis, D.S.L. (eds) (2001) International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Towards Diversity in International Thought, New York: State University of New York Press. Czempiel, E.-O. (1986) ‘Der Stand der Wissenschaften von den Internationalen Beziehungen und der Friedensforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, PVS Sonderheft 17: 250–63. Dreyer, H.C. and Margasarian, L. (eds) (1989) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, London: Macmillan. Dunne, T. (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Ford Foundation (1976) International Relations Studies in Six European Countries: The United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy: Reports to the Ford Foundation, New York: The Foundation. Friedrichs, J. (2004) A House With Many Mansions: European Approaches to International Relations Theory, London: Routledge. Giesen, K.-G. (1995) ‘French Cancan zwischen Positivismus, Enzyklopädismus und Historismus’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 141–70. Hayward, J., Barry, B. and Brown, A. (1999) The British Study of Politics in the Twentieth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hellmann, G. (1994) ‘Für eine problemorientierte Grundlagenforschung: Kritik und Perspektiven der Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 65–90. —— (1996) ‘Goodbye Bismarck? The Foreign Policy of Contemporary Germany’, Mershon International Studies Review 40(1): 1–39. Hellmann, G., Wolf, K.D. and Zürn, M. (2003) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106: 41–60. Holden, G. (2002) ‘Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History and the Discourse about IR Discourse’, Review of International Studies 28(2): 253–70. Inoguchi, T. and Bacon, P. (2001) ‘The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1(1): 1–20. Jackson, R. (2000) The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jönsson, C. (1993) ‘International Politics: Scandinavian Identity amidst American Hegemony?’, Scandinavian Political Studies 16(2): 149–65. Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 9–42. —— (2004) ‘Towards a Six Continents Social Science: International Relations’, Journal of International Relations and Development 6(4): 330–43. Lebedeva, M.M. (2004) ‘International Relations Studies in the USSR/Russia: Is there a Russian National School of IR Studies?’, Global Society 18(3): 263–78. Meyers, R. (1990) ‘Metatheoretische und methodologische Betrachtungen zur Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen’, in V. Rittberger (ed.) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Bestandaufname und Forschungsperspektiven, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Risse, T. (2000) ‘Let’s Argue!’, International Organization 54(1): 1–39.

Introduction

15

Rittberger, V. and Hummel, H. (1990) ‘Die Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” im deutsch-sprachigen Raum auf der Suche nach ihrer Identität: Entwicklung und Perspektiven’, in V. Rittberger (ed.) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Bestandaufname und Forschungsperspektiven, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Schmidt, B.C. (1998) The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations, New York: State University of New York Press. Smith, S. (1997) ‘Power and Truth: A Reply to William Wallace’, Review of International Studies 23(4): 507–16. —— (2000) ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(3): 374–402. —— (2003) ‘International Relations and international relations: The Links Between Theory and Practice in World Politics’, Journal of International Relations and Development 6(3): 233–9. —— (2004) ‘Singing our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11’, International Studies Quarterly 48(3): 499–515. Smouts, M.-C. (1989) ‘The Study of International Relations in France’, in H.C. Dreyer and L. Margasarian (eds) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, London: Macmillan. Song, X. (2001) ‘Building International Relations Theory with Chinese Characteristics’, Journal of Contemporary China 10(26): 61–74. Thies, C.G. (2002) ‘Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist–Realist Debate’, European Journal of International Relations 8(2): 147–85. Tickner, A.B. (2003) ‘Hearing Latin American Voices in International Relations Studies’, International Studies Perspectives 4(4): 325–50. Tyulin, I.G. (1997) ‘Between the Past and the Future: International Studies in Russia’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 4: 181–94. Wallace, W. (1996) ‘Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 22(3): 301–21. Wæver, O. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52(4): 687–727. Zimmern, A. (ed.) (1939) L’Ensignement Universitaire des Relations Internationales, Paris: Institut International de Cooperation Intellectuelle. Zhao, S. (1991) ‘Metatheory, Metamethod, Meta-data-analysis: What, Why, and How?’, Sociological Perspectives 34(3): 377–90. Zürn, M. (1996) ‘We Can Do Much Better! Aber muss es auf Amerikanisch sein? Zum Vergleich der Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” in den USA und in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(2): 91–114.

Part I

Countries and regions

1

France and other Frenchspeaking countries (1945–1994) Klaus-Gerd Giesen

Dependencia and no end From the perspective of sociology of knowledge, the debate between Günther Hellmann and Michael Zürn – fought out in the first issue of the Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen – was invigorating. Hellmann and Zürn addressed the issue of a deficit in quality in German IR compared to US IR (Hellmann 1994: 66). For both authors, it was important to find out what the intense inter-paradigmatic theoretical competition on the strongly US-dominated IR world market would bring. Bearing Ernst-Otto Czempiel’s (1986) view of German scholars’ marginal market share in IR theory in mind, it was equally important for them to determine what the ‘role of the receiver and thus the subdued’ would be (Zürn 1994: 93). This doctrine of dependency, based on the observation of the ‘asymmetrical reception’ (Zürn 1994: 109) of American and German research, was a recurrent theme in both essays. However, in their suggestions as how to overcome this problem, the two scholars differed diametrically. Hellmann perceived the German dependency almost as a catastrophe, Zürn less so. Pushed to the extremes, Hellmann advocated a quick and complete adjustment of the German production of academic knowledge to the US world-market structure and especially to the discussion between neorealism and neoinstitutionalism. Only then would German IR theory be able to assume its well-deserved position and become an export success. In contrast Zürn (here again somewhat caricatured) called for ‘self-reliance’ and the ‘third way’. In his essay he labelled it ‘soul-searching’ or, put more figuratively, ‘the German rabbit overcoming its fascination of the American snake: it really would like to run away, but as it is hypnotized, stays glued to the spot [therefore frozen to American research]’ (Zürn 1994: 110–11). Although such an excursion into the world of animals surely has no proper place in serious social-scientific studies, it nevertheless sums up the quintessence of numerous and ample studies (among others Hoffmann 1977; Krippendorff 1987; Smith 1987). This fable will therefore serve as a starting point for the present chapter: let us see how other rabbits react when faced with the same snake. Put in sociology of knowledge terms,

20 Klaus-Gerd Giesen how do countries and their IR communities position themselves vis-à-vis the almighty American political science, numbering around 15,000 academics (approximately the membership number of the American Political Science Association) and incorporating the academic lingua franca? The exploration of this issue will follow a continuum, ranging from total adaptation to disjunction of the domestic market from the US-dominated world market of IR approaches. It is precisely when viewed from this perspective that French-language research becomes particularly interesting.1 The exposition of the structure and history of IR in French requires a few comments on the general conditions of production. For material reasons, the level of activity regarding paradigm construction is restricted to French-language universities and research centres in Europe and North America, thus including France, Belgian Wallonia, Swiss Romandie as well as several Canadian provinces, notably Quebec. Researchers from all other French-language universities, especially in Africa, are more busy dealing with their own, often very specific political systems and surviving financially than with dealing with Kenneth Waltz, James Rosenau or Joseph Grieco. African scholars and their university libraries have rarely been able to afford books on IR theory. It should therefore be emphasized that the application of the aforementioned dependency doctrine on continental European research, including German work, does not indicate that Europe has moved to the periphery, but that it is unequivocally situated in the semi-periphery.2 However, the structural differences between the four northern semiperipheric positions need to be exposed. In Quebec and the Romandie, IR research came from the social sciences (with some influence from history), whereas it was fathered by law studies and history in France and Wallonia.3 As we shall see, this, of course, had determinative consequences for the entire evolution of paradigms. To this we can add a third characteristic. The specialization and professionalization of the so-called IR discipline, which has been so highly valued in North America and Germany, hardly exists in France and is even unwelcome. Here, by contrast, developments are ruled by the spirit of the ritual of agrégation of the institutionalized encyclopaedic tradition or, in other words, the cult of the manifold, all-round intellectual. For scholars unfamiliar with such a tradition, this leads to somewhat surprising outcomes. To take an example, Jean-Jacques Roche is probably more widely known for his crime novels, published under the pseudonym Richard Kerlan, than for his books on IR theory and the structure of the international system, although these contributions should be counted as important. Furthermore, Jean-Pierre Colin, an IR scholar and a board member of the political science section of the Conseil National des Universités, is at the same time an actor (attached to the famous Taller Theatre in Amsterdam among other places), and he has also been a close adviser to Jack Lang, the former Minister for Culture

France 21 (Colin 1994a). Besides this he still writes books about art and political aesthetics (Colin and Séloron 1994). Finally, the polyglot Pierre Hassner, along with some nouveaux philosophes, did not mind going publicly on to the barricades to secure justice in Bosnia (Hassner 1995). On the other hand, but much in the same spirit, philosophers like Alain Finkelkraut do not even envisage leaving the field of IR entirely in the hands of over-specialized scholars (Finkielkraut 1987). These examples show that the entire research field in France is structurally much more heterogeneous than in Germany, Wallonia and Quebec as well as in the Romandie. The final remark concerns the question of what paradigms and approaches should be highlighted in this chapter. Limited space, as well as disciplinary corporatist openness and the heterogenity of the research field, make it advisable only to mention research works meeting the following four criteria:4 1 2 3 4

They should be positioned along the same lines as the aforementioned world market–domestic market problematique. They should be dominant and not marginal in the IR research field. They should present a basic approach and not merely deal with partial phenomena. They should be valuable for the political science perspective and not addressed primarily at other disciplines (e.g. law studies or economics).

Such criteria nevertheless allow some developments to pass completely unnoticed as with, for instance, the international dimensions of the Regulation School in economics (Boyer 1986, 1993; Robles 1994), as well as those scholars who connect to various variants of critical theory, but who publish rather marginal work (e.g. Amin 1994; Ariffin and Merrone 1994; Giesen 1994a; Graz 1994). On the other hand, this reduction gives a better overview of the predominant tendencies in French-language IR discussions.

The mandarins The institutionalization of political science in France can be traced back to 1871, the founding year of the Ecole libre des sciences politiques, and in Belgium to 1892, the founding year of the Ecole des sciences politiques et sociales of the Université Catholique de Louvain. In the Romandie and Quebec this institutionalization occurred at a much later stage. It happened as a result of the belated effects of the Industrial Revolution, which for the first time led to an actual conflict between national production systems requiring an elite workforce educated adequately to meet the demands of modernized administration. Nonetheless, at the outset politics mainly remained a research and teaching object in the realm of

22 Klaus-Gerd Giesen other academic disciplines, notably law and history. Due to overseas expansion and continuous strengthening of French and Belgian colonial power, International Relations reflected its attendant intellectual status. Here one notices a certain parallel to the founding of the IR discipline in the USA, i.e. a consequence of the progressive replacement of the Pax Britannica with the Pax Americana. Only following the Second World War did genuine professionalization take place, notably as a result of strong growth in the number of professors working in the subject area. In the face of rising competition in the entire labour market of political science, specialization in research and teaching took place, in addition to the efforts made in a few research fields for more autonomy (Bourdieu 1976). Moreover, as the US example shows, it is possible to draw a parallel between the growth in academic jobs and the effects of specialization and autonomization. In 1920 the American Political Science Association comprised 1,300 members; by 1940 this number had grown to 2,800 (Favre 1985: 18). In contrast, the study of International Relations in Frenchspeaking countries did not at any time reach the critical threshold numbers required to generate serious demands for an independent academic discipline. In the case of the few scholars making demands (among them Raymond Aron 1967: 840), it was more a mimicry of the American situation. However, advancing professionalism led eventually both to the founding of the Association française de science politique in 1949 and to the founding of the journal Revue française de science politique two years later. At the same time, triggered by developments in North America, the conceptualization in political science was modernized and ‘esoterized’, although the IR field had to wait for more than two decades for this. In the meantime, two books ruled unequalled in the entire field of research: Paix et guerre entre les nations, by the philosopher and sociologist Raymond Aron (1962), and Introduction à l’histoire des relations internationales, by the historians Pierre Renouvin and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle (1964). Based on these two leading works the mandarins structurally divided the entire field of IR research into two distinct parts. In the present context, it is not necessary to probe more deeply into Aron’s theory, as I have done so elsewhere through my description of it as a consequentialist variant of realism (Giesen 1992: 115). Aron’s theory was the French export success, because of all the non-American theories it was the most frequently quoted theory in IR publications in the USA (Finnegan et al. 1975; Lyons 1982). This fact, however, seems less surprising if we consider Aron’s normative function in USA social science: the legitimation of the American power paradigm provided by a worldfamous foreign philosopher. The clean, almost surgical split between the national and international spheres, the voluntary delimitation of Aron’s distinctly sociological theory from Renouvin and Duroselle’s historical research (Aron 1967: 851–2), the

France 23 methodological individualism that Aron held on to until his death (posthumous: Aron 1984: 30), and the implicit justification of the pre-eminence of force and power among states in the so-called natural state of the international system (Aron 1962: 20; see also Draus 1984: 25–6), was all in perfect symbiosis with American realism. This is supported by the influential theoretical works in French published by Aron’s bicultural (French and American) disciple and long-time associate Stanley Hoffmann (see e.g. Hoffmann 1951, 1954, 1961), who continued to strongly influence French IR-theory even after his departure to Harvard University (Hoffmann 1985). In spite of reaching a high rate of prestige, this early and almost complete adjustment to the predominant American production was not shared by those mandarins preferring to stake their bets on ‘domestic’ products. As early as 1952, Duroselle fought the increasing Americanization in the Revue française de science politique (Duroselle 1952). Writing in the same journal in 1956, Alfred Grosser criticized the predominant tendency in the USA to construct a general, all-encompassing theory of IR, later dubbed ‘Grand Theory’, instead of letting the science of history take on its natural role as a ‘synthesis discipline’ through the systematic study of empirical cases (Grosser 1956: 635). It is true that the specificity of the French approach to history was inherent in the evolving hegemony of the Annales school of Lucien Febvre, Marc Bloch and Fernand Braudel at almost all levels of social science.5 Renouvin’s work belonged to this trend. In his Histoire des relations internationales (Renouvin 1954) and in the book he co-authored with Duroselle (1964), he applied the entire knowledge derived from the Annales method to the IR research field. In contrast to co-author Duroselle (1981) and the Geneva mandarin Jacques Freymond (1959), who both remained committed to the traditional histoire diplomatique, Renouvin carried out a study on the impact of the forces profondes (i.e. cultural, social and economic structures, collective mentalities, psychology of peoples, geography and demography). In short: the subnational and transnational factors that had fallen completely through the mesh of the interstate construction of political science and law studies. Thus instead of relations between states or governments, Renouvin dealt with structural and cultural forces that permeated and percolated national borders.6 The two predominant methods of basic research in France were in this way – like Weberian ideal-types – on the one hand constructed as an almost total adjustment to the American-realist and standardized world market (represented by Aron and Hoffmann), and on the other hand as a preference for self-reliance (represented by Renouvin) that moved IR research away from the American hegemony, while at the same time it subjugated it to the hegemony of the historically oriented Annales school. Thus to give preference to scholarly products stemming from the academic domestic market merely means that other vested knowledge interests have gained the upper hand.

24 Klaus-Gerd Giesen

Modernizing of discourse From this basic constellation came the true modernization of discourse on International Relations; that is, the partial renewal or expansion of political science language which developed its own terminology, formulations, foreign words and denotations.7 This modernization was, among other things, the result of the above-mentioned specialization brought about by the noticeable growth in the number of political scientists working at universities. It had two social functions: first, to create its own identity by way of its ‘abnormality’ and dissimilarity in comparison to the traditional discourse of the evolving but comparatively still ‘loose’ IR community; second, to use language as a means of emancipation from the mandarins and their power stemming from the social reproduction of institutional frameworks. In addition, the research field from then on received influential impulses from other French-speaking countries, more precisely concerning discourse modernization. Following our perspective of a sociology of knowledge and the dichotomy of the world market/domestic market, four main paradigm developments may reductionistically be discerned and their effects can to some degree still be felt.8 1

The first orientation, originating from research methods used in the mid-1970s, was imported from American game theory. In this connection, work by Urs Luterbacher and Pierre Allan (both from Geneva) should be considered. Their application of game theory on conflict research and the resultant simulation, modelling and formalizing undoubtedly provoked something of a surprise in the bogged-down structures of a French-language research field controlled by the mandarins. However, this was a surprise that was quickly overcome. Of course, neither scholars like Aron, oriented towards the philosophy of law and history, nor more traditional historians like Duroselle, could find any satisfaction in the mathematical representation of phenomena used in behaviouralism. It should nevertheless be emphasized that Luterbacher’s book on the Dimensions historiques de modèles dynamiques de conflit (1974) gave infinitely more attention precisely to the diachronistic dimension than was generally the case with his American role models (Luterbacher 1974; see also Allan 1979). Thus, even within this methodology oriented towards the American world market, the science of history, which was dominant in France, retained some influence. However, these efforts could not prevent the rapid marginalization of the positivist game theory approach. This was also the reason why the authors concerned published only rarely in French. Instead, they increasingly preferred the American academic lingua franca. In the world market they could count on entirely different and more favourable bonus patterns compared to the domestic market institu-

France 25

2

tionally dominated by the mandarins (this remained the case when the intellectual influence of the latter strongly decreased). It can thus be assumed, once again formulated in terms of sociology of knowledge, that in certain contexts the reference to the world market can equally be understood as insubordination to the ‘internal’ structures of domination in science. A second strand of epistemology which I call ‘encyclopaedic’ did not require fewer American imports, but in this case the modernization of concepts did not proceed to formalization. Furthermore, the relatively widespread recognition this trend received in the French university community reveals that for the positioning of the individual scholar in the academic field the discourse form was at least as important as the content of investigation (Foucault 1971; Bourdieu 1984: 39–47). Thus, the claim is that the fundamental paradigmatic identity of the individual scholars – therefore the exclusion of other approaches – is a product of the acceptance or dismissal of larger grammatical ensembles rather than a reflection on isolated concepts and theorems. It is only upon this basic delimitation that the ‘finetuning’ of concepts and theorems emerges. The most radical delimitation consists in claiming not to understand the other person’s language at all (which should be read as not willing to understand).9 Hence the importance and prestige accorded to ‘translation works’ (of non-linguistic nature) in any academic discipline. In the traditionally tolerated ‘disciplined’ language forms, these ‘translation works’ convey the most essential conceptual and substantial insight into the different approaches (Foucault 1969: 190). Combined with the domestic/world market continuum, this results in a complex pattern requiring pluralistic, even eclectic approaches. Their characteristics lie in their ability to ‘translate’ and to transmit between domestic and world markets on the one hand and simultaneously between paradigmatic poles on the other hand. As a main rule this social function favours an epistemological middle course. To represent this middle course we can point to two leading studies that appeared in the mid-1970s: first, Théories des relations internationales by the Genevan political scientist Philippe Braillard (1977a). This study not only described the diversity in the domestic/world market continuum (from Aron to Singer and Deutsch, and the Franco-Canadians Korany and Holly), but also its forms of discourse (from Amin and Galtung to Allison and Luterbacher). The other study, by the Wallonian writer Jean Barrea, carries the same title and was also published in 1977 (Barrea [1977] 1994). It also expounded the entire spectrum of the various IR approaches, but with almost exclusive orientation towards American thought patterns. For both Braillard and Barrea the important thing was first of all to resist the hegemony of the French science of history and to position the

26 Klaus-Gerd Giesen

3

exploration of international relations exclusively on a political science foundation. Therefore the classification of the various approaches undoubtedly seemed more important to them than to have a paradigmatic orientation of their own. More specifically, such an encyclopaedic position accomplished the actual modernization of the professional language, working, so to speak, as a ‘vaccine’ against the hegemony of the science of history (though naturally only as far as to the limit of formalization). These two approaches oriented towards the world market (positivism and encyclopaedism)10 were criticized (sometimes heavily) by a number of historians and political scientists. Notably, it was the underlying interstate character of international relations that was questioned. This led Saul Friedländer to advance the following argument in his renowned essay on the ‘lost paradigm’: que les États s’affrontent au nom de l’intérêt national en soi . . . ou qu’ils le fassent dans le contexte d’un système capitaliste en essor puis en crise, où les politiques s’élaborent sous la pression des classes dominantes . . . la dynamique est la même: les interactions se situent au niveau des États et, autant que dans le schéma ‘libéral’, c’est d’une dynamique conflictuelle qu’il s’agit. Enfin, le modèle classique implique une mesure importante de ‘désordre’ dans les relations interétatiques. . . . Or, il semble que le paradigme dont nous venons de mentionner les aspects essentiels . . . se heurte à un nombre croissant ‘d’anomalies’ dans le sens où l’entend T.S. Kuhn, par suite de l’émergence d’éléments nouveaux et du rôle plus marqué de facteurs anciens jusqu’ici peu valorises. Mais . . . il nous semble que, contrairement au processus habituel décrit par Kuhn, l’insuffisance du modèle ancien ne pourra mener à la formulation d’un nouveau paradigme. Nous suggérons, en effet, que les développements récents et les tendances apparentes de la vie internationale sont désormais irréductibles à un schéma conceptuel unifié. (Friedländer 1977: 72) The American theories were not only rejected on the grounds of excessive reductionism due to their almost exclusive interstate focus, and on grounds related to the theorization of system ‘disorder’. It was also claimed that this ‘lost paradigm’ could neither be reformed nor lead to a new paradigm as the necessary empirical data were, quite simply, missing. Thus scholars such as Friedländer, Hentsch, Molnár and Cohen who were strongly influenced by the Foucault disciple Paul Veyne (1971), proposed an expansion of the historical approaches of the Annales school into social science, enabling an advantageous mutual learning process: the historical focus on the

France 27

4

forces profondes would make visible what the dominant theories were unable even to see – factors such as social structure, collective mentality, culture, myths and so on (Friedländer 1974).11 As a second step, the social sciences would provide descriptive conceptual formulations and, at a later stage, perhaps some basic theoretical models (Friedländer and Molnár 1981: 88). From this a concept-oriented historical approach ‘open towards social sciences’ could be created as a natural reshuffling spot (Friedländer 1977: 72) or, as expressed by the Franco-Canadian Thierry Hentsch, ‘a total history’ (i.e. ‘history as theory’) (Hentsch 1981: 108–9). In addition, instead of quantitative research in simulation, the empirical tests should be in accordance with the comparative method which alone would be able to create ‘universal categories that would not merely be a simple reflection of certain cultural values’ (Friedländer and Cohen 1974: 52). Of course, this was aimed at the contribution of American theories. The fourth approach was introduced by Marcel Merle, teaching at the Sorbonne in Paris. In his seminal study Sociologie des relations internationales, which appeared for the first time in 1974, he established his reputation by building a bridge between the domestic market and the world market. On the one hand, he criticized the historians from the Annales school: Si le champ d’investigation s’est élargi et si les méthodes ont été renouvelées, l’hypothèse fondamentale demeure que les États restent les acteurs principaux, sinon exclusifs, des relations internationales. L’étude des ‘forces profondes’ ne fait qu’introduire des nuances dans le tableau classique. (Merle 1976: 54f.) On the other hand, he concluded, at the same time, a chapter dedicated to the Anglo-US IR approaches with the following reflection on the epistemological world market and its demands: La première [exigence] réside dans le souci de rigueur, qui passe très souvent par le recours à la quantification, mais qui s’exprime aussi dans la construction de modèles explicatifs ou prévisionnels. Face à ces exigences, illustrées par d’innombrables investigations, la production scientifique des Européens n’a guère à opposer . . . que des travaux de type descriptif ou imaginatif, qui relèvent encore d’un monde de travail artisanal. (Merle 1976: 130) The confrontation between European traditional workmanship and American quasi-industrial mass production shed a particularly crude light on the problematique of discourse modernization (see also Merle 1983: 404). Merle certainly did not set out to work on the

28 Klaus-Gerd Giesen modernization of discourse, which was deemed necessary, by an encyclopaedic import of American approaches. Rather, he too was among those authors who were deliberately cutting off the branch on which all the theories circulating on the world market were comfortably seated, but he did so in a more differentiated manner than the historians: even assuming that international relations consist primarily of interstate relations, it can still be denied that this would inevitably lead to a division of labour in political science between the inner and outer spheres of the state (Merle 1976: 140, 1986: 11–13), and that all states have the same disposition and quality. Distancing himself from Aron’s paradigm, he later wrote on the ‘personification of the state’ as an actor: Mais là où surgissent la difficulté et le problème à résoudre, c’est à partir du moment où l’on s’interroge sur la conformité des États au modèle étatique. Le concept d’État a le mérite de la cohérence et de la solidité, puisqu’il a résisté victorieusement jusqu’ici à tous le assauts de ses concurrents. Mais les États, dans leur extrême diversité, sont-ils la reproduction exacte du modèle dont ils ont endossé, souvent à peu de frais, l’uniforme? . . . Sont-ils tous des entités souveraines et indépendantes, interchangeables entre elles? . . . L’argument qui sera développé ici est que le modèle étatique, tel que nous le connaissons aujourd’hui encore, est une construction datée et située. (Merle 1986: 27) This citation shows that Merle strove for a historical and comparative sociology of International Relations (i.e. an approach that roots the main IR protagonist, the state, in its historical and cultural specificities which cannot be generalized (Merle 1986: 5)). The strong influence from the Annales school and from comparative historical and political science cannot be denied, although, and probably rightly so, Merle accuses the approach of dealing only with the transnational and transcultural forces profondes and not sufficiently with the state as the predominant actor. He refutes Aron’s and Hoffmann’s universalistic design (of American extraction) in a culturalistic manner: [L’objection] tient à la disparité du modèle étatique, aujourd’hui universellement répandu . . . Plutôt que de s’en tenir à la contemplation des formes extérieures (souveraineté, indépendance, unité nationale) qui n’existent souvent, malgré les apparences, qu’à l’état d’aspirations vagues et inaccessibles, ne serait-il pas plus utile, pour la compréhension des relations internationales, de partir d’une phénoménologie de l’État? (Merle 1984: 1991)

France 29 Since the beginning of the 1980s such a phenomenology of the state has slowly but surely gained footing, becoming progressively the institutionally dominant IR approach in France. It is only an apparent paradox that this approach, resting partly on a radical critique of the worldwide dominant paradigms, could in the future possibly become the ‘French connection’; in other words, an export good on the academic world market.

On the state of paradigms in the early 1990s Of the four approaches which were predominant in the 1970s, three remain active, though in a slightly modified form: positivism, encyclopaedism and historicism. The adherents of the Annales school have finally settled with the methodological compromise of historical sociology, as proposed by Merle. All three approaches underwent further specialization and professionalization following the push for discourse modernization which became apparent through the foundation of several new scientific journals as well as new, specialized university diplomas.12 In the following, the three strands of thought will be subjected to close scrutiny whereby each of these will first undergo a critical, general assessment of their foundation and thereafter an explanation of the most important developments. Less emphasis will be put on the sociology of knowledge dimension and more on the epistemological dimension. Positivism The unity of positivism, which originally appeared in the form of game theory, consists not in calling for coherence or consistency of meaning, or in using values, regimes or institutions as a point of departure, but in interpreting IR regularities as reified facts that truly possess objective importance. In positivism it should be possible to trace each statement to an observation, which implies that political science should rest on facts, not thoughts. An explanation based on values, ideologies, regimes or international institutions should be replaced by a description of series of facts that speak for themselves. However, the lack of an object comparable to nature hinders the application of the academic ideal from natural sciences, according to which regularities may be represented or simulated. The attempt to transform the regularities of the international system into a law of nature excludes crucial theoretical and practical problems: how actors in the international system (however they may be defined) that do not stand under the blind laws of nature develop their own laws (e.g. by drawing up multilateral international treaties or regimes), common international institutions and ways to live together. Social facts are thus transformed into natural facts and no real importance is attached to man’s rule over man.

30 Klaus-Gerd Giesen Accordingly, the main strand of French-speaking positivism limits itself to the mere establishment of international facts and their existing regularities. This ascertainment should put an end to all speculations concerning the self-legitimacy of the action on the part of the actors. Regularities and facts are perceived from the outside and described in a mathematical and statistical manner because a reductionist sequence of facts should speak for themselves. An actual (social) theory is not necessary at all. In this regard, attention should be drawn to Urs Luterbacher and Pierre Allan and their computer simulations of strategic problems (Aggarwal and Allan 1992; Allan 1992; Allan and Luterbacher 1992; Allan et al. 1992). However, more recent epistemological studies seem to be of greater relevance, in particular those by Pierre Allan about the necessary integration of hazard into a theory of complexity, which according to him would be a consequence of the collapse of bipolarity – something no simulation has been able to predict: Lorsque nos théories augmentent en complexité parce qu’on leur a encore ajoute une série de ‘variables pertinentes’, il ne faudrait pas en conclure que l’adaptation de ces mêmes théories est le signe d’une qualité meilleure mais plutôt admettre qu’elle peut tout aussi bien refléter la composante du hasard intrinsèque au phénomène pris en considération – un hasard essentiel et non seulement un hasard opérationnel qu’il sera possible d’éliminer, du moins en principe, avec des connaissances plus précises. Il se peut donc que lorsqu’on plaide pour des théories plus complexes, pour la prise en compte de nouvelles variables, ce développement reflète tout simplement la présence du hasard dans les phénomènes sous-jacents mal saisis à travers les schémas explicatifs traditionnels. . . . Plutôt que de complexifier nos théories acceptons une place pour le hasard dans notre pratique théorique. Nous devons accepter que certain phénomènes internationaux – malheureusement parfois les plus intéressants – résultent d’une configuration de facteurs complexes. (Allan 1994: 62) This approach, fixated on the concept of (increasing) complexity and resting on Edgar Morin’s philosophy of science, may also be found in two stylistically very elegant approaches by the Belgian Jacques Herman (1994b, 1994c). However, this line of argument goes beyond the hazard paradigm and draws, among other approaches, on chaos theory (Ilya Prigogine), as well as on the latest developments in fractal geometry. In this connection he starts from the following statement: Le concept praxéologique de champ d’action se réfère à des situations ‘chaosmiques’ d’incertitudes déterminées. Il n’y a pas de ‘système mondial’, il n’y a qu’un champ de forces régi par les règles

France 31 de l’interférence, des rencontres aléatoires selon la définition du hasard de Cournot. (Herman 1994b: 44) Behind this, one clearly notices James Rosenau’s turbulence theory in whose honour the Association française de science politique held a colloquium lasting several days in connection with its annual conference in September 1992. Herman nevertheless warned of confusions with the hazard paradigm: il ne s’agit pas de confondre le chaos avec le hasard pur, l’état d’entropie maximale, ou, tout étant indifferencié, il ne se passe plus rien. Le chaos est une notion dynamique qui s’applique à des systèmes loin de leur état d’equilibre’. (Herman 1994c: 388) Although he shares the same positivistic foundations as Allan, the chaos concept and notably the graphism of fractal geometry make it possible for him to understand the postmodernity of world order as ‘epistémè baroque’ (Herman 1994c: 397): Après l’échec de l’utopie totalitaire, l’expression du libéralisme, le retour des intégrismes, les errements du volontarisme européen et la dissémination d’une démocratie artificieuse, l’espace du politique n’est certes plus l’espace dense et illimité de l’age classique, mais l’espace fractal d’une souveraineté morcelée et délocalisée. La devise révolutionnaire du siècle prochain ‘Attractivité, Similarité, Fractalité’? (Herman 1994c: 405) Such quasi-metaphysical speculations are hardly representative of positivism in the philosophical sense, but they are even more alien to encyclopaedism. Encyclopaedism Authors included in this category wish first of all to transmit, not to challenge, knowledge. They want to define or reconstruct but not destroy various IR conceptions. Polemics should preferably be avoided, as one is on the whole convinced of the beneficial and unceasing progress of enlightenment. Precise formulation and classification of the theoretical undertakings in the vein of Diderot’s catalogue, the encyclopédie, is an important step on reason’s march to triumph. To counter the esoteric trend of the theory specialists, the aim is to communicate the theoretical knowledge and to apply the theoretical concepts. No excursion into the unknown takes place here, nor does any pursuit of metaphysical truths.

32 Klaus-Gerd Giesen On the contrary, this reflectiveness is left to the gathering and the rational order of the familiar. The resulting catalogue of positive knowledge should serve as a balance sheet (constantly updated) to open the way – again in the spirit of Diderot and also d’Alembert – to the necessary reforms in epistemology (but in no way to fundamental or revolutionary changes). In that way contemporary encyclopaedism separates itself from the principles of Descartes: it is less important to question the accumulated knowledge than to classify and explain the various categories. The systematic questioning of the foundations of established knowledge is replaced by unlimited reform optimism. This reform trend of the encyclopédie distinguishes itself from the conservative positivism for example of Comte and Quételet, of course, through the latter’s automatic acceptance of the prevailing social order. Indeed, conservative positivism intellectually supports the existing social order and limits itself to a mere description of its regularities (without necessarily wanting to possess a full understanding of it). In encyclopaedism, which evaluates the reformability of the entire output available on the world market, we at least find large-scale critique of ideology and, with that, continuous work towards emancipation and a sobering view of the historical and social world. Correspondingly, the starting point for the authors, categorized here as encyclopaedists, lies in the reconstructive classification of the approaches or in their fundamental definition. Pierre de Senarclens from Lausanne has engaged in precisely this quest, the ultimate triumph of reason. In La politique internationale he conscientiously examines theories, approaches and paradigms, which to him seem ‘in competition’ (Senarclens 1992: 15), as well as their doctrinal origins and foundational views, but without finding satisfaction.13 He demonstrates that the road to the ultimate victory of reason is still long, as the concepts connected to the various approaches at times suffer from extreme poverty of definition and lead to utter confusion. This is certainly the case for the concept of power so central to the realist tradition (Senarclens 1991a: 10), but also for Waltz’s structural approach: ‘on ne peut pas dégager la structure du système international sans définir son principe d’organisation’ (Senarclens 1991a: 16; emphasis added). Regime theory fares no better with him. After having gone through the various suggestions as to how to define ‘regime’, he concludes: ‘les définitions de ce concept recouvrent des objets hétérogènes renvoyant à des significations différentes’ (Senarclens 1993a: 530; emphasis added). Naturally, to an encyclopaedist with such an emphasis on clear conceptual identification, this represents a first-class scandal, because to him the value of a concept does not lie in its ability to socially structure the IR community, but only in its reformability and – ideally – in the final ordering of the different explanatory variables.14 Particular emphasis is given to the concept of international or world order. Scholars who are particularly interested in conceptual order

France 33 project this requirement on to their object of study. In addition, the various definitions of order are here taken apart one after the other, and analysed and tested for their reformability. In general the result is not very convincing. Michel Girard, for instance, draws the following conclusion: Toutes ces façons de voir sont largement incompatibles et ne peuvent être conciliées dans une vision d’ensemble un peu cohérente. . . . Rien ne grantit que l’ordre, c’est-à-dire les notions que nous pouvons en avoir hic et nunc, soit capable de rendre compte de la vérité ultime des relations internationales. (Girard 1993: 11; emphases added) Such an ‘ultimate truth’ about international relations is of course equivalent to the aspired triumph of reason in encyclopaedism, but, according to other diagnoses, this triumph is far from being within reach (Roche 1993; Senarclens 1993b). Mohammad-Reza Djalili adds yet another dimension, a cultural one, by bringing into the discussion not only Western but also non-Western concepts of order fitting for the academic world market (Djalili 1990, 1991). The concept of order (internationally) thereby seems increasingly to replace the concept of system. This tendency is especially noticeable in Jean-Jacques Roche’s book, Le système international contemporain, which surprisingly devotes the final chapter to the ‘enthropy of international order’ rather than to the system (Roche 1994a: 113–53). This seems even more astonishing, since the system concept has positioned itself firmly in numerous approaches. Jean-Jacques Roche could still write the following in 1991: Transnationalistes, globalistes, ou néo-réalistes se séparent certes sur la définition du champ observé, sur la nature des interactions ou la qualité des acteurs mais in fine se rejoignent pour l’utilisation d’une systématique élaborée, en fonction de laquelle ils justifient leurs différences. (Roche 1991: 45) The Montreal scholar Bahgat Korany had previously arrived at the same conclusion and criticized the undifferentiated use of the system concept (Korany 1987: 69). From such conclusions it is just a small step to point to the limitations of the various theories and approaches, or at least to argue that these limitations function as a hindrance to fundamental reform (cf. e.g. Braillard 1984: 673; Senarclens 1991b: 102). Naturally the intention is not at all to deny or abandon the fundamental impossibility of creating a ‘paradigm of truth or of reason’ in the distant future. On the contrary, the ‘paradigm debates’ circulating on the world market should first of all be ‘pacified’ (Roche 1994b: 135). In line with the ideal of the encyclopédie,

34 Klaus-Gerd Giesen contending definitions and classifications should be overcome. From the perspective of a hypothetical future ‘grand reform’, it should be achieved, as formulated by Philippe Braillard, that ‘la cohabitation de théories et modèles opposés voire totalement contradictoires, ne constitue plus un probleme insurmontable’ (Braillard 1991: 23f.). In an essay he writes: Plutôt que de concevoir les paradigmes comme irréductiblement irréconciliables, et d’obliger le chercheur à s’enfermer dans une logique unidimensionnelle, il convient ici de reconnaître le caractère complémentaire des cadres paradigmatiques. Ceux-ci montrent en effet les diverses faces d’une seule et unique réalité, faite à la fois, comme toute réalité sociale, d’harmonie et de conflit, d’interdépendance et de dépendance, d’équilibre et de changement. Ce faisant, on comprend que chacune de ces conceptions antagonistes des relations internationales se fonde sur une dimension importante des phénomènes étudies et que, en cherchant a mettre en évidence cette dimension, elle tend a négliger d’autres aspects non moins importants. (Braillard 1994: 32) Jean-Jacques Roche also argues that ‘l’heure n’est donc pas tant à la révolution conceptuelle qu’à la conciliation de concepts’ (Roche 1994c: 46; emphasis added). The paradigmatic and conceptual reform consensus is traded as the highest epistemological bid in the typical manner of French encyclopaedism, in contrast not only to positivistic approaches, but also to the few critical ones not listed here, this being the case even when the gap between observed reality and theoretical concepts is constantly widening and deepening. It should therefore come as no surprise that post-structural deconstructions (see e.g. the Franco-Canadian: Rioux et al. 1988) and postmodernist visions (Laïdi 1994) derive from the encyclopaedic relativization of approaches. These dismiss, however, the exploratory task and the final triumph of reason due to the cyclic redundancy of the inter-paradigmatic fusion or integration projects, and have only irony to spare for the reform idea. Instead, they strive for the total emancipation from any theoretical constraint through critique of ideology. The thesis most appropriate in this context, which could also be tested on other IR communities, would then run as follows: the ‘post-approaches’ have been derived from the growing disenchantment with encyclopaedism. The postmodern work by Zaki Laïdi on ‘world time’ and ‘production of sense’ (contrary to ‘production of power’ in international relations) reflects the ‘overdrive’ of encyclopaedism. On the one hand, he writes that one should ‘penser en termes conjoints des concepts ou des catégorizations que nous avons pour habitude d’opposer’ (Laïdi 1992: 32), but on the other hand this should under no circumstance lead to conceptual reform. He clarifies that:

France 35 Les dynamiques internationales que l’on voit aujourd’hui se juxtaposer, coexister, s’interpénétrer et s’entrechoquer ne préfigurent pas nécessairement une ‘recomposition’ des enjeux en termes classiques mais une ère ou l’on apprendrait à ‘accoler’ des représentations ou des catégories que l’on opposait jusque-là entre elles. (Laïdi 1992: 31) This means on the one hand that the ‘overdrive’ of encyclopaedism is surpassing its enlightenment target and, on the other hand, that the (in this perspective) ‘totalitarian’ reason is negated. Although as far as the domestic/world market problematique is concerned, it is quite astonishing (but at the same time very typical of the structure of the encyclopaedic approach) that in the country of origin of Foucault, Deleuze, Baudrillard and Lyotard postmodernism required two decades and a troublesome, technical ‘reimport’ from the USA to find in France a few followers within the IR community. Historicism Historicism shows fierce opposition to the enlightenment-idealistic standpoint of encyclopaedism and tops the universalistic claim of the latter. The point is to create a scientific counter-position which takes the premises of the Annales school as the point of departure, while at the same time it develops a scientific conception in the form of a comparative historical sociology. This conception should not only be able to describe the multitude of societal factors, but also presuppose it. The aim here is not the general, but the particular. Historicist research offers no unitary explanatory principle for International Relations, but merely an abundance of facts for comparison and classification. The essence of this paradigm rests on the rejection of any analytical procedure that attempts, as a general rule, to separate societal connections and actor interests from the position of the acting subject, thereby making it transparent. Such a theoretical position should be replaced by the description of the entire ‘living reality’, which should then be divided into different levels of abstraction of IR reality with the assistance of sociological concepts. Just as Max Weber criticized the historicism of the nineteenth century (Weber 1985: ch. 1), one can, of course, reproach this counter-position of misunderstanding the relationship between notion and reality. It presupposes particularistic circumstances in reality and thus erroneously blocks its general conceptualization. Of importance here, parallel to positivism, is the attempt to base society, history as well as the social sciences on experience only. Contrary to positivism, historicism concentrates on empirical case studies, difficult to add up in descriptive sequences. The strength of historicism therefore lies in the comparative exploration of isolated cases, and its fundamental problem lies in the interpretation of the resulting material.

36 Klaus-Gerd Giesen The hegemonic universalism of the Western liberal unitary international actor constitutes the main methodological target of historicism predominant in France (unlike in other French-speaking countries in Europe and North America). As mentioned above, the early work of Marcel Merle underlined that this fundamental assumption (made by both positivism and encyclopaedism) in reality addresses something different, namely the ‘illusion d’optique en vertu de laquelle le modèle libéral européen allait se répandre à travers le monde’ (Merle 1986: 46). Regarding the ‘new’ states that came into existence through decolonization after the Second World War, he notices in particular the ‘rejet quasi unanime de la “greffe” libérale’ (Merle 1986: 50). Today the standard liberal model of the unitary state which forms the basis of all previous IR theories, and dominates the world market, would (in reality) be in the minority: Le nombre et la variété des déviances qui se sont produites par rapport au modèle initial confirment le caractère hétérogène du phénomène étatique. . . . En fait, c’est chacune des sociétés qui, à partir de son histoire (mémoire collective, valeurs spécifiques de référence, expériences internes et externes), construit son propre État, dont l’identité est unique et la conduite est irréductible à celle des autres. (Merle 1986: 57) In this historicist statement from 1986, Merle relies on a number of works emerging from state sociology and comparative African studies, which still flourishes in the former colonial and still rather centralized state of France (cf. e.g. Smouts 1991). This is yet another reason why, in view of the clear influence of these specializations on the IR research field, the demand for an autonomous discipline in International Relations in France never manifested itself fully. The hegemony of historicism is in this way secured on the domestic market (through a relative disconnection from the academic world market). It is also striking that several important representatives of state sociology have increasingly crossed over to the field of IR theory and have been able to recruit new supporters (from encyclopaedism). The historicism provided, for instance, by Marcel Merle, Bertrand Badie, Pierre Birnbaun, François Constantin and now also Marie-Claude Smouts presumably has a contagious effect, as testified by the founding of the journal Culture et Conflits. Of course, from a sociology of knowledge perspective it should not be forgotten that historicism can find support in the institutional topography of the French elite schools and their academic reproduction schemes. Outside Paris (i.e. in the so-called province) and in other French-speaking countries, historicism is asserted only rarely. Of special importance is that, since the publication of Bertrand Badie and Pierre Birnbaum’s Sociologie de l’Etat (1979), the concept of culture, partly borrowed from the Annales school and from anthropology, has been

France 37 epistemologically opposed to that of the state. For this reason historicism characterized itself as ‘culturalist’ until the beginning of the 1980s (Badie 1981: 328–30). The concept of culture thus absorbed the entire concept of forces profondes of the Annales school, as well as its particular anti-universalism (Kazancigil 1985). This concept had considerable success following the end of the Cold War, and was at the same time equally extended to the discursive production of Western political science, including the metalevel (see e.g. Badie 1994: 1). It was said that political science is itself universalistically predisposed and thus represents the cognitive interests of the rationalist West: La théorie des relations internationales s’avère incapable de proposer des paradigmes rendant compte de cette explosion du système mondial sous l’effet de la transformation des acteurs et du choc des cultures. Développée dans les pays occidentaux et dominée par les interrogations des Etats-Unis sur leur propre devenir, elle reste tributaire des concepts et des outils d’analyse forgés pour répondre aux préoccupations spécifiques des pays du Nord: guerre froide dans les années cinquante et soixante, interdépendance économique dans la décennie soixante-dix, mondialization des échanges et globalization financière dans la période récente. (Badie and Smouts 1992: 145) This citation clearly reveals that historicism does not limit itself to the object only, but simultaneously applies itself to the epistemological level (i.e. removing itself from the academic domestic/world market dichotomy), although it unequivocally belongs de facto to the first pole. From a historicist view, there could logically exist as many different national political sciences as there are state forms in the international system. In L’Etat importé (1992), Badie deconstructs the universal category of ‘state’, which naturally causes all IR theories constructed on the basis of the concept, such as neorealism and regime theory, to go down the drain. Nor does the conceptual separation of inner and outer spheres survive; dependency is partly transformed into cultural dependence (Badie 1992: 54), and sovereignty, in the process of globalization, is regarded critically (Badie 1992: 110, 278). In addition, it is claimed that the crises of the Third World state, mostly ‘imported’ from the West, contribute considerably to world disorder (Badie 1992: 269). In this context only the transnational school and in particular Rosenau’s turbulence theory are spared (Badie 1992: 271). At the end of this attack, backed by an impressive number of empirical case studies, Badie writes: D’une scène internationale qui s’était construite sur le mode universaliste, on glisse clairement vers une scène éclatée mêlant des répertoires différents et contradictoires. Plus encore, les acteurs

38 Klaus-Gerd Giesen jouent de cette pluralité pour acquérir des avantages nouveaux, alors que naguère les États d’Asie comme ceux d’Afrique n’accédaient aux relations internationales qu’en utilisant le répertoire occidental de l’action diplomatique, en se conformant à des modèles idéologiques qu’ils y puisaient et en ne recouvrant, pour se faire entendre, qu’à une surenchère qui réclamait plus d’État et plus de souveraineté. Cet éclatement culturel du système international accroît à son tour la fonction externe de toutes les mobilizations qui, au sein de chaque société, se réfèrent au discours identitaire. (Badie 1992: 289, emphasis added) Finally, he states that: Perdant son rôle de médiateur obligatoire entre l’interne et l’externe, l’État abandonne une part importante de sa légitimité et des ses fonctions; l’hypothèse même d’un espace public ne peut que se ressentir de cette transformation, alors que l’extension internationale des espaces sociaux privés vient relativiser, de l’extérieur, l’idée d’un intérêt national dont se nourissait pourtant la théorie classique des relations internationales. (Badie 1992: 306) In the same year he published, along with Marie-Claude Smouts, the highly esteemed book Le retournement du monde, in which the historicist approach is attributed a twofold heuristic goal, in opposition to positivism and encyclopaedism: i) interpréter d’abord la stratégie des acteurs extra occidentaux, c’està-dire leur recours à un modèle de conduite diplomatique qui s’inscrit dans le registre de plusieurs rationalités dont ne rendaient pas compte les paradigmes universalistes; ii) comprendre ensuite la pluralité des ordres politiques qui en dérivent et qui dérangent le modèle uniforme du système international. (Badie and Smouts 1992: 23; emphasis added) This leads to: L’extrême diversités des ordres politique internes rend très incertaines l’identification et l’énumération des acteurs du système international; elle rend très peu réductible à un paradigme unique la prise en compte de l’articulation de l’interne et de l’externe. (Badie and Smouts 1992: 29) This quotation shows unequivocally that historicism infers a state’s external behaviour from its inner sphere in order to make the universal cat-

France 39 egory of ‘state’ appear as an ethnocentric construction of Western political science (see also Breton 1993). Accordingly, the globalization and the collapse of bipolarity at least had the great advantage of having made the emergence of culture and transnational flows on the world stage more visible at the expense of the three principles behind the state system (territoriality, sovereignty, security) (Badie and Smouts 1992: 237). Thus the ‘destatization’ and ‘de-territorialization’ of the international system (Badie and Birnbaum 1994: 200) should also provoke the ‘de-universalization’ of the instruments and concepts of the political sciences – named again in the plural form as in the nineteenth century (Constantin 1994: 55). Only this would hold the substantialist danger in the social sciences in check, consisting of: ‘il y aurait une essense du politique qui contrôlerait toute construction du pouvoir dans la Cité et dont l’Etat serait la réalisation finale’ (Badie and Birnbaum 1994: 189).

Conclusion Positivism, encyclopaedism and historicism are epistemological categories that were created respectively before and after the French Revolution, i.e. in the mid-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries. Nevertheless, these epistemological categories appear neither obsolete nor outdated. Rather, their usage sheds a new and different light on the existing approaches (substituting the usual dichotomous classification) and reveals how these categories, in line with the domestic/world market continuum in a perspective of sociology of knowledge, become the inevitable object of cognitive interests and research strategies. The history of three dominant approaches in the academically semi-peripheral areas of the Frenchspeaking parts of Europe and Canada refers to the thoroughly specific and complex emergence and construction patterns. This, however, does not mean that these epistemological categories and the domestic/world market dichotomy could not, in principle, be useful for the analysis of other discourse systems. The three above-mentioned paradigmatic categories are firmly placed on the ground of the dominant worldwide societal order. Only a critical view appears positioned to emphasize the underlying cognitive interests. To enable this, a historical reconstruction seems indispensable because it is, for example, impossible to understand present-day historicism without the (today even in France ‘forgotten’) hegemonic intentions of the historical Annales school. In this chapter, the reconstruction has shown that the creation of schools of thought as well as the closely connected adjustment to, or decoupling from the academic world market at any time serves different epistemological interests and hegemonic efforts. It is the assignment of the sociology of science to make this explicit, equally so when it necessitates calling upon unusual thought categories.

40 Klaus-Gerd Giesen

Acknowledgements The original text was published in German in 1995 (Giesen 1995). It has been translated by Chris Freeman and slightly revised and shortened by the author, but not updated. Therefore, the text does not take recent changes in Francophone political science into account. For an account of the past decade, see Friedrichs (2004).

Notes 1 The distinction between academic domestic vs. world market follows Jean Leca’s suggestion (Leca 1982: 668–70). 2 In this text an academic domestic market will therefore be defined first in terms of language area and second in terms of national IR communities. 3 See Smouts (1987: 281) and Yakemtchouk (1978). On the history of international law studies in France see Colin (1994b). 4 On academic corporatism see Bourdieu (1984); on the IR field from a disciplinary-corporatist perspective see Giesen (1993). 5 The journal Annales d’histoire économique et sociale, whose title gave the school its name, was founded in 1929 by Lucien Febvre and Marc Bloch. However, the hegemony in the social sciences started after the Second World War. For an overview see Le Goff (1978). 6 This explains why almost no French scholar was interested in the discussion on so-called transnational relations, started in the late 1960s by Karl Kaiser in Germany and by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane in the USA. 7 On the problem of language in social science see Herman (1994a). 8 It should be emphasized once again that this chapter focuses only on publications which represent the development of dominant and complete approaches. Therefore partial or marginal approaches are not taken into account. This means that the dependency theory of Amin (1973), Arghiri (1972) and Palloix (1971), the polémologie of Gaston Bouthoul (1970), several integration (e.g. De Bussy et al. 1971) and organizational theories (Smouts 1974, 1993; Holly 1981; Bourgi and Colin 1993), theories of strategy (Hassner 1971; Byers 1983; Legault 1987; Schmidt 1991; David and Klein 1992), decision-making theory (Barrea 1975, 1985; Lang 1993; Rudniaski 1993) and philosophical works (Hassner 1961, 1994; Braillard 1974) are not explicitly mentioned. 9 This theorem of sociology of knowledge may be verified by an example of American IR. In his famous 1984 debate with the critical (not yet postmodernist) Richard Ashley, Robert Gilpin criticized Ashley’s ‘sociological’ language: ‘It is this needless jargon, this assault on the language that gives us social scientists a bad name. More seriously, because of the opacity of much of Ashley’s prose, I frequently could not follow his argument’ (Gilpin 1984: 289). On the other hand, Ashley had criticized the ‘economization’ of the neorealist language (Ashley 1984). Therefore it is no surprise that American postmodernists pay close attention to language; see e.g. the surrealist ‘IR theatre play’ by Rosenau (1993). 10 It should be emphasized that these two approaches were created outside France. 11 As far as the cultural factor is concerned – which will have much importance, as will be shown – one can consult the early works by Roy Preiswerk (see e.g. his posthumous book: Preiswerk 1984). 12 In addition to the well-established Politique étrangère, Politique internationale,

France 41 Studia diplomatica, Revue Tiers Monde, Relations internationales, as well as Etudes internationales (which is the most interesting for readers with an interest in theory), new journals such as Relations internationales et stratégiques, Le Trimestre du monde and Alternatives Sud have appeared. 13 The book deals mainly with theories which are dominant on the world market, such as realism, neorealism and regime theory, Robert Cox’s theorem of hegemony and so on. 14 A similar view is adopted by Hassner (1980), Hermet (1980), Smouts (1980), Barrea (1982), Seminatore (1987) and Djalili (1993).

References Aggarwal, V.K. and Allan, P. (1992) ‘Cold War Endgames’, in P. Allan and K. Goldmann (eds) The End of the Cold War: Evaluating Theories of International Relations, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 24–54. Allan, P. (1979) ‘L’impact du climat international sur les dépenses militaires soviétiques’, Annuaire suisse de science politique 19: 15–24. —— (1992) ‘Der erste Kalte Krieg, 1946–1963’, in A.A. Stahel (ed.) Simulationen strategischer Probleme, Zürich: VDF, pp. 129–74. —— (1994) ‘La complexite, le hasard et l’individu dans la théorie politique internationale’, in M. Girard (ed.) Les individus dans la politique internationale, Paris: Economica, pp. 57–77. Allan, P. and Luterbacher, U. (1992) ‘Strategische und politisch-ökonomische Zusammenhänge. Computersimulationsmodelle der Grossmächte und der Schweiz’, in A.A. Stahel (ed.) Simulationen strategischer Probleme, Zürich: VDF, pp. 87–127. Allan, P., Dupont, C. and Luterbacher, U. (1992) ‘La Suisse, un modele politicoéconomique et l’Europe’, Annuaire suisse de science politique 32: 323–45. Amin, S. (1973) Le développement inégal. Essai sur les fonctions sociales du capitalisme périphérique, Paris: Éditions de Minuit. —— (1994) ‘La nouvelle mondialisation capitaliste. Problèmes et perspectives’, Alternatives Sud, 1(1): 19–44. Arghiri, E. (1972) L’échange inégal. Essai sur les antagonismes dans les rapports économiques internationaux, Paris: F. Maspero. Ariffin, Y. and Merrone, G. (1994) ‘Les relations internationales entre “traditionalistes” et “post . . .” ’, Le Trimestre du monde 27: 73–107. Aron, R. (1962) Paix et guerre entre les nations, Paris: Calmann-Lévy. —— (1967) ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une théorie des relations internationales?’, Revue française de science politique 17(5): 837–61. —— (1984) Les dernières années du siècle, Paris: Julliard. Ashley, R.K. (1984) ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization 38(2): 225–86. Badie, B. (1981) ‘Contrôle culturel et genèse de l’État’, Revue française de science politique 31(2): 325–42. —— (1992) L’État importé. L’occidentalisation de l’ordre politique, Paris: Fayard. —— (1994) Le développement politique (5th edn), Paris: Economica. Badie, B. and Birnbaum, P. (1979) Sociologie de l’État, Paris: Grasset. —— (1994) ‘Sociologie de l’État revisitée’, Revue internationale des sciences sociales 140: 189–203.

42 Klaus-Gerd Giesen Badie, B. and Smouts, M.-C. (1992) Le retournement du monde. Sociologie de la scène internationale, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, Dalloz. Barrea, J. (1975) ‘Relation de puissance bloquée et issues possibles’, Études internationales 6(2): 151–64. —— (1982) ‘Approche synoptique des théories de la décision, de la puissance et de la négociation’, Études internationales 12(2): 251–67. —— (1985) ‘Entre l’utopie et la diplomatie: les “contre-décisions” ’, Études internationales 16(1): 5–36. —— (1994) Théories des relations internationales (3rd edn), Louvain-la-Neuve: Artel. First published 1977. Bourdieu, P. (1976) ‘Le champ scientifique’, Actes de la recherche en sciences socials 2: 88–104. —— (1984) Homo academicus, Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. Bourgi, A. and Colin, J.-P. (1993) ‘Entre le renouveau et la crise: l’Organisation des Nations Unies’, Politique étrangère 58(3): 581–96. Bouthoul, G. (1970) Traité de polémologie, Paris: Payot. Boyer, R. (1986) La théorie de la régulation. Une analyse critique, Paris: La Découverte. —— (1993) ‘Comment émerge un nouveau système productif’, in J-P. Durand (ed.) Vers un nouveau modèle productif, Paris: Syros/Alternative, pp. 31–92. Braillard, P. (1974) Philosophie et relations internationales, Geneva: IUHEI. —— (1977a) Théories des relations internationales, Paris: PUF. —— (1977b) Théorie des systèmes et relations internationales, Brussels: Bruylant. —— (1984) ‘Les sciences sociales et l’étude des relations internationales’, Revue internationale des sciences sociales 36(4): 661–76. —— (1991) ‘Nature et possibilité de la théorie des relations internationales: une nécessaire réévaluation’, Le Trimestre du monde 15: 11–25. Breton, G. (1993) ‘Mondialisation et science politique: la fin d’un imaginaire théorique?’, Études internationals 24(3): 533–48. Byers, R. (1983) ‘L’état de la recherche sur la paix et les études stratégiques au Canada’, Anthropologie et sociétés 7(1): 193–213. Colin, J.-P. (1994a) L’acteur et le roi. Portrait en pied de Jack Lang, Geneva: Georg Éditeur. —— (1994b) ‘Relations internationales et concepts juridiques: la morphologie juridique des relations internationales’, Le Trimestre du monde 27: 161–73. Colin, J.-P. and Séloron, F. (1994) Le mandarin étranglé. Réflexions sur la fonction sociale de l’art, Paris: Publisud. Constantin, F. (1994) ‘Les relations internationales: entre tradition et post-modernité?’, Le Trimestre du monde 27: 49–72. Czempiel, E.-O. (1986) ‘Der Stand der Wissenschaft von den Internationalen Beziehungen und der Friedensforschung in der Bundesrepublik’, in K. von Beyme (ed.) Politikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (PVS-Sonderheft 17), Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 250–63. David, D. and Klein, J. (1992) Conflits, puissances et stratégies en Europe. Le dégel du continent, Brussels: Bruylant. De Bussy, M.-É., Delorme, H. and De la Serre, F. (1971) ‘Approches théoriques de l’intégration européenne’, Revue française de science politique 20(3): 615–53. Djalili, M.-R. (1990) ‘Conceptions non occidentales de l’ordre mondial et théories des relations internationales’, Le Trimestre du monde 9: 149–61.

France 43 —— (1991) ‘Les conceptions non occidentales de l’ordre mondial’, Le Trimestre du monde 15: 77–88. —— (1993) ‘Analyse des conflits du Tiers Monde: éléments d’une typologie’, Revue internationale des sciences sociales 127: 171–90. Draus, F. (1984) ‘Sur la perspective théorique de l’engagement politique de Raymond Aron’, Revue européenne des sciences sociales et Cahiers, Vilfredo Pareto 66: 15–40. Duroselle, J.-B. (1952) ‘L’étude des relations internationales: objet, méthode, perspectives’, Revue française de science politique 2(4): 676–701. —— (1981) Tout Empire périra. Une vision théorique des relations internationales, Paris: Université de Paris. Favre, P. (1985) ‘Histoire de la science politique’, in M. Grawitz and J. Leca (eds) Traité de science politique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 3–45. Finkielkraut, A. (1987) La défaite de la pensée, Paris: Gallimard. Finnegan, R., Giles, B. and John J. (1975) ‘A Citation Analysis of Patterns of Influence in International Relations Research’, International Studies Notes 1: 11–21. Foucault, M. (1969) L’archéologie du savoir, Paris: Gallimard. —— (1971) L’ordre du discours, Paris: Gallimard. Freymond, J. (1959) Le conflit sarrois 1945–1955, Brussels: Editions de l’Institut de Sociologie Solvay. Friedländer, S. (1974) ‘ “Mentalité collective” et “caractère national” ’, Relations internationales 2: 25–35. —— (1977) ‘Paradigme perdu et retour à l’Histoire’, Les relations internationales dans un monde en mutation, La Haye: Sijthoff, pp. 71–94. Friedländer, S. and Cohen, R. (1974) ‘Réflexions sur les tendances actuelles de la recherche en relations internationales’, Revue internationale des sciences sociales 26(1): 37–57. Friedländer, S. and Molnár, M. (1981) ‘Histoire nouvelle et histoire des relations internationales’, in Friedländer et al. (eds) L’historien et les relations internationales. Receuil d’études en hommage à Jacques Freymond, Geneva: Graduate Institute of International Studies, pp. 77–90. Friedrichs, J. (2004) European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions, London and New York: Routledge. Giesen, K.-G. (1992) L’éthique des relations internationales. Les théories anglo-américaines contemporaines, Brussels: Bruylant. —— (1993) ‘Corporatisme paradigmatique, théories déontologiques et nouvel ordre mondial’, Études internationales 24(2): 315–29. —— (1994a) ‘Entre décisionnisme et structuralisme: la précarité de l’éthique individuelle dans les théories des relations internationales’, in M. Girard (ed.) Les individus dans la politique internationale, Paris: Economica, pp. 25–38. —— (1995) ‘French Cancan zwichen Positivismus, Enzyklopädismus und Historismus’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2: 141–70. Gilpin, R.G. (1984) ‘The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism’, International Organization 38(2): 287–304. Girard, M. (1993) ‘Les conceptions de l’ordre dans les relations internationales’, Cahiers Francais 263: 4–11. —— (ed.) (1994) Les individus dans la politique internationale, Paris: Economica. Graz, J.-C. (1994) ‘Relations internationales et concepts économiques: rénovations et ruptures’, Le Trimestre du monde 27: 133–59.

44 Klaus-Gerd Giesen Grosser, A. (1956) ‘L’étude des relations internationales, spécialité américaine?’, Revue française de science politique 6(3): 634–51. Hassner, P. (1961) ‘Les concepts de guerre et de paix chez Kant’, Revue française de science politique 6(3): 642–70. —— (1971) ‘On ne badine pas avec la force’, Revue française de science politique 11(4): 1207–33. —— (1980) ‘A la recherche de la cohérence perdue’, Revue française de science politique 30(2): 237–61. —— (1994) ‘Beyond the Three Traditions: The Philosophy of War and Peace in Historical Perspective’, International Affairs 70(4): 737–56. —— (1995) La violence et la paix. De la bombe atomique au nettoyage ethnique, Paris: Esprit. Hellmann, G. (1994) ‘Für eine problemorientierte Grundlagenforschung: Kritik und Perspektiven der Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 65–90. Hentsch, T. (1981) ‘Histoire et théorie des relations internationales: Pour une étude critique de la société mondiale’, in S. Friedländer et al. (eds) L’historien et les relations internationales. Receuil d’études en hommage à Jacques Freymond, Geneva: Graduate Institute of International Studies, pp. 97–125. Herman, J. (1994a) Les langages de la sociologie, Paris: PUF. —— (1994b) ‘Individualisme et systémisme dans l’analyse de la politique internationale’, in M. Girard (ed.) Les individus dans la politique internationale, Paris: Economica, pp. 39–56. —— (1994c) ‘Chaologie, politique et nationalisme’, Revue internationale de politique comparée 1(3): 385–415. Hermet, G. (1980) ‘Entre l’utopie et la stratégie. La hiérarchie des nations dans le système mondial’, Revue française de science politique 30(2): 205–21. Hoffmann, S. (1951) ‘Vers l’étude systématique des mouvements d’intégration internationale’, Revue française de science politique 4(2): 474–85. —— (1954) Organisations internationales et pouvoirs politiques des États, Paris: Armand Colin. —— (1961) ‘Théorie et relations internationales’, Revue française de science politique 6(2): 413–33. —— (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106(3): 41–60. —— (1985) ‘L’ordre international’, in M. Grawitz and J. Leca (eds) Traité de science politique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, pp. 665–98. Holly, D.A. (1981) L’UNESCO, le tiers-monde et l’économie mondiale, Montreal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Kazancigil, A. (ed.) (1985) L’État au pluriel. Perspectives de sociologie historique, Paris: Economica. Korany, B. (ed.) (1987) Analyse des relations internationales. Approches, concepts et données, Montreal: G. Morin. Krippendorff, E. (1987) ‘The Dominance of American Approaches in International Relations’, Millennium 16(2): 207–14. Laïdi, Z. (ed.) (1992) L’ordre mondial relâché. Sens et puissance après la guerre froide, Paris: Presses de la FNSP, pp. 13–44. —— (1994) Un monde privé de sens, Paris: Fayard. Lang, B. (1993) ‘La place de l’étude des décisions dans la connaissance des relations internationales’, Le Trimestre du monde 23: 9–17.

France 45 Leca, J. (1982) ‘La science politique dans le champ intellectuel français’, Revue française de science politique 32(4/5): 653–78. Legault, A. (1987) ‘Vingt-cinq ans d’études stratégiques: Essai critique et survol de la documentation’, in Korany, B. (ed.) Analyse des relations internationales, Montréal: G. Morin, pp. 37–59. Le Goff, J. (ed.) (1978) La Nouvelle Histoire, Paris: CEPL. Luterbacher, U. (1974) Dimensions historiques de modèles dynamiques de conflit. Application aux processus de course aux armements 1900–1965, Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff. Lyons, G.M. (1982) ‘Expanding the Study of International Relations: The French Connection’, World Politics 35(1): 135–49. Merle, M. (1976) Sociologie des relations internationales (2nd edn), Paris: Dalloz. —— (1983) ‘La “problématique” de l’étude des relations internationales en France’, Revue française de science politique 33(3): 403–27. —— (1984) ‘Le dernier message de Raymond Aron: système interétatique ou sociologie internationale?’, Revue française de science politique 34(6): 1181–97. —— (1986) Les acteurs dans les relations internationales, Paris: Economica. Palloix, C. (1971) L’économie mondiale capitaliste, Paris: Maspero. Preiswerk, R.A. (1984) A contre-courants. L’enjeu des relations interculturelles, Lausanne: Ed. D’En-bas. Renouvin, P. (ed.) (1954) Histoire des relations internationales (8 vols), Paris: Hachette. Renouvin, P. and Duroselle, J.-B. (1964) Introduction à l’histoire des relations internationales, Paris: Armand Colin. Rioux, J.-F., Keenes, E. and Légaré, G. (1988) ‘Le néo-réalisme ou la reformulation du paradigme hégémonique en relations internationales’, Études internationales 19(1): 57–80. Robles, A.C. Jr. (1994) French Theories of Regulation and Conceptions of the International Division of Labour, New York: St Martin’s Press. Roche, J.-J. (1991) ‘La systémique: état des lieux au début des années 1990’, Le Trimestre du monde 15: 43–56. —— (1993) ‘L’international: nouveau marché éditorial’, Politiques 6: 133–7. —— (1994a) Le système international contemporain, Paris: Montchrestien. —— (1994b) Théories des relations internationales, Paris: Montchrestien. —— (1994c) ‘Les relations internationales: théorie ou sociologie?’, Le Trimestre du monde 27: 35–48. Rosenau, J.N. (ed.) (1993) Global Voices. Dialogues in International Relations, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rudniaski, M. (1993) ‘La théorie des jeux comme outil de la décision internationale’, Le Trimestre du monde 23: 59–79. Schmidt, C. (1991) Penser la guerre. Penser l’économie, Paris: Odile Jacob. Seminatore, I. (1987) ‘Interdépendance, linkage et système international’, Études internationales 18(2): 329–52. Senarclens, P. de (1991a) ‘Le paradigme “réaliste” et les conflits internationaux’, Revue internationale des sciences sociales 127: 5–19. —— (1991b) ‘Les “néo-réalistes” à l’heure du Golfe’, Le Trimestre du Monde 15: 89–104. —— (1992) La politique internationale, Paris: Armand Colin. —— (1993a) ‘La théorie des régimes et l’étude des organisations internationales’, Revue internationale des sciences sociales 138: 527–36.

46 Klaus-Gerd Giesen —— (1993b) ‘Ordre et puissance’, in B. Badie and A. Pellet (eds) Les relations internationales à l’épreuve de la science politique. Mélanges Marcel Merle, Paris: Economica, pp. 83–96. Smith, S. (1987) ‘Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science’, Millennium 16(2): 189–206. Smouts, M.-C. (1974) ‘L’ONU et ses membres: recherche d’un cadre d’analyse comparative’, Études internationales 5(4): 683–6. —— (1980) ‘Nouveaux centres de pouvoir et problématique de la puissance’, Revue française de science politique 30(2): 222–36. —— (1987) ‘The Study of International Relations in France’, Millennium 16(2): 281–6. —— (1991) ‘L’Afrique dans la diplomatie multilatérale’, Études internationales 22(2): 267–78. —— (1993) ‘Organisations internationales et théories de la régulation: quelques éléments de réflexion’, Revue internationale des sciences sociales 138: 517–26. Veyne, P. (1971) Comment on écrit l’histoire, Paris: Editions du Seuil. Weber, M. (1985) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre (6th edn), Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Yakemtchouk, R. (1978) ‘La science politique et l’étude des relations internationales en Belgique’, in Belgisch Buitenlands Beleid en Internationale Betrekkingen. Liber Amicorum Prof. Omer De Raeymaeker, Leuven: Leuven University Press, pp. 107–25. Zürn, M. (1994) ‘We Can Do Much Better! Aber muss es auf amerikanisch sein?’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 91–114.

2

Italy Sonia Lucarelli and Roberto Menotti

Introduction Italy is one of the few European countries where constructivism has never taken root. Instead, the literature is characterized by a certain predilection for the classics and for multidisciplinary philosophically embedded theory. What then is the reality of Italian International Relations (IR)? This chapter investigates IR theory in the peninsula of the continental IR archipelago that has been the most successful in keeping its vices and virtues secret. We thus wish to contribute to the larger debates on continental European IR (Jørgensen 2000) from a national perspective and to the European challenge to the hegemonic role of American theory in the discipline. In a large part of Europe, IR communities benefited from the political and academic change triggered by the end of the Cold War to reopen theoretical debates that were frozen in time. In this way, the IR discipline grew stronger and more visible in a number of countries. In Italy, however, this opportunity seems to have been lost. No significant theoretical shift in the discipline has taken place. Italian scholars have failed to make themselves more visible in public debates in Italy and to participate more fully in theoretical mainstream debates at the international level. We suggest that this puzzle of the post-Cold War ‘missed opportunity’ calls for an account that goes beyond the traditional purely ‘external’ explanation of IR developments in a given community, and draws on the cultural-institutional context as well. More specifically, we draw on (1) the organizational characteristics of the research environment (i.e. mainly the university system), (2) the habits and attitudes of interaction among national professionals and between them and the external market, and (3) the political culture of the country. It is therefore our aim to provide an insight into Italian IR by means of both analysing the characteristics of the literature produced and describing the socio-intellectual environment in which research is conducted. We claim that the two aspects are strongly interrelated and deeply grounded in the Italian context. This chapter has two main sections and a short conclusion. The first

48 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti main section deals with the chief characteristics of current IR theoretical production in Italy (the analysis is limited to works appearing in the 1990s),1 its main themes and theoretical referents, and some of the central arguments. The second main section discusses the academic position occupied by the discipline of IR in Italy, the pattern of interaction among domestic scholars and between them and the external community, and domestic factors that influenced the current shape of the country’s IR production. The concluding section sums up the main arguments and looks at the potential for development in the field.

The Italian literature: characteristics and puzzles There are many ways of providing an overview of IR literature in Italy in the 1990s. We chose to provide a description of the state of the art in terms of the most recurring issues under investigation, some of the main theoretical arguments developed by Italian scholars, and the degree of interaction between Italian IR and the mainstream debate. Themes and substantive issues One way of analysing the literature and its orientation is to identify the key substantive IR themes studied by Italian scholars. The most common themes include:2 • • •

• • • • • •

Evolution of the post-Cold War and – since 2002 – of post 9/11 international system. New conceptions and meanings of international security and conflict. Democracy as a variable (independent or intervening) in determining foreign policy and the outcome of state interaction, but also as an aim of foreign policy. Ethics and international relations, especially associated with Bonanate, Papisca, Cerutti and Toscano. (Formal) international institutions. European integration, especially the dynamic ‘Europeanization’ studies (cf. Giuliani and Radaelli 1999). Globalization, fragmentation and forms of global governance. National interest and the ‘new geopolitics’ – a theme particularly covered in the early 1990s. Identity, which has the potential of becoming the core around which an Italian approach to constructivism could develop.

Apart from these substantive issues, a few studies discuss paradigms or review a given cluster of theoretical approaches. Debates on paradigms and direct contributions to the great debates in IR rarely occur. This reveals striking ‘holes’ in the literature to be investigated in the following section.

Italy

49

Even at first glance, it is thus clear that several issues which have found fertile ground for theoretical discussion in the Anglo-Saxon world in recent years have not been a matter of great concern in Italy. This may be said, for example, of the notion of ‘cooperation under anarchy’, general game theory and its ramifications, ‘offence-defence theory’, relative versus absolute gains, and, most of all, the rationalism–reflectivism epistemological debate. Features and trends Three general criteria may be useful to help locate Italian IR literature in relation to the discipline as a whole: 1 2 3

its level of abstractness; its position vis-à-vis certain major schools of thought and/or approaches; its relationship with the broader IR community in terms of both imported theories/approaches and the presence of Italian literature in international IR Journals or IR international conference panels.

The level of abstractness The first criterion proposed to describe the IR theoretical literature is to identify the level of abstractness of studies by Italian scholars. To this end, we will adopt the categorization proposed by Lepgold (1998: 43–62). He argues that ‘there appear to be four major groups of literatures and professional activities in the field’ [of IR]: general theory, issue-oriented puzzles, case-oriented explanations and policy-making. He further explains that general theory, the first major group of literature, ‘aims to subsume under a coherent explanation a broad array of empirical phenomena; it is typically not attached to specific categories of issues, time periods, or geographic regions’ (1998: 47). The second group of literature analyses ‘particular classes of puzzles that are tied to specific categories of issues, temporal domains, and spatial domains’ (1998: 48). Case-oriented explanations, the third group of literature, offer generalizations derived from case studies, although the focus is on the specific event/case rather than on the theoretical generalization based on it. Finally, policy-making looks even more directly at a particular policy problem (i.e. decision-making issues). The former two groups belong to the broad category of theory-building, while the latter two are within the category of policy applications. Most studies on international issues are produced by study centres in Italy, and they display a strong tendency to focus on ‘policy-making’ or – less frequently – ‘case-oriented explanations’. Both ‘issue-oriented puzzles’ and ‘general theory’ tend to be confined to academic

50 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti departments that are seriously constrained by limited funding and a lack of ‘critical mass’. Within the broad category of theory-building, reviews of the theoretical literature, especially of the ‘classics’ of grand theories, are very common. Less frequent are issue-oriented puzzles and attempts at general theory. A recurring approach is to identify a specific puzzle and to link the analysis of the puzzle to a chosen theoretical framework. The primary goal is not to refine or modify the theoretical framework, but to use it as an interpretive tool. This is more than a legitimate use of theory but in ‘theory-building’ terms, these studies tend to have a limited genuinely theoretical scope because the efforts focus on the puzzle itself as a substantive issue or on the empirical cases selected to solve it. For instance, Panebianco (1997) argued very persuasively that democratic governance within states alters the way in which they conduct their external relations; however, he did not go so far as to explicitly promulgate a modified version of realism or liberalism (the only theoretical approaches he deemed relevant in terms of explanatory power). Instead, he called for a combination of both to explain and understand the puzzle he set out to solve (i.e. democratic responses to the dual pressure of the anarchical international system and domestically driven interests). There are indeed attempts at theory-building, but they are rare and represent a marginal component of the overall work of each scholar. Among exceptions here are contributions as diverse as the ‘internal critique’ of neorealism, the updated version of geopolitics advocated by Santoro (1998) (largely as an open challenge to the established parameters for evaluating theory), and the framework developed by Bonanate (1992, 1994, 2000) to address the possible evolution of the state and international anarchy. A work with a normative focus deserving specific mention is Toscano’s (2000) study of ethics and international relations. However, the prevailing trend is to refrain from systematic theorybuilding in favour of much more specific concerns or with a strong focus on cases. Thus case-oriented explanations are more numerous than issueoriented puzzles. These attempts to provide explanations to specific cases are closer to foreign policy analysis than to theory-building, as in Santoro’s study of Italian foreign policy (1991) which adopted a broad geopolitical framework and a more detailed decision-making model. In other instances, even when the subject matter appears to be at a high level of abstractness (or theory-intensive), as in the case of Jean’s ‘geopolitics’ (Jean 1995; Savona and Jean 1995), the ultimate intent is clearly policyoriented rather than centred on theory-building per se. In order to support our point, we looked at the Italian reviews that host IR articles and feature theoretical contributions. Reviews fall within three large categories: (1) journals of political science (not specifically devoted to IR) with specifically theoretical interests – Teoria Politica, Quaderni di Scienza Politica, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica; (2) journals of political

Italy

51

science (also not specifically devoted to IR) which at times publish articles with a theoretical approach (including those in the IR field) – Il Mulino; (3) journals of IR which at times publish articles with a theoretical approach – Relazioni internazionali, Politica internazionale, The International Spectator, Europa Europe. The criteria we have adopted lead us to exclude those IR journals that explicitly lack any interest in theoretical contributions – such as Limes. The choice to take into consideration journals, instead of other kinds of publications, in search of an empirical backing for our ideas is due to the conviction that, as argued by Wæver (1998: 697), ‘journals are the most direct measure of the discipline itself. The sociology of science . . . has pointed to journals as the crucial institution of modern sciences.’ The data refer to the 1998 to 2000 period and include only articles. Table 2.1 presents the total number of articles, the share of IR articles out of the total, the number of IR articles which correspond to the vast category of ‘theory-building’ mentioned above, and the number of theorybuilding articles written by non-Italian authors. Position as regards the main schools of thought or approaches A second useful indicator of the ‘location’ of Italian IR works is the relationship of the Italian production with respect to the main recognized schools of thought in IR. The ‘Realism versus Liberalism’ divide remains a useful starting point. In this perspective, there is a hard core of IR literature in Italy that can clearly be placed in the Realist camp. More precisely, a classical Realist school is well established, while only a few authors lean towards the Neorealist version. It is less clear whether a comparable hard core can easily fit into the Liberal camp: it is not so much that the Realist production is quantitatively predominant but rather that the ‘nonRealist’ or openly ‘anti-Realist’ production is quite diverse and does not clearly gather around a coherent body of works. Works falling largely within the classical Realist tradition include authors such as Marco Cesa, Pier Paolo Portinaro, Luciano Bozzo, Alessandro Colombo, and only to some extent Panebianco (leaning towards a Realist–Liberal synthesis) and Carlo Maria Santoro (leaning decisively towards a rejection of established theoretical approaches). These authors may not feel entirely comfortable with Morgenthau’s version of Realism and are not constrained by its confines, yet they do adopt the basic concepts and logic of classical Realism in most of their analyses. Jean and Santoro reflect two different outcomes of a common fascination with geopolitics: the former views geopolitics as a flexible analytical tool allowing for the incorporation of ‘spatial’ but also technological, ‘geoeconomic’ and identity-related factors into an essentially traditional Realist framework (Jean 1995); the latter veered away from (Anglo-Saxon) IR and developed a theory based on geographical metaphors that only

204 275 215 40 97 29 95 116

Europa Europe Il Mulino Politica Internazionale Quaderni di Scienza Politica Relazioni Internazionali Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica Teoria Politica The International Spectator

93 46 194 9 95 5 17 113

(94.6%) (16.7%) (90.2%) (22.5%) (98%) (17.2%) (17.9%) (97.4%)

No. of IR articles (% of total)b 4 5 6 9 0 5 17 0

(17.2%; 100%) (17.9%; 100%)

(1.9%; 2.1%) (1.8%; 10.9%) (2.8%; 3%) (22.5%; 100%)

No. of theoretically informed IR articles (and % of IR articles)

Notes a Only articles are included (not book reviews or the like). b The category is large, and includes studies from EU issues to the analysis of order in world politics.

Total no. of articles

Review

Table 2.1 Theoretical and non-theoretical IR articles in major Italian journals, 1998–2000a

44 5 37 1 35 1 0 69

(59.4%)

(22.7%) (10.9%) (19%) (2.5%) (36.8%) (20%)

No. of IR articles by foreign authors (% of IR articles)

Italy

53

shared certain aspects with Realism. Santoro’s (1998) approach was openly anti-Liberalist, anti-institutionalist, and anti-globalist, and it was also critical of approaches based on economic analogies. The anti-globalist aspect was shown by his insistence on identity as a fundamental category of political and social analysis. Interestingly, this approach also contains (implicit) constructivist elements, for instance, in the definition of the concept ‘the West’ as primarily a discourse (Santoro 1998: 25). Santoro ultimately dismissed most established theoretical and interpretative categories as the offspring of a US-centred ideology (viewed in turn as the result of unique historical conditions that no longer applied). Setting aside the Realism–Liberalism divide to look at works reporting on, or taking part in, the recent metatheoretical debate (rationalism vs. reflectivism), we discover that the debate which filled the pages of most leading international IR journals has barely reached the Italian peninsula. Not only are so-called Reflectivist approaches not extensively applied, but no Italian scholar has actually taken an active part in such a debate. It is true that Italians did not make a distinctive contribution to the neo–neo debate of the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s (neorealism–neoliberal institutionalism), as may be gathered by the absence of typical rational-choice themes from the list in the previous section. However, this is not surprising since rational-choice issues do not fit well into the historicalphilosophical approach favoured by a significant number of Italian scholars. What is more striking is the nearly complete absence of constructivist works so popular in continental Europe and possibly quintessential to a Continental European theoretical sensibility.3 A further characteristic of Italian IR is that the strongest theoretical links and references for Italian scholars are to classical authors. A recurring feature of Italian IR production appears to be the analysis of a concept, as defined by a well-known author or school of thought, which introduces a broader discussion of the concept itself. This is the case, for example, of Kant’s political thought (Bonanate 1992, 1994, 2000), Schmitt’s notion of a ‘world civil war’ (Portinaro 1996), or Mackinder’s geopolitical view of the world (Santoro 1998). The same is true of analyses done by Cesa (1990, 1994, 1995a, 1995b) on the thinking of major Realists (both in the classical and ‘neo’ traditions). In this type of work, the author – or school of thought – under consideration typically belongs to the classical tradition, which reinforces the close links to philosophical studies and the analysis of political thought, sometimes to the detriment of contemporary authors. Most Italian scholars would probably subscribe to the argument advanced by Thompson, namely that equating ‘the most recent propositions by relative newcomers to the study of International Relations with the ideas of major thinkers whose writings have survived the test of time seems questionable on its face’. According to Thompson (1996: xii–xiii), (only) traditional schools of thought and approaches ‘constitute a coherent body of thought that has both empirical and logical validity’. We have not tested our proposition by

54 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti submitting this quote to Italian theorists, but the theoretical orientation of most existing literature seems to point in this direction. University textbooks and the pattern of books translated from foreign languages seem to confirm this image (with few exceptions). University textbooks are especially revealing as they are designed for students or non specialists, and therefore should be characterized by an effort to provide as broad and comprehensive a picture as possible. Instead, apart from a few, recent exceptions (such as Ikenberry and Parsi 2001; Jackson and Sørensen 2003 – Italian translation 2005), they frequently concentrate on the Realism/neorealism/Liberalism debate and only briefly touch on other ‘alternatives to Realism’ or more specific subfields which are or have been central to the discipline (Panebianco 1992b; Bonanate 1994; Scartezzini and Rosa 1994). In addition to this widespread ‘classical mood’, there is a further puzzle concerning the somewhat paradoxical tendency to dismiss most Italian classics: the rediscovery of some of these authors often takes place outside of Italy while at the same time we observe, in countries such as France and Germany, the emergence of heated debates on national traditions, for example, those of Raymond Aron and Jürgen Habermas. We claim that both patterns (the preference for the classics and little interest in Italian classical political authors) may be explained by looking at the Italian cultural/institutional context; thus Italy only partly shares this feature with other continental European countries. Italian scholars and the international IR community Looking at the relationship between the Italian IR community – and its products – and the broader IR community, a certain apartness of the former may be detected in various ways. The first way of looking at this relationship is by examining the ‘imports’ side of the coin. One aspect, a strong chronological gap between relevant publications in foreign languages and their translation into Italian, clearly emerges by looking at the time when major works were translated and published in Italy. Robert Gilpin’s War and Change in World Politics (originally published in 1981) appeared in Italy in 1989, Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979) was published in Italian in 1987 and his Man, the State and War (1959) in 1998, Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations (first printed in 1948) was translated as late as 1997. Exceptions to this rule exist: for instance, Bertrand Badie’s La fin des territoires (1995) and Un monde sans souveraineté (1999) were timely translated (1996 and 2000, respectively), as was Ulrich Beck’s Was it Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus (1997, published in Italy in 1999) – although we wonder to what extent the latter is regarded as an IR scholar by the Italian IR community. In a country where most people continue to have problems using a foreign idiom, the lag in the appearance of major IR works is relevant.

Italy

55

As for other indicators of the timely reception in Italy of innovative or provocative international contributions (through direct reference/ quotations, book reviews, other articles specifically commenting on or refining a given foreign contribution), the evidence is mixed: some book reviews are published in a punctual fashion, particularly by the journal Teoria Politica, and book bibliographies show a certain attention to developments in the discipline. In general, however, the flow of foreign works is selective, somewhat arbitrary and incomplete. It is also relatively slow in the sense that only few theoretical contributions are fully ‘digested’ in real time to promptly become an integral part of the current debate in Italy. As already mentioned, the most notable example is that of the constructivist and reflectivist literature which has hardly been incorporated within the existing Italian IR mainstream to the same degree as in other European countries (the Scandinavian area and Germany in particular). There is evidence of a significant – often indirect – influence on some Italian works (which may also grow over time due to a generational effect), but the fact remains that the impact on the bulk of recent Italian works has so far been very limited. Given the simple fact that the ‘language barrier’ is still a major factor inhibiting the broad circulation of international works, especially among undergraduate students, the limited reception of foreign literature in Italian works eventually tends to be transmitted to new generations of students who are usually assigned only texts written in Italian for their exams. We now turn to the ‘exports’ side of the relationship between the Italian and broader IR communities. We do so by looking at two ways in which the Italian IR community could export its theories and ideas: (1) by taking an active part in international conferences, and (2) by publishing articles in international journals. As for the first indicator, on average the number of IR scholars participating in international IR conferences, such as those organized regularly by the British International Studies Association (BISA), the International Studies Association (ISA), the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR), and the latter jointly with the ISA4 is very low – in any case much lower than the Italian demographic and cultural ‘potential’ would lead one to expect. For example, at the First Pan-European Conference in International Relations (Heidelberg, 16–20 September 1992), only one panel convenor out of thirty-one was Italian, and only two out of 240 papers presented were written by Italians based in Italy. At the Third Pan-European International Relations Conference and Joint Meeting with the International Studies Association (Vienna, 16–19 September 1998), two panel convenors out of 140 were Italians based in Italy, and only eleven out of 922 papers were written by Italians based in Italy. The second indicator also reveals that the level of interaction of the Italian IR community with the broader IR community is lower than one might expect – especially given the nature of the discipline, which is by

56 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti definition international in orientation. The number of ‘Italian’ articles in IR journals is indeed extremely low: Italian authors (meaning those working in Italy on a regular basis) are virtually absent from those publications that may be regarded as the core periodicals of the discipline. This can easily be confirmed by scanning the index of some key IR journals between 1990 and 2000 (see Table 2.2): looking at seventeen journals over ten years we found just twelve articles written by Italians working in Italy, three of them not dealing with IR and two of the remaining nine having no theoretical content. Since we believe that a dynamic and influential national IR community can only exist within the broader (and highly competitive) context of the ‘international community of scholars’, this basic quantitative finding is very significant. Therefore, looking at the Italian literature from the viewpoint of the broader IR community, the picture is more that of a detached world which finds it difficult – and perhaps unattractive – to establish and mainTable 2.2 Articles published by Italians in international journals in the 1990–2000 perioda Review

No. of articles written by Italians working in Italy

Cooperation and Conflict Daedalus European Foreign Affairs Review European Journal of International Relations International Affairs International Organization International Security International Studies Quarterly Journal of Conflict Resolution Journal of European Public Policy

None 1 (atheoretical: Cavazza 1992) 2 (Missiroli 1999; Di Feliciantonio 1999) 1 (Archibugi 1995)

Journal of Peace Research Millennium Political Science Quarterly Review of International Studies Security Dialogue World Politics Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen

None None None None None 4 (3 non-IR, 1 review article: Giuliani and Radaelli 1999) 1 (Archibugi 1993) None 1 (atheoretical: Andreotti 1994) 1 (Archibugi 1992) 1 (Greco 1998)b None None

Notes a Data refer to the 1990–2000 period and only include articles (not book reviews, for instance). It should be noted that various IR scholars of Italian origin (and name) publish in international reviews and are not counted in this table (Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, Stefano Guzzini, Giandomenico Majone, Mario Telò, to name but a few). The reason is that they do not work in the Italian research environment (at least in the period examined) and thus cannot be counted in a review of IR in this country. b Plus a brief comment by Cappelli (1997).

Italy

57

tain a systematic link with the outside. Such a link to the ‘outside’ would also be useful for the development of an actual Italian contribution (or contributions) to current IR debates and for the achievement of stronger international recognition. The current detachment is even more surprising given the broad scope of current IR debates, a scope that should meet the interests of Italian scholars who always regarded the rationalistic turn in IR as too narrow in scope. On the contrary, current debates – open to multidisciplinarity and more receptive to historical-philosophical thought – should attract the interest of several Italian scholars. Panebianco (1992a: 13–14), for instance, in his introduction to the Italian version of a collection of writings by Aron, pointed out that the French author, in spite of his sociologist background, should be seen as a ‘political scientist’ in the broadest meaning of the term – i.e. the meaning it had in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as opposed to the narrow definition it was given in the twentieth century. Beyond the particular case of Aron, many Italians in the IR field would be glad to be placed in a similar category to this French scholar and indeed often have a background that allows them to draw from various disciplines. Thus the cultural conditions would seem to be ideal for active participation in current (particularly European) IR debates in which the scope and research agenda have become much wider. In other words, the alleged narrowness of the Anglo-Saxon IR world, which several Italian scholars have indicated as the reason for their own separation from the mainstream, should no longer be an obstacle in today’s more open theoretical environment. To conclude with a metaphor, Italian IR scholars have the intellectual means to contribute to a ‘global dialogue’, but have so far missed the opportunity to do this in a systematic way, instead preferring the formation of small islands of theory which often lack bridges to each other.

The academic and cultural context of intellectual production and (inter)action We have so far traced certain characteristics of the Italian IR theoretical production and described the relative apartness of Italian scholars from the broader IR community. A significant part of the puzzle that emerged in the previous section finds clues – if not full answers – in the academic and cultural context of intellectual production in Italy. As the theoretical literature is mainly produced by academia and far less in the context of private research institutes, we will deal basically with the socio-intellectual conditions of research and to some extent the career paths in the Italian academia.5 The first IR course was held at the Facoltà6 of political science Cesare Alfieri in Florence in the 1968/1969 academic year, that is, fifty years after the first IR Chair was created in the United Kingdom at the

58 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti University of Aberystwyth. However, it was not until 1973 that three courses of IR were run in Italian universities and not until 1975 that the first three IR Chairs were created and the first three full professors appointed (Umberto Gori, Antonio Papisca and Luigi Bonanate). To date (January 2006), the IR ‘faculty’ includes nine full professors, seven associate professors and eight ‘researchers’ working – though not all primarily – on International Relations. To these we might add several academics in other disciplines who contribute to the production. Yet the Italian IR-political science community comprises a relatively small number of individuals.7 Again, we focus on production more than teaching as such. There are more courses on international issues than there are individuals actually engaged in theoretical research, of course. However, even the number of IR courses offered was not high before the academic year 2001 to 2002. In fact, until 2001 (when reform of the university system started), out of some twenty Facoltà di Scienze Politiche that offer a two-year specialization course in international studies, only about a quarter offered a course in IR. To complete the list of those involved in IR research in Italy, however, we should add those enrolled in or completing a Ph.D. programme with an IR dissertation and/or who are engaged in (freelance) research. However, given that the Doctorate of Research (Ph.D. programme) in IR was established in Italy in only 1983 (and until very recently no new IR Ph.D. courses had been created in public universities) and the Ministry of Education, University and Research (Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca – MIUR) has long provided only three scholarships for Ph.D. students per year, the number of IR Ph.D.s obtained in Italy so far cannot be very high. To this we should add a very small proportion of those Ph.D. students who wrote their dissertations on IR issues in the context of other Ph.D. programmes such as the Dottorato in Scienza Politica of Florence and in the Dottorato di Diritto, storia e teoria delle relazioni internazionali of Padua, as well as a group of Italian IR students who obtained their doctorate at the European University Institute of Florence and abroad. Access to an academic career occurs through national competitions, or concorsi, and the official competition (which a state law says must be announced in the national state law bulletin Gazzetta Ufficiale) is indispensable to move up from one career level to another (Ricercatore, Professore Associato, Professore Ordinario). IR belongs to a broader disciplinary group which includes all political science disciplines (the so-called SPS04 group – which in January 2006 included 188 academically enrolled people). This implies that IR is just one of the many disciplines within the wide group of political science and surely not one of the strongest, given both its recent establishment in Italian universities and a national culture that is traditionally less interested in international politics than domestic affairs. It is a widely shared conviction that Italy has long avoided making foreign policy at the national level, in part deliberately and in part for objective external and internal constraints.

Italy

59

The founding years The difficulties of early IR as a political science discipline For a long time the predominance of history and law in Italy obscured all politological analysis. Part of the phenomenon may be explained by the strong and lasting impact of the historicist approach of the philosopher Benedetto Croce on Italian culture (Bobbio 1969; Morlino 1991), which can find its causes in the Italian political culture (highly ideologized at the time) and political history (the fascist legacy). The publication of Elementi di scienza politica by Gaetano Mosca (in 1896) marked the beginning of political science in Italy, but it was only between the 1940s and the 1950s that the foundations were laid for the new political science attempting to establish itself as an autonomous discipline vis-à-vis political philosophy, history and law. However, as Morlino (1991) convincingly argued, political science encountered major difficulties in establishing itself as an anti-utopian and anti-ideological viewpoint on politics for at least three reasons: (1) the understanding of politics as ‘ancillary’ to other more crucial fields of human activity, (2) the academic resistance to a form of American academic imperialism, and (3) the ideological nature of both mass and elite culture in the post-war years. First, the conceptions of social reality and history that prevailed in Italy during the first half of the twentieth century, both in the Marxist and Croce traditions, denied an autonomous role to the political realm, regarding it as the changing product of economic (Marx) and spiritual (Croce) factors. This ‘ancillary’ view of politics (Morlino 1991) indirectly denied the existence of a space for the new science that made politics its central object of study. Second, as for the academic world, the new discipline met the opposition of well-established disciplines based on history and law, but also faced the reticence of other political sciences (the plural is deliberate here) which feared a possible predominance of a ‘made in the USA’ approach, a sort of cultural imperialism threatening any plurality in favour of a specific epistemological choice – a strongly positivist or neopositivist view of science. Third, a further obstacle to establishing political science in Italy was the markedly ideological character of the dominant political thought in the country (which continued throughout the Cold War), both in its Marxist and Catholic manifestations. The ideological–cultural divide inevitably hindered the development of a science claiming to rely on rationality and abstention from moral judgement. To these factors we need to add the difficulty of building a discipline which had to be untainted by the fascist past: as emphasized by Spreafico (1964), the political science departments had been founded by the fascist regime. Thus the new political science was hard pressed to keep its

60 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti distance from some of the founding fathers, which of course did not facilitate its consolidation (Morlino 1991: 96). These initial obstacles were gradually overcome in the course of the 1970s with the transformation of the political and scientific culture of the country and the rise of a less ideologically driven and more epistemologically neo-positivist climate. It is in the 1970s that we see the first empirical research programmes and the formation of an academically based community of political scientists.8 In addition to this hostile environment shared by IR with all political sciences in their formative years, IR then had to fight its own battle for autonomous status in the family of political science disciplines. The weaknesses of early IR When Giovanni Sartori, the founding father of political science in Italy, worked for the establishment of a course of IR in Florence, the political and cultural climate was especially inhospitable for a discipline focusing on international politics. In the first place, Italy lacked the historical conditions that frequently – although not inevitably – create the preconditions for public attention to international affairs in a country. First, Italy lacked a recent and at least partly successful ‘imperial’ past. Second, there was little expertise in active foreign policy since the limited experience in the field gained before the Second World War was biased by the fascist regime and in any case frozen in the Cold War years, when the room for manoeuvre of the country was sharply constrained by the bipolar logic. Finally, the highly ideological debate that took place during the Cold War did not encourage the development of a ‘scientific’ politological discipline. The history of the country in the first half of the twentieth century and during the Cold War therefore seriously influenced the possible success of a discipline with foreign and international politics as its main object of research. As Pasquino (1977) argued, the circumstance that Italy was ‘a country with no foreign policy’ during the Cold War has significantly dampened the demand for international affairs scholars and practitioners and, consequently, the career opportunities available to internationally oriented political scientists – the so-called ‘Pasquino–Hoffmann law’ (Friedrichs 2001). Further, the ideological overtones of the debate on Italian foreign policy (and on international politics in general) damaged the cause of an ‘ideologically neutral’ discipline. Bonanate (1990: 18) has objected that the ‘Pasquino–Hoffmann law’ is not valid in the case of France which, in spite of its imperial past and great foreign policy tradition, has not developed particularly strong international studies. This criticism, which we find partly acceptable, does not take fully into account at least three important indicators of the existence of a genuine French IR community: (1) the strong development of policy-

Italy

61

oriented international studies in France; (2) the unique ‘encyclopaedist’ culture in France, which produces international affairs literature with distinctive French features (and which is thus often ignored in other cultural contexts); and (3) the significant theoretical tradition in the IR field attached to Aron (1962). This accompanies the argument that linking a weak international discipline to a weak foreign policy is just one of several explanations which should be placed within the broader context of ‘national’ causes. Further, it should be generally underlined that the ‘Pasquino– Hoffmann law’ does not say that IR is inevitably better off in countries with an active foreign policy past, but it claims that when there is such a past and it is perceived in positive terms within the political and intellectual community of that country, then the tradition this past creates, and the demand for policy responses it poses, produce the conditions for the flourishing of IR as a recognized discipline. Clearly these elements are not sufficient to explain the strengths or weaknesses of IR in a given country, but they provide some explanation. Our claim is that these factors influenced the founding years of the discipline in Italy. Other factors, then, help explain the current and persistent weakness of IR as an academic discipline. Contemporary structural sources of weakness Beyond the conditions that made the establishment of IR difficult in Italy, other aspects of the cultural and institutional environment have kept it relatively weak and affected its features. Three types of fragmentation still contribute to this relative weakness: (1) the divide between the academic and non-academic world (the study centres); (2) the separation between academic research and policy-making; and (3) the structure of the discipline as islands of theoretical production. First of all, research with a significant theoretical content tends to be conducted within universities, while more policy-oriented studies are mostly pursued in non-academic contexts. There are exceptions to this general rule such as CeMiSS (the Ministry of Defence Centro Militare di Studi Strategici), which sponsors intense research activity, and ISPI (Istituto per gli Studi di Politica Internazionale), both of which contract several academics on an ad hoc basis (Lucarelli and Menotti 2002b). In spite of this, the policy analysis circle and the academic circle remain quite separate due to the invisible line dividing those who do and those who do not consider IR theory as an indispensable tool in understanding international politics. The second type of fragmentation is between the academic world and that of policy-making, crucially affected by a tradition that lacks any osmosis – quite visible in the USA – between thinkers and practitioners. The socalled think-tanks are not a European phenomenon and certainly not an

62 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti Italian phenomenon. When the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs commissions research, it relies mostly on private research centres rather than academic institutions. There is indeed a strong reluctance to view the IR scholar as one of the ‘prince’s advisers’, partly as a legacy of the dominant historical-legal background in the diplomatic profession. This is clearly demonstrated, for instance, by the circumstance that the competition to enter the diplomatic corps does not include IR-theory as one of the main subjects. The third aspect of fragmentation, this time within the discipline itself, is represented by the existence of islands of research that barely interact with each other. Although there has been an academic community of political scientists at least since the 1970s (in 1981 it became an institutionalized Società Italiana di Scienza Politica – (SISP)), the IR field has much less to show in terms of a tight-knit community. There is no IR equivalent to the SISP but, more substantially, there is no sign that a professional community is in the making: for instance, it is more common to see joint research projects between Italian university centres (and researchers) and foreign counterparts than similar projects linking various Italian institutions to each other. No doubt some of the problems are budgetary, given the scarce resources available to Italian institutions in the field, which encourages a search for connections with better endowed foreign partners. Yet the Italian situation appears to be particularly serious when compared with IR communities in countries such as Germany or the relatively small Denmark (McSweeney 1996; Risse 2000). In the first part of this chapter we underlined that other weaknesses of Italian IR involve the substantial apartness from current theoretical developments occurring outside of the country, an apartness that takes the form of low participation in international conferences, a poor record of publication in major international IR reviews, and a relative detachment from mainstream debates (both in terms of engagement in the debate and assimilation of the relevant literature within the Italian literature). The first two aspects of the ‘problem’ (little visibility at conferences and in reviews) have a similar institutional explanation. Next to the obvious fact that few scholars have less possibility to be visible, there is another structural explanation: the academic system does not provide an incentive for efforts to write papers and articles in a foreign language, nor to take up the cost of participating in international events. If the USA is a large job market in which publication in leading journals is the main way to advance one’s career, this is not the rule in most continental European countries and certainly not in Italy. What Wæver (1998: 719) described as the situation at the end of the 1990s in Germany applies quite well to Italy: ‘One’s career depends more on one’s relationship to the local professor (or local faculty . . .) than on some national competition.’ A second structural constraint on greater international visibility is the persistence of a ‘linguistic barrier’ that makes it even less attractive to

Italy

63

write in English (a conditio sine qua non to bring papers to conferences and publish in major journals). Italy is a country in which the introduction of English as a widespread means of communication and production of culture is relatively new. This also has a negative ‘trickle-down’ effect on younger aspirant scholars in the field: even today many Italian undergraduate students only read materials in Italian for their exams, with the obvious handicap of encountering English-language literature only when they have to write their dissertation – Tesi di Laurea – at which stage a good knowledge of English suddenly seems required and actually taken for granted. This implies that most students are not appropriately trained in reading and studying foreign-language IR literature by the time they should be achieving some academic maturity. Further, it is not very common for young researchers to be introduced into the broader international IR community by their elder colleagues and mentors, either through direct contacts with foreign colleagues or through support for their participation in international conferences and events (something that would enhance their knowledge of the discipline and, even more importantly, test their competence and skills, and ultimately stimulate their self-confidence). This state of affairs tends to perpetuate the substantially closed character of academic IR, while hindering even the development of a functioning Italian IR community. The linguistic barrier again functions in reverse as well, in terms of ‘exporting’ IR literature in Italian. Italian is not a widely spoken language – certainly not as widely spoken as English, Spanish, French or German. Further, there is a certain resistance on the part of the mainstream AngloSaxon IR community when it comes to incorporating theoretical inputs from other cultural traditions, especially (and perhaps understandably) when foreign contributions are simply unavailable in English. The third aspect of Italian IR apartness (the average time lag vis-à-vis theoretical developments) may also be explained in institutional and cultural terms. Here, the lack of a ‘critical mass’ coupled with the academic mechanisms for selection and career again provide the main explanation. The few individuals involved cannot fully take part in a debate as large as the ‘global’ one. As we have seen, as with various other continental European countries, the academic mechanisms do not encourage high rates of publication, nor participation in current debates. If we couple this structural aspect with the generalized preference for the classics, it is quite easy to understand the relative reluctance of Italian IR to take part in contemporary debates. This preference for the classics, however, deserves further investigation as it is not the simple result of a cultural attitude: if one combines it with the fact that in Italy rational choice theories have not found as much success as in the Anglo-Saxon world, one might think that Italian IR shares with continental IR the simple fact that the behaviouralist revolution never happened here (Jørgensen 2000). However, this is only partly true

64 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti because Italian political science, and consequently Italian IR, has a double soul: a Sartorian behaviouralist one (with strong American influence), and a Bobbian traditionalist one – taking their names respectively from their founding fathers, Giovanni Sartori and Norberto Bobbio. The two souls produced different schools with a different conception of science and theorization: the first was influenced by the behaviouralist revolution, while the second kept a strong philosophical foundation. It is for this reason, we believe, that next to the Florentine school’s predictive studies and use of rational choice approaches9 we find Bonanate’s studies on ethics and IR and more generally his philosophically informed ‘Turin school’ of International Relations. Some of the main members of this school are Portinaro, Caffarena, Armao, and Coralluzzo. It remains to be explained, however, why there is a general tendency to avoid links to Italian classical philosophers. We believe that this mostly involves the origins of the social sciences in post-fascist Italy. Italian social and political scientists after the Second World War faced the need to found their disciplines on theoretical grounds that could not be seen as ‘contaminated’ by the highly ideologized political debate of the 1920s to 1950s. Great figures of twentieth-century Italian political thought such as Gramsci (1977, 1978; cf. Gill 1993), Croce (1981; cf. Cingari 2000; Montanari 1987) or Gentile (1975; cf. Zarone 1990) were consequently avoided: a sort of de-linking from classical Italian political thought took place. This may explain why an author such as Gramsci was rediscovered by IR/International Political Economy (IPE) scholars abroad and at some point could then be re-imported (in a mediated form) into the Italian IR debate. What could be the possible impact of the university reform on Italian IR?10 The Italian university system has been in a continuous process of reform since 1990, when the Laurea breve (two to three years) was introduced. The ‘old’ structure currently under reform was very centralized and rigid. The new system introduces a two-level structure that includes (1) a three-year diploma di laurea and (2) a two-year (after the first three) laurea specialistica. After the diploma di laurea, it is possible to leave university, continue with the laurea specialistica, attend a course of specialization (at least two years), or attend a one-year Master’s course. After the laurea specialistica, it is possible to pursue a Ph.D. Can this new system affect the IR community of scholars and their production? It surely will, but it is difficult to evaluate the net effect. According to the new rules, IR is compulsory in all the political science corsi di laurea. This means that many universities that do not have IR courses should establish some and should seek professors to teach there. This simple fact, combined with the proliferation of courses of various types that have been activated in order to attract students, might create a significant demand for IR expertise. This, however, may simply lead to a proliferation of people teaching IR subjects at university on a contract basis, having no academic status and no access to research funding for academics. In other words, although the reform

Italy

65

surely increases the number of students studying IR and the number of people working in the field – broadly speaking – it provides no guarantees regarding the actual amount or quality of research being conducted, nor does it directly affect the relative separateness of Italian academia.

Conclusion The contemporary (meta)theoretical debate that has filled the pages of international IR journals – rationalism vs. reflectivism – virtually never reached the Italian peninsula. The approach that emerged from that debate most forcefully – constructivism – has not attracted much interest from Italian scholars. How can it be that Italian scholars have chosen to ignore the most important contemporary theory of IR? We have asked ourselves how the characteristics of the Italian academic literature and environment (institutional and cultural) might help explain this first puzzle. We conclude that despite a cultural approach that would tend to prioritize a multidisciplinary and philosophically embedded attitude to IR theory (such as constructivism), Italian IR remains cut off from the broader IR community in various respects. The number of articles written by Italian scholars in international journals is very small, as is the level of interaction among Italian scholars, and (albeit to a lesser extent) between Italian and foreign scholars. The first, simplest explanation for this relative isolation involves the fact that there is only a small number of Italian IR scholars. However, this observation needs to be placed in a broader context. How can it be that there are so few IR scholars in one of the world’s most integrated and economically developed Western countries? We relate the weakness of the discipline at home to a number of international and – most of all – domestic factors. There is, to begin with, the fact that IR is generally weaker in Continental Europe compared to the USA and the UK, and that for decades it has been ‘an American Social Science’ (Hoffmann 1977). However, there are also specifically national constraining factors that make IR in Italy even weaker than in other European countries. These factors involve the structural features of the Italian university system and the discipline’s location within political science. There are also specific Italian historical/political and cultural/ideological circumstances. A combination of these factors has contributed to marginalizing IR studies, with the work of a few scholars constituting the bulk of Italian production. However, there are a number of factors that seem to point in the direction of an expansion of the discipline and – almost equally important – a deliberate call for such a development. In fact, a growing number of Italian IR scholars are participating in international conferences and are ready to publish in foreign journals. In addition, the ongoing (and long overdue) reform of the Italian university

66 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti system may contribute to making the academic system more flexible and possibly more oriented to both the international context and domestic constituencies that ‘produce’ and/or ‘consume’ IR studies, but this cannot be taken for granted. A more important favourable condition for the development of IR studies in Italy is the shrinking importance of ideological political thought in the country and the many challenges to Italian foreign policy decision-making posed by the evolution of post-Cold War international politics (especially in the Balkan region and South-Eastern Europe). Further encouraging signs are visible. First, an embryonic IR community is gradually developing (although it still faces some of the same difficulties that frustrated similar trends in the past) which, on the whole, may benefit from more regular and intense contacts with the international IR network. Second, even amid structural professional problems the growing demand for IR expertise in ever more diversified subfields (from regional studies to transnational crime, from the EU’s ‘third pillar’ to information technology in strategic studies) is stimulating a stronger supply. At times, the problem seems to be the limited capacity of existing research institutions to absorb and cultivate the available pool of new human resources (coming out of university with a partial level of specialization), rather than a lack of adequate human resources. The pressure exercised on the country by external events and Italy’s growing international activism can still make a decisive difference. In this context, it is no accident that Ettore Greco – Deputy Director of the Istituto Affari Internazionali – contributed to the journal Security Dialogue with an analysis on an issue of central importance to the restructuring and reorientation of Italian foreign policy in the 1990s – the Italian participation in Alba Operation in Albania – combining an interpretation of the specific event with some relevant steps towards theory development (Greco 1998). This may be symptomatic of a significant change towards a more theoretically informed research also within the circuit of research institutes (traditionally leading more towards policy analysis than theory development). A consolidation of this trend – from case studies to theory development – may well offer good prospects for the growth of IR in Italy beyond academia. The second trend which should be consolidated is clearly that oriented towards pure theory development, in connection with theoretical debates/discourses in continental Europe. We claim that the failure to take part in contemporary debates is due mainly to the domestic weakness of the discipline and the lack of incentives (if not constraints) provided by the institutional context of intellectual production. If these weaknesses are progressively overcome, we will probably witness a more active theoretical debate and a more direct participation of Italians in international discussions. Part of the solution could be purely institutional (a major reform of the university system), part of it could be linked to theoretical trends

Italy

67

calling for more interdisciplinary work and the abolition of the domestic–international divide in political science (whereby political science would start again to conceive of itself as a full-fledged discipline dealing with the intimately connected national and international political systems). The latter change, which Bonanate (2001) strongly advocated in an article on Teoria Politica, would not only respond to contemporary developments in the realm of politics throughout the academic world, but would also strengthen the position of Italian political science both at home and abroad.

Acknowledgements We want to thank all the scholars who agreed to respond to our preliminary brief questionnaire and/or responded to our requests regarding their publications. We would also like to thank for their comments and suggestions on previous drafts of this chapter Carlo Belli, Luciano Bozzo, Furio Cerutti, Marco Cesa, Thomas Christiansen, Emidio Diodato, Paola Donatucci, Fabio Fossati, Jörg Friedrichs, Umberto Gori, Stefano Guzzini, Knud Erik Jørgensen, Claudio Radaelli, Rodolfo Ragionieri and Brian Schmidt. Thanks also to ECPR Central Services and to Frank Pfetsch for sending us the programmes of the Vienna and Heidelberg ECPR PanEuropean Conferences. Equally, we are indebted to the other participants in panels on continental IR theory organized by Knud Erik Jørgensen at the Third Pan-European International Relations Conference (Vienna, 16–19 September 1998) and at the ECPR Joint Sessions Conference in Copenhagen (14–19 April 2000). Finally, we are grateful to the two anonymous reviewers of the JIRD. The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes 1 For the pre-1990 period we recommend the very informative overviews by Attinà (1989) and Bonanate (1990). For the much broader discipline of political science, we recommend the insightful contributions of Morlino (1991) and Graziano (1991). 2 For a more detailed analysis of the main themes and examples of works in each field, see Lucarelli and Menotti (2002a). 3 This approach may have provided inspiration for works by Ragionieri (1997a, 1997b, 1999), Caffarena (1998), Stocchetti (1998, 2000) and a few others, but thorough analyses (book-length) are almost absent and the Italian mainstream has not fully incorporated these analyses. Reference to reflectivism in its various forms, then, is nearly completely missing. 4 This was the case with the Pan-European conferences that took place in Heidelberg (1994), Paris (1996) and Vienna (1998). 5 A list of research institutes working in the field of IR as of 1990 may be found in Bonanate (1990: 12–13). An updated work on the institutes and departments where contemporary international politics, law and economics are studied was undertaken in 2000 by the authors of this article (Lucarelli and Menotti 2002b). Acknowledged research institutes dealing with international

68 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti

6

7 8 9 10

affairs include the Istituto Affari Internazionali (Institute for International Affairs, Rome), Centro studi politica internazionale (Centre for the Study of International Politics, Rome), Forum per i problemi della pace e della guerra (Forum on the Problems of Peace and War, Florence), Istituto di politica internazionale (Institute for International Politics, Milan) and Centro studi militari e di sicurezza (Centre for Military and Security Studies, Rome). As Attinà (1989: 356, fn 13) aptly described it, ‘the Facoltà is the main structure in the Italian University system. Each University is divided in a number of Facoltà, which assemble the research structure (Departments and Institutes), organize teaching and courses, and award the Laurea (a degree equivalent to MA). Each Professor holds a Chair in a Facoltà (where he/she gives one course of lessons a year) and is affiliated with a Department (or Institute) where she/he conducts research.’ This system is under reform, as we illustrate at the end of this section. See the list of enrolled SPS academics. Available online at: http://php3.sp2. cineca.it/murst-dae/pers_docente/ricerca_docenti.php3 (accessed 10 May 2002). For detailed analyses of these steps, see Spreafico (1964), Bobbio (1969), Graziano (1991) and Morlino (1991). Forecasting in IR was introduced in Italy by Gori (1969a, 1996). Today, the ‘Florentine school’ has kept the tradition (Simon-Belli 1998) and produces applied studies. On the Italian university system, see also Capano (2000).

References Andreotti, G. (1994) ‘Foreign Policy in the Italian Democracy’, Political Science Quarterly, Special Issue (3): 529–41. Archibugi, D. (1992) ‘Models of International Organization in Perpetual Peace Projects’, Review of International Studies 18(4): 295–318. —— (1993) ‘The Reform of the U.N. and Cosmopolitan Peace: A Critical Review’, Journal of Peace Research 30(3): 201–15. —— (1995) ‘Immanuel Kant, Cosmopolitan Law and Peace’, European Journal of International Relations 1(4): 429–46. Aron, R. (1962) Paix et guerre entre les nations, Paris: Calmann-Lévy. Attinà, F. (1989) ‘The Study of International Relations in Italy’, in H.C. Dyer and L. Mangasaria (eds) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, London: Macmillan, pp. 341–54. Badie, B. (1995) La fin des territoires: Essai sur le désordre international et sur l’utilité sociale du respect, Paris: Fayard. —— (1999) Un monde sans souveraineté: Les états entre ruse et responsabilité, Paris: Fayard. Beck, U. (1997) Was is Globalisierung? Irrtümer des Globalismus, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Bobbio, N. (1969) Saggi sulla scienza politica in Italia, Bari: Laterza. Bonanate, L. (1990) ‘Relazioni internazionali’, in L. Bonanate (ed.) Studi internazionali, Torino: Edizioni della Fondazione Agnelli, pp. 9–70. —— (1992) Etica e politica internazionale, Turin: Einaudi. —— (1994) I doveri degli stati, Bari: Laterza. —— (2000) Transizioni democratiche 1989–1999, Milan: Franco Angeli. —— (2001) ‘2001: la politica interna del mondo’, Teoria Politica 17(1): 3–26.

Italy

69

Caffarena, A. (1998) ‘Un mondo di istituzioni. L’approccio costruttivista all’analisi della politica internazionale’, Teoria Politica 14(3): 107–38. Capano, G. (2000) L’università in Italia, Bologna: Il Mulino. Cappelli, R. (1997) ‘Peace-Maintenance is Not the Response’, Security Dialogue 28(4): 504–10. Cavazza, F.L. (1992) ‘The Italian Paradox: An Exit from Communism’, Daedalus 121(2): 25–37. Cesa, M. (1990) ‘Prima e dopo i regimi: la rilevanza del realismo nelle relazioni internazionali’, Teoria Politica 6(1): 135–54. —— (1994) Le ragioni della forza. Tucidide e la teoria delle relazioni internazionali, Bologna: Il Mulino. —— (1995a) ‘Il realismo strutturale nelle relazioni internazionali’, Quaderni di scienza politica 2(1): 135–45. —— (1995b) ‘Teorie delle alleanze’, Quaderni di scienza politica 2(2): 201–83. Cingari, S. (2000) Il giovane Croce: una biografia etico-politica, Catanzaro: Rubbettino. Croce, B. (1981) Opere di Benedetto Croce (3rd edn), Bari: Laterza. Di Feliciantonio, S. (1999) ‘EU Foreign Policy and Albania’, European Foreign Affairs Review 4(4): 519–36. Friedrichs, J. (2001) ‘International Relations Theory in Italy’, unpublished paper, Florence: European University Institute. Gentile, G. (1975) Genesi e struttura della societa (2nd edn), Florence: Sansoni. Gill, S. (ed.) (1993) Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations, New York: Cambridge University Press. Gilpin, R. (1981) War and Change in World Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press. Giuliani, M. and Radaelli, C.M. (1999) ‘Italian Political Science and the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy 6(3): 517–24. Gori, U. (1969a) ‘Previsione e scienza nelle Relazioni Internazionali’, Futuribili, (6): 86–91. —— (1969b) ‘La funzione dei modelli nello studio delle Relazioni Internazionali’, Futuribili (17): 22–6. —— (1996) ‘Analisi e valutazione del rischio politico’, in W. Ternau (a cura di) Project Financing, Milan: Angeli, pp. 263–74. Gramsci, A. (1977) Selections from Political Writings 1910–1920, ed. Hoare Quintin, London: Lawrence & Wishart. —— (1978) Selections from Political Writings 1921–1926, ed. Hoare Quintin, London: Lawrence & Wishart. Graziano, L. (1991) ‘The Development and Institutionalization of Political Science in Italy’, in D. Easton, J.G. Gunnell and L. Graziano (eds) The Development of Political Science: A Comparative Study, London: Routledge, pp. 127–46. Greco, E. (1998) ‘New Trends in Peace-keeping: The Experience of Operation Alba’, Security Dialogue 29(2): 201–12. Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106(3): 41–60. Ikenberry, G.J. and Parsi, V.E. (2001) Teorie e Metodi nelle Relazioni Internazionali, Bari: Laterza. Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G. (2003) Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press (Italian translation 2005, Milan. EGEA). Jean, C. (1995) Geopolitica, Bari: Laterza.

70 S. Lucarelli and R. Menotti Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 9–42. Lepgold, J. (1998) ‘Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and Policy Relevance’, Political Science Quarterly 113(1): 43–62. Lucarelli, S. and Menotti, R. (2002a) ‘No-constructivists Land. IR Theory in Italy in the 1990s’, Journal of International Relations and Development 5(2): 114–42. —— (eds) (2002b) Studi internazionali: i luoghi del sapere in Italia, Rome: Edizioni Associate. McSweeney, B. (1996) ‘Identity and Security: Buzan and the Copenhagen School’, Review of International Studies 22(1): 81–93. Missiroli, A. (1999) ‘European Security and Defence: The Case for Setting “Convergence Criteria” ’, European Foreign Affairs Review (4): 485–500. Montanari, M. (1987) Saggio sulla filosofia politica di Benedetto Croce: la ‘filosofia dello spirito’ come costruzione di una egemonia, Milan: Franco Angeli. Morgenthau, H.J. (1948) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morlino, L. (1991) ‘La scienza politica italiana: tradizione e realtà’, Rivista italiana di scienza politica 21(1): 91–124. Mosca, G. (1896) Elementi di scienza politica, Rome: Fratelli Bocca. Panebianco, A. (1992a) ‘Introduzione all’edizione italiana’, in R. Aron La politica, la guerra, la storia, Bologna: Il Mulino, pp. 9–106. —— (1992b) Relazioni Internazionali, Milan: Jaca Book. —— (1997) Guerrieri democratici, Bologna: Il Mulino. Pasquino, G. (1977) ‘Le “Relazioni internazionali” in un paese senza politica estera’, in L’insegnamento e la teoria delle relazioni internazionali negli Stati Uniti e in Italia, Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice, pp. 27–40. Portinaro, P.P. (1996) Interesse nazionale e interesse globale: L’età della competizione geoeconomica, Milan: Franco Angeli. Ragionieri, R. (1997a) ‘Israelis, Palestinians, and the Peace Process in the Middle East’, International Journal of Peace Studies 2(2): 49–66. —— (1997b) ‘International Constraints and National Debates in the Israeli– Palestinian Peace Process’, Florence: Forum per i problemi della pace e della guerra, Quaderni Forum 11(1). —— (1999) ‘The Amarna Age: An International Society in the Making’, in R. Cohen and R. Westbrook (eds) Amarna Diplomacy: The Origins of International Relations, Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 42–53. Risse, T. (2000) ‘ “Let’s Argue!” Communicative Action in World Politics’, International Organization 54(1): 1–39. Santoro, C.M. (1991) La politica estera di una media potenza: L’Italia dall’Unità ad oggi, Bologna: Il Mulino. —— (1998) Occidente. Identità dell’Europa, Milan: Franco Angeli. Savona, P. and Jean, C. (eds) (1995) Geoeconomia: Il dominio dello spazio economico, Milan: Franco Angeli. Scartezzini, R. and Rosa, P. (1994) Le relazioni internazionali: Lineamenti di indagine sociologica, Rome: La Nuova Italia Scientifica. Simon-Belli, C. (1998) Teoria della previsione e analisi strategica, Florence: Le Lettere. Spreafico, A. (1964), ‘Studi politici e scienza politica in Italia’, in AA. VV., Annuario politico italiano, Milan: Comunità. Stocchetti, M. (1998) ‘Flessibilità o egemonia? Le basi politiche del sistema

Italy

71

di sicurezza europeo e l’allargamento ad Est della Nato’, Teoria Politica (1): 33–47. —— (2000) ‘L’Europa contesa e la politica dell’identità’, Il Mulino (4): 633–40. Thompson, K.W. (1996) Schools of Thought in International Relations: Interpreters, Issues, and Morality, Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press. Toscano, R. (2000) Il volto del nemico: La sfida dell’etica nelle relazioni internazionali, Milan: Guerini e Associati. Wæver, O. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52(4): 687–728. Waltz, K.N. (1959) Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press. —— (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: Random House. Zarone, G. (1990) Classe politica e ragione scientifica: Mosca, Croce, Gramsci: problemi della scienza politica in Italia tra Otto e Novecento, Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane.

3

Germany Christoph Humrich

Introduction In the mid-1980s, German IR entered its third decade of institutionalized existence as a sub-discipline of political science. At that time, Ernst-Otto Czempiel gave a rather grave account of its past achievements.1 In his influential view German IR had displayed ‘not even a pale reflection of the three “great debates” on problems and methods’ (Czempiel 1986: 251) which shaped the discipline – or at least its self-image – in the AngloAmerican IR community.2 Czempiel and other observers of German IR identified at least three problems as the deeper causes of this sad state of affairs. First, there was no common paradigm which would give coherence to the discipline, make debate possible, and guide and concentrate theoretical and empirical research. Second, scientific practice in the discipline was not conforming to contemporary epistemological standards. Third, the institutional preconditions for effective debate and research were missing. Central publishing organs did not exist and by the end of the 1970s even the common forum, the Sektion für Internationale Politik (SIP) (Section on International Politics) of the Deutsche Vereinigung für Politische Wissenschaft (DVPW) (German Political Science Association) had dissolved. In short, most of its (German) observers felt that German IR had no proper institutional standing and integrating paradigm, employed no proper method, conducted no proper debate, and therefore made no appropriate contribution on the international scene. However, during the fourth decade of its existence, German IR has been in a process of considerable change. A lively debate has been going on within the discipline for the past ten years. This debate began in 1994 with the very first issue of the discipline’s new communication organ, the Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen (ZIB) (Journal of International Relations). The participants in the subsequent so-called ZIB debate discussed in great detail whether Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action (Habermas 1995) had something valuable to offer to those analysing and theorizing the problem of cooperation under anarchy.3 It is

Germany 73 no accident that ‘cooperation under anarchy’ was the overarching theme of the debate. By distinctively adopting American questions, German scholars made a rising amount of contributions to the world market of academic IR. The fact that their efforts were increasingly recognized on the international scene was another expression of these changes. They furthered a new sense of identity and confidence as a scientific community.4 In my view, however, these changes in the late 1980s and the 1990s also came at a price. They have established what I will call a new normality in a post-critical discipline. In the next section I will present four different readings of this phrase. ‘New normality’ denotes the post-critical state of the discipline in a temporal (1) as well as a dialectical (2) sense. In an epistemological (3) reading, however, new normality means the practice of ‘normal science’ in a Kuhnian sense (Kuhn 1963) which in my view entails a post-critical state.5 Finally, in a contextual (4) reading, the phrase can also refer to the state of the broader German political and intellectual culture since reunification and its reflection in the discipline. In what follows, then, I aim at working out the contours of the discipline’s mainstream by reviewing its recent discourse through these four readings.

German IR: four perspectives on the ‘new normality in a post-critical discipline’ To begin with, I hasten to emphasize that the term ‘post-critical’ as I will use it here is shorthand for ‘post critical–theoretical’ meaning that it should not be read as to imply un-critical. Thus ‘critical’ in the term ‘postcritical’ refers to a specific form of critique only. Critical theory engages explicitly in the normative critique of whatever are considered to be unchangeable social realities and the forces which turn something into unchangeable realities. Thus it uncovers and exposes the exclusive nature of social reality as well as of scientific theories which affirm this reality by granting it a law-like, objective character. Contending that German IR is post-critical therefore entails that there is an insufficient reflection on the exclusive character of reality in international politics, as well as the possible role of the discipline in actively or passively helping to reproduce it. I have to add that ‘critical–theoretical’ in the case of German IR equals the more narrowly conceived ‘upper-case’ Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School (cf. Brown 1994: 214), particularly that of Jürgen Habermas. This form distinguishes itself from postmodernist critical theory by a theoretically based and integrated normative and holistic sociological approach, which still sees science as a worthwhile emancipating enterprise.6 In this sense then, the ZIB, for instance, is post-critical because it seems that the only appropriate form of critique issued here is empirical or logical. Moreover, if the discipline’s members engage in normative critique at all, they publish it in newspapers, more essayistic journals or in

74 Christoph Humrich popular book series, and thus separate it from the scientific work of the discipline. These publications usually lack an elaborated ethical or sociological theory which would back the legitimacy of the critique and strengthen its normative bite.7 Let me now turn to the four readings that I have given to the phrase ‘new normality in a post-critical discipline’. I begin with the temporal reading. It may be true that in German IR ‘the “critical tendency” never became dominant’ (Holden 2001: 34). However, there was a strong Critical Theoretical branch especially in German peace research until it vanished in the 1980s. Some of these Critical Theoretical contributions have even been recognized on the international scene for their ‘path-breaking’ character (Groom 1994: 225–7; Wæver 1998: 705).8 For the selfunderstanding of this branch, Habermas’ ‘Erkenntnis und Interesse’ (Habermas 1991) and the Critical Theoretical contributions to the Positivismusstreit (Adorno et al. 1969) seem to have been most important texts. However, Critical Theory is no longer a visible part of the discipline. In short, ‘the emancipatory ambitions and rhetoric of the early 1970s today play no more than a marginal role’ (Holden 1998: 24). If the claim that Critical Theory used to be an important part of disciplinary activity is accepted, its present absence constitutes indeed a new normality which is post-critical in a temporal sense. I have already mentioned that the ZIB debate had Habermas’ theory of communicative action at its centre. In recent years this theory has characterized and determined much of German IR’s most innovative and interesting research. Thus its very existence prima facie seems to speak against the notion that German IR is post-critical. However, as I argue below, what interested German IR scholars most was not Habermas’ notion of communicative rationality as the new paradigmatic core of Critical Theory. Rather, they needed conceptual input for a positive theory of action which would be able to cure the problems of rationalist institutionalism. From the marriage between communicative action and institutionalism a specific constructivist synthesis emerged. In this sense, the new normality in German IR which revolved around the ZIB debate is post-critical in a dialectical way.9 From the late 1990s on, the new synthesis informed a considerable part of the theoretical and empirical work in the discipline’s mainstream. Thus the discipline enjoyed a coherence which comes close to ‘normal science’ in the Kuhnian sense. Normal science constitutes a new normality for the discipline because it is markedly distinguished from its fragmented, unproductive existence in the mid-1980s. In Kuhn’s terms, normal science is characterized by a common paradigm and the typical activity of puzzlesolving (Kuhn 1963: 35–42). Normal science is linked to a post-critical state of the discipline because in normal science self-reflection is necessarily turned off. In Kuhn’s words, a common paradigm can ‘even insulate the community from those socially relevant problems that are not

Germany 75 reducible to the puzzle form because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies’ (Kuhn 1963: 37). Furthermore, it is inter-paradigmatic comparison which leads to critical reflection of the confines of one’s own paradigm. The relation of competing paradigms to different traditions of thought and politics may direct attention to the conditions for the production of knowledge which might otherwise remain behind the scenes (Jørgensen 2000: 23).10 In contrast to paradigmatic pluralism, therefore, there is a lack of critical correctives in normal science. This is the new post-critical normality in an epistemological reading. My fourth reading tries to highlight one of the conditions for the production of knowledge in IR. Here, ‘new normality’ relates to something outside the discipline. In this reading, the ‘new normality in a post-critical discipline’ denotes the discipline’s reflection of a change in its social and political context. In 1991, in the aftermath of reunification, the German Bundestag decided to move the capital of the Federal Republic from Bonn to Berlin. This became a symbol of changes in the broader cultural and political settings of the Federal Republic. That these changes might have transformed the identity of the whole Federal Republic is expressed by the term ‘Berlin Republic’. The term is not undisputed and the existence or desirability of these changes is still debated. They are, however, most often assumed to lead to a ‘new normality’: ‘Normalization was/is at the centre of a long running debate on German history, politics, society, psychology, in fact almost everything’ (Wood 1998: 164; see also Krippendorf 1996: 77).11 This new German normality is reflected in the discipline in a more concrete and a more general way. More concretely, the regaining of full sovereignty created a lively discussion about how Germany would and should behave now that it had become a ‘normal’ power in the middle of Europe. Established scholars from the discipline of IR also took an active part in this debate. However, the discipline might mirror a more general trend of the broader intellectual climate in the Berlin Republic. Of this broader trend a debate initiated by the philosopher Peter Sloterdijk is symptomatic.12 In 1999, he called for an abandonment of the humanist tradition in favour of a vision of the genetic and eugenic re-creation of the human race as some sort of Nietzschean-inspired Übermenschen. Significantly, in this context Sloterdijk proclaimed Critical Theory and its ethical authority dead: Critical Theory had lost its moral appeal. It was, in his words, the right philosophy ‘for not yet normal democracies’ (Sloterdijk 1999; emphasis added). With a new democratically socialized generation, Germany had arrived in normality. The ‘agonizing self-reflection’ of Critical Theory was not necessary any more. If it is true that the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School provided much of the ‘intellectual foundation’ of the Bonn Republic (Albrecht et al. 2000), Sloterdijk’s statement may indeed mark a change in German identity. If German IR is a post-critical discipline now, it would, in this sense, be only part of a much larger picture.

76 Christoph Humrich Unfortunately, the links between the discipline and its context cannot be worked out here. They have been pointed to because exploring these links is an important critical undertaking, a part of a reflexive ‘discourse about IR discourse’. What is striking about German IR in this regard is that agonizing self-reflection is almost completely missing. While there was some exchange about institutional, epistemological, research-strategic and substantive prerequisites of a proper scientific discipline, a discussion about the aims of IR (‘What is IR For?’ Wendt 2001), its philosophical foundations, normative intentions and implications, and its blind spots or exclusive character has not taken place for more than fifteen years. I now turn to the exchange which provided the background from which the new normality in the post-critical discipline emerged.

The quest for normality The achievement of new normality rested on explicit or implicit visions of the discipline and its institutional manifestations which had been promoted in the meta-discourse, and which subsequently defined the mainstream practice. Rather than aiming at the substitution of one state of affairs for another, these visions revolved around notions that German IR was not yet a ‘normal’ discipline. ‘Normality’ in German IR was seen as something to be achieved. Observations that German IR was ‘underdeveloped’ (Czempiel 1986: 251), or generally not ‘in line with standards common in the western world’ (Albrecht 1989: 248), are only two of many more cases in point. Putting down the state of the discipline to the cause of ‘special historical preconditions’ (Rittberger and Hummel 1990: 17; emphasis added) and methodological problems insinuated that becoming ‘normal’ should be the main goal of disciplinary efforts. At the same time the meta-discourse foreshadowed a very specific vision of ‘normal’ scientific practice. This vision paved the way for a new normality as I described it in the first three of my readings. The vision helped to bring about the new normality in a post-critical discipline in the temporal sense because it concentrated so much on the future of the discipline that its critical-theoretical past simply came out of sight. It furthered the new normality in the dialectical sense because it promoted the need for a unifying paradigm with rational institutionalism as the most suitable candidate for it. The roots of all these efforts, however, lay in the advancement of new normality in the epistemological sense. For most scholars, ‘becoming normal’ meant that the discipline should aim at a state of ‘normal science’. The fact that in the mid-1990s conversation on this discourse level petered out has a simple reason: the discipline had reached the state of ‘normal science’. However, to begin with, the lack of institutional measures and substantive prerequisites to further communication and debate long inhibited the development of the discipline.13 Its internal fragmentation was partly

Germany 77 remedied at the beginning of the 1980s. At that time peace research was redirected to more conventional IR by political intervention and subsequently reintegrated into the discipline (Albrecht 1989: 245; Wasmuht 1998: 329–40). This was relevant for Critical Theory’s departure from the discipline insofar as peace researchers had formerly carried out most of the critical work on international politics. On the institutional side, the SIP of the DVPW was revived at the end of the 1980s and successfully organized into a vivid forum for exchange. To a large extent this revival became a success through the active engagement of scholars who were not part of the then dominant theoretical strands (historical realism and Marxian political economy), and who were eager to emancipate themselves from the fragmented and unproductive existence of the discipline. As manifest fruits of these efforts, communications in the discipline were significantly improved, not least because of the establishment of a German theoretical Journal of International Relations – the ZIB.14 With the institutional obstacles removed, it seemed that the way was paved for a genuine self-reflective discourse about German IR. Epistemological, methodological and research-strategic themes were also discussed to some degree. Yet this should not obscure that a broad consensus in regard to four important and related issues was explicitly expressed and implicitly acknowledged or proven by practice. Two of these four issues were directly connected to the move towards a postcritical discipline. They concerned the kind of theory to pursue and the purposes of research (which no longer included emancipation). The third issue addressed the strategic orientation towards the Americandominated scientific world market. Finally, there was no doubt that institutionalism could and should serve as a unifying paradigm for the discipline. Complaints had often been expressed that theory of a certain kind was not present in German IR. Research based on hypothesis testing and theory comparison leading to middle-range theories of international politics was the exception rather than the rule (Czempiel 1986: 251; Rittberger and Hummel 1990: 23). Unlike the American IR community, most German scholars were engaged in what Gunther Hellmann called Ansatzforschung (‘positional research’): simply recasting reality in or even pressing it into the frame of their world-view (Hellmann 1994: 76). However, at the time when these concerns were expressed, the discipline was in fact already firmly on its way to ‘normal science’. Therefore, the choir of the middle-range theory advocates simply diverted attention away from the real absence of other types of theory. Normative theory or macrosociological approaches outside international political economy were, for instance, seldom visible. These were left to philosophers, political theorists or sociologists respectively. Meyers’ verdict from 1986 still applies: political or normative theory in German IR? ‘Weitgehend Fehlanzeige’ (‘Nil return’; cf. Meyers 1986: 197).15

78 Christoph Humrich Naturally, a technical knowledge interest in explanation and prediction was wedded to the concentration on middle-range theory. Moreover, on the methodological level a consensus emerged that left enough room for understanding and hermeneutic methods as long as they could be expected to feed explanations of international politics (e.g. Risse-Kappen 1995: 174). This relatively relaxed form of post-popperian critical rationalism was later called a hermeneutically informed positivism (Zangl and Zürn 1996: 342: Zangl 1999: 14–26). Of course, a technical knowledge interest in explanation does not preclude a normative intent in research. However, German IR scholars seemed to perceive no need to justify normative intentions as the basis of research. Moreover, Critical Theory’s argument that the form of theory has a substantive connection to the possible realization of knowledge interests simply seems to have been put aside. Fewer and fewer active scholars are committed to guidance by an emancipatory interest. This has been noticed with some frustration among Critical Theorists who now seem to belong to an outdated generation (e.g. Greven 1991; Krippendorff 1999; Narr 1999; Fach and Simonis 2000). In the struggle for contribution and recognition in the international discipline, German IR somehow had to devise a strategy to deal with the ‘institutional and intellectual dominance of the American branch of the discipline’ (Rittberger and Hummel 1990: 17). In this regard, Klaus-Gerd Giesen (1995: 141–2) nicely captured the existing differences in the vocabulary of dependence theory. The situation of German IR could be described as asymmetrical dependence on the dominant US market. Until the late 1990s, German IR ‘still look[ed] more for innovation from abroad, rather than contributing to international debate and further development of the discipline’ (Albrecht 1989: 248). As a remedy, Hellmann favoured, in Giesen’s view, total world market adaptation (cf. Hellmann’s demand for a ‘strong orientation on the leading segment of US-American IR research’: Hellmann 1994: 67). Zürn, by contrast, called for more ‘self-reliance’, or the courage to orient research towards own problems and tackle them with own resources (Zürn 1994: 111). However, the vocabulary from the battles of development theory might bring to mind a contrast between the positions which did and did not exist in disciplinary reality. Despite some critical undertone in Zürn’s article, his epistemological and methodological convictions are fully compatible with the American mainstream. Although Zürn found that ‘it is absolutely worthwhile to thoroughly recollect our own if short tradition of research on international relations’ (Zürn 1994: 111), he had adopted regime theory in a way very similar to American approaches (e.g. Zürn 1992). With this approach, Zürn was a leading figure in institutionalizing rational institutionalism as the unifying paradigm of German IR, thus explicitly propagating this American approach in German IR. While it may be true that German IR tackled its own problems (Rittberger 1993), it surely did so

Germany 79 with very limited contributions from its own resources. Except maybe for the use of Habermas in the discipline (towards which Zürn initially displayed a rather sceptical attitude: cf. Zangl and Zürn (1996)), Zürn’s call for self-reliance remained largely unheard. Institutionalism emerged in the late 1980s between the rubble of political economy and realism. With the superpower détente of the mid-1980s, realism lost its appeal as a policy-guiding theory. With the end of the Cold War the remainder of its attraction as an explanatory theory also faded away. The differentiation process of the Third World and the obvious failure of self-reliance strategies was the end of dependence theory and thus of the larger part of political economic analysis in German IR (cf. Menzel 1992: 26). Instead of being a matter of the structure of International Relations, development as well as conflict resolution in East–West affairs became a matter of good institutions. Whereas political economy and realism seemed to be in deep problems as theoretical approaches to international relations, institutionalism fulfilled exactly the two criteria Kuhn saw as defining for a paradigm. It was appealing enough to attract a variety of scholars formerly organizing their research within different backgrounds as well as providing interesting and still unresolved puzzles (Kuhn 1963: 10). To begin with, institutionalism was simply the paradigm embraced by those who revived the intra-disciplinary dialogue. However, in its moderately rationalistic form it was explicitly introduced as a paradigm integrating a variety of theoretical convictions and defining a range of questions which were applicable to various subfields in comparable ways (Rittberger and Hummel 1990: 34; Keck 1991; Zürn 1994: 102). Regime theory is the best example of this, since it became an integrating, extensive and far-reaching research programme next to the ZIB debate only. With regime theory, institutionalism also provided a new, more narrow approach to peace research, which was needed after the funding had been cut back (e.g. Rittberger 1990a, 1993; Rittberger and Zürn 1991). Moreover, the fact that institutionalism constituted the main paradigm also in the US community created greater opportunities for contributions by German scholars to the world market. These may become even better when moderate constructivism comes to play a more important role in the US mainstream. The relaxed German epistemological stand may then be less of a problem.

What the new normality looks like It has already been mentioned that the so-called ZIB debate occupied the centre of disciplinary discourse in the 1990s. In this debate, scholars discussed the potential merits of an import of Jürgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action into theories of international cooperation. The substance of the debate has been aptly summarized elsewhere (Risse 2000, 2003), and I will therefore not go into detail here. However, I would like

80 Christoph Humrich to point out two things: first, German IR scholars were not merely advocating ‘normal science’; they practised it. Second, typical of this practice was the dialectical ‘normalization’ of Habermas’ Critical Theory. In this dialectical move it was stripped of its normative and critical content by its incorporation into a constructivist–institutionalist synthesis. The ‘thesis’ was the rationalist–institutionalist consensus which had emerged in the third decade of German IR. In this regard, the ZIB debate belongs to the larger context of a rationalist–constructivist divide in IR. Harald Müller (1994; 2001) opened the debate by exposing the empirical and logical contradictions of standard rationalist-institutionalist accounts and proposing to introduce Habermas’ theory as an analytically richer and logically more coherent basis for theorizing about international cooperation. In this sense, the theory of communicative action was the ‘antithesis’ to rational-institutionalism. As Müller tried to show, a stable cooperation of utility-maximizing actors could not be consistently conceived. Therefore ‘the decisive question’ which could not be answered from rationalist theories is ‘how from a plausible desire to cooperate under conditions of anarchy, cooperation finally emerges’ (Müller 1994: 18). According to Müller, communication as conceptualized by Habermas could fill this identified logical gap because it created and changed social relations between actors. Thus these actors no longer act in a pre-given situation defined by anarchy or a particular preference structure. Actors actively produce a consensus about the definition of the situation by exchanging arguments and eventually reaching an understanding. Good reasons which make it rational to cooperate, and which influence preferences accordingly, are necessarily contained in this consensus. As Thomas Risse was the first to realize (Risse-Kappen 1995), Habermasian theory had the potential to solve the institutionalist problems by directing it towards a constructivist synthesis. The theory of communicative action precisely explains how reasons operate as causes (Adler 1997: 329). In addition, it provides a particular solution to the agent-structure problem. Although communicative action is based on internalized identities and cultural contents which for the speaker define what counts as meaningful utterances, competent speakers are able to reflect upon the boundaries of this background in open dialogue. Thereby they may be able to change their identities at least in the long run. Here, opportunities emerged to bridge the gap between agent-centred rationalism and a hitherto oddly structure-centred constructivism (Checkel 1998, 2000). Moreover, the theory of communicative action offers a ‘non-eclectic, non-redundant’ approach to the inter-subjective creation of social reality which distinguishes constructivism from rationalism (Guzzini 2000: 149). With these characteristics it was the right theory of action to back up the constructivist concepts of endogenized preference generation and change, the process of cognitive evolution and the notion of persuasion which had appeared in American constructivist works (e.g. Finnemore and Sikkink 1998).

Germany 81 Before I go into detail regarding the transformation of Habermasian theory into the new constructivist–institutionalist synthesis, let me situate the ZIB debate in the practice of ‘normal science’ in the German scientific community. Almost 20 per cent of all articles in the ZIB related to the ZIB debate in one way or another. The overall activity linked with the ZIB debate may be grouped into five broad clusters of research. The first cluster is the more narrowly conceived debate itself. Müller’s contentions invited reaction from several groups. Rational choice theorists responded to the charge that their models principally had no opportunity to incorporate language (e.g. Schneider 1994; Keck 1995, 1997). Neoliberal institutionalists countered the arguments brought forward against the logical coherence of their explanations. In their view the logical gap was filled by the undeniable fact of interdependence which did not need further explanation (Zangl and Zürn 1996: 349). Of course, there could also have been realist interventions. However, no such contributions appeared. Instead, there were several articles which agreed on the need of complementing rationalist analysis with concepts that paid due regard to communication as a decisive factor, but which differed on the point that Habermas’ theory of communicative action would be the best candidate for that job (e.g. Plümper 1995; Prittwitz 1996; Schimmelfennig 1997; Holzinger 2001).16 Finally, there were further supporters of the constructivists’ cause (Schmalz-Bruns 1995; Jaeger 1996; Müller 1996). From the initial debate, a second cluster of research concentrating on the identification of communicative action in international negotiations emerged (e.g. Forschungsgruppe Menschenrechte 1998; Risse et al. 1999; Behrendt 2000). A third cluster comprised conceptual work focused on getting the relations between communicative and strategic action right under the institutionalist meta-paradigm (e.g. Gehring 1995; Zangl and Zürn 1999). While this research gave the German researchers some ideas about when communicative actions could be expected to occur in international interaction, it did not answer the question whether behaviour oriented towards understanding had any significant influence on the outcome of the interaction. A fourth cluster therefore dealt with the impact of arguments in the interaction process. Parallel to these, a fifth cluster of enquiry followed a more normative path. This path had been opened by Rainer Schmalz-Bruns (Schmalz-Bruns 1995, 1999). It applied the normative categories of Habermasian thinking to the question of the legitimization of politics beyond the nation state. The first four lines of enquiry and much of what followed may be subsumed under the heading of ‘normal science’. Instead of a clash of competing paradigms the debate consisted of contributions which tried to solve a certain theoretical puzzle: the elaboration of a consistent neoliberal institutionalist theory. The proponents of a Habermasian import believed that this could only be done by turning institutionalism of rationalist provenance into constructivist institutionalism. In line with Kuhn,

82 Christoph Humrich one could thus see the interventions in the debate as contributions to the articulation of this theory. The subsequent research consisted of attempts to identify the relevant facts or to adapt the concepts to these facts (Kuhn 1963: 23–32). In conclusion, what may have been most important for the practice of the discipline was that the issue of the debate provided a focus for researchers of different directions and thus a concentration of research efforts that turned it into an identity- and community-producing process. Through the ZIB debate, the institutionalist paradigm seemed to unfold its integrative power not only within IR, but also across other subdisciplines of political science in Germany and the world market of IR. Contributions from political theory, comparative politics and government entered the ZIB debate and, conversely, IR scholars contributed to the debate in non-IR forums. Internationally, the ZIB debate and its offspring in terms of research fitted into the emerging competition between rationalism and constructivism. It has been proudly presented to the American IR community as ‘a distinct German version of the controversy between rationalists and social constructivists’ (Risse 2000: 7; emphasis added). It would be fair so say that the ZIB debate has already contributed to the development of constructivism as a theoretical perspective in IR and will probably continue to do so (Wæver 1998: 705). The ZIB debate dealt with Habermasian Critical Theory within the parameters of ‘normal science’. From the beginning, an integration of institutionalism and communicative action was aimed at because communicative action was the solution to the institutionalist puzzle. Thus the theory of communicative action was never considered as a paradigm in its own right. On the contrary, I argue that in the use of German IR scholars, the theory of communicative action underwent a transformation at the end of which it was deprived of its paradigmatic core – the notion of communicative rationality. It is, however, precisely this core that makes Habermas’ theory of communicative action a Critical Theory (McCarthy 1978; White 1988). The normativity of the theory of communicative action and the justification of its critical stance are contained in this core. It stipulates that a communicative act is rational when it is directed towards the goal of understanding and fulfils the always presupposed, necessary conditions for reaching this goal. These conditions specify the ideal speech situation in which speech acts may convince only through the persuasiveness of their semantic content (i.e. their illocutionary force). Because understanding is the inherent goal of language-use without which the latter makes no sense, this criterion of rationality applies whenever language is used. In the transformative process the theory of communicative action was turned from this distinct paradigm of rationality into a positive theory of action in three steps. First, communicative action was reduced to one of several modes of action occurring in negotiations. It was accorded the same theoretical status as other modes such as strategic or norm-guided

Germany 83 action. Thomas Risse’s triangle of the three logics of action (Risse 2000: 4) is a nice later expression of this step. This move was made plausible by the reduction of the differences between the underlying theories of action to the orientation guiding the action. While strategic action is guided by an orientation towards consequences, norm-guided action is guided by standards of appropriateness. Communicative action, or the logic of arguing as Risse called it, was oriented towards understanding. If, for cooperation to emerge, orientation towards understanding was necessary as Müller maintained, one simply had to show when and how these orientations changed. In the second step, therefore, the equalizing of the three logics produced the need for a meta-logic which determined which logic would be used under which conditions. After research quickly showed that every interaction entailed arguing, a third step occurred which mixed the relations between the logics differently. Rather than distinguishing between different modes of action, it first distinguished between arguing and bargaining as different forms of speech acts. These, however, were used by the speaker either according to the logic of appropriateness or the logic of consequences. In other words, the communicative paradigm of rationality dissolved between these two logics of action and became a mere conceptual component. Habermas, by contrast, had conceived of communicative action as a mode of social interaction reflective upon the necessarily particular context of instrumental, normative and expressive actions, and therefore of a higher categorical level. It is this reflectivity which in principle makes it possible to transcend the limitations of the context. The theory of communicative action was also converted from a theory of reconstructive social science into an explanatory and predictive theory. The interest in explaining cooperation led to the question as to when which orientation of action applied. For some time this fostered a search for the conditions of arguing which contradicted Müller’s initial attempt to close the logical gap between desired and actual cooperation inasmuch as these conditions were themselves dependent on prior cooperation. According to the communicative paradigm, however, rather than asking when actors use which logic of action, the logical question would have been, why or when actors do not act according to the presuppositions of the ideal speech situation when communicating (Müller 1996: 372). Because the criteria of communicative rationality apply whenever language is used, this approach offers a basis for a critique pointing to the irrationality of actions which violate these presuppositions and aim at cooperation at one and the same time. This critique obviously becomes obsolete when the rationality of languageuse changes according to circumstance, as it does in the reformulation which emerged from the ZIB debate. Moreover, in the original theory of communicative action the circumstances which were thought to encourage the orientation towards understanding were derived from the counterfactually presupposed ideal

84 Christoph Humrich speech situation. German constructivists first relaxed the latter’s defining characteristics and identified these in the international realm. The possibility of communicative action was thereby proved. If it is correct that the fulfilment of the presupposed conditions for communicative action makes the latter rational, this move somewhat wrecked the notion of communicative rationality. The assumption that the speaker presupposes the ideal speech situation involves performative contradictions if he engages in arguing within a distorted speech situation. Here again, there is a basis for critique in the original theory. However, the constructivist’s need to pinpoint the conditions for arguing in the real world diverted the view away from the critical analysis of speech situations and the conditions which might inhibit rational consensus. What were of interest were precisely the conditions for arguing and not the conditions for a communicatively achieved rational consensus. This had real consequences in terms of research. In a very careful analysis Sven Behrendt followed an intuition of Müller who interpreted the Israeli–Palestinian secret negotiations in Oslo as instances of communicative action (Müller 1994: 34; Behrendt 2000). Behrendt thoroughly examined how the recognition of the Palestinians as an equal party at the table enabled real discursive processes which could explain the cooperative outcome. However, a critical study of the distortions of the speech situation has suggested that an induction from the processes and the Oslo outcome to a prevalence of communicative rationality is debatable at best. For the author of the latter study many indicators showed that the Palestinians were denied the status of a really equal party (Jones 1999). This result, without judging the empirics, seems at least to better account for the known subsequent developments. The transformation into an explanatory theory also discarded the irreducible inter-subjective notion of communicative rationality. Aiming at an explanation, constructivists could not accept one of the principal differences between Habermasian communicative action and other theories of action: the principally unpredictable results of discourse. Thus the demand that in communicative action the pure illocutionary force of the semantic content of the argument determines its acceptance was suspended. In order to predict interaction outcomes, something resembling a concept of persuasive power came up which identified the force of the better argument with the persuasiveness of its framing. This, however, could cynically be seen as a search for the best means of propaganda. Of course, this kind of research could be turned in a critical direction: exposing the mechanisms of manipulated persuasiveness and making them available to reflection might render them ineffective. However, this was not an aim in the post-critical discipline.17 Explaining certain outcomes by the preceding process of arguing assumes the power of argument. However, the power of the better argument only prevails in undistorted communication. In such a case, it makes

Germany 85 sense, for instance, to speak of a distinctive ‘power of human rights’ (Risse et al. 1999). The spiral model of ‘argumentative entrapment’ developed by Thomas Risse and the Human Rights Research Group at the European University Institute is, despite non-communicative phases, a model of the process of the acceptance of human rights by argument. However, if as a result of interaction human rights are accepted and if this acceptance is linked to processes of communicative action, human rights are by implication elevated to the status of the better argument. This far-reaching conclusion would only be valid if an undistorted discourse really had occurred. Risse acknowledges this himself when stating that a communicative rational outcome may only be determined by comparison to the outcome of an undistorted discourse (Risse 2000: 17). However, it is not clear how the implicit claim that human rights are the better argument could be backed by the analysis actually carried out. So far, the constructivists have simply not developed analytical tools which make the check for distorted communication possible. The reason is that by implication of their explanatory interest, they look for persuasion and not for rational consensus. The transformation of the theory of communicative action to an explanatory middle-range theory necessarily reduced its holistic political and social theoretical character.18 However, with the fifth cluster of research which emerged from the ZIB debate at least political theory found a way back into the discipline. Here, the merits of communicative action in the larger context of a legitimating theory of supra- or transnational deliberative democracy were considered. However, this application was either largely sociologically abstinent, as in the case of Schmalz-Bruns’ attempt (Schmalz-Bruns 1999), or it considered real processes, but watered down the normative side of the story to an extent that the demands of legitimization were adapted to existing politics rather than the other way round (Joerges and Neyer 1998). While the latter approach had the advantage of being firmly rooted in political practice and able to make suggestions for small progress in regard to legitimization, it was too status quo-oriented to be considered really critical (Schmalz-Bruns 1999: 213). By contrast, the separation of the former approach from reality was not bridged by a convincing account of how a system of supranational deliberative polyarchy might be feasible. Consequently, it could not provide a particular emancipative strategy (Joerges 2000). Furthermore, both approaches lacked a historical dimension capable of embedding the issue of legitimization and realization in a more encompassing theory of normative evolution.

At the margins: theory outside the new normality of the discipline The upshot of the last section was that in its new normality, the discipline mainly engaged in puzzle-solving. With no reflective meta-discourse to

86 Christoph Humrich speak of, critical reflection would have to come from competing paradigms. However, realism, postmodernism, feminism, (post-Marxist) political economy and Critical Theory were either absorbed into the mainstream, largely ignored, or simply unable or unwilling to engage with the centre of the discipline. I now address these perspectives in turn in order to consider their reflective potential and possible influence on the discipline’s mainstream. The participants in the ZIB debate credited it with being post-realistic (Risse-Kappen 1995: 172; Zangl and Zürn 1996: 358). However, there were some differences over the role of realism in German IR. Hellmann, for instance, complained that the achievements of realism were virtually ignored (Hellmann 1994), while others had attributed realism an almost dominant status (Meyers 1986: 197). To some extent this difference may be traced to a limited differentiation between certain types of realism. It is certainly true that there has been little theoretically informed and theorybuilding work on the basis of structural realism (for an exception, see Link 1996). In the form of the synoptic realism of the Munich school realism may have dominated many practically oriented policy studies as an implicit analytical frame. In addition, there is the historical branch of German foreign policy analysis which clearly tended more to realism than to anything else (Ziebura 1990). While it is true that realists did not take part in the debate, there is no reason to believe that this means that the discipline is also post-realistic. On the contrary, in all three variations realism reappeared in the discipline’s life after declaring itself post-realistic. A specific form of realism re-emerged in the debate about German foreign policy after reunification. For some of the realist historians, the newly gained sovereignty gave the justification for a renewed emphasis on power with a sometimes nationalistic undertone: ‘Germany is back’, as the attitude aptly expresses itself (Schöllgen 1994: 35). After 1994 structural realism surfaced within the mainstream mainly in representations or reconstructions by its critics. Structural realism’s hypotheses were compared with its theoretical competitors and, not surprisingly, refuted. There have, however, also been attempts to revive realism as an alternative paradigm (Meier-Walser 1997; Siedschlag 1997). Within the tradition of the Munich school, Alexander Siedschlag engaged in a lengthy reconstruction of systemic neo-realism which draws on a very broad variety of realist, but also chaos- and system-theoretical sources. Interestingly, he does not understand realism in the narrow positivist terms of its mainstream reconstructors, but as a political and practical theory (Siedschlag 2000, 2001).19 In his sense, realism may also be interpreted as a ‘kritische Gegenwartswissenschaft’ (Siedschlag 2001: 46). Siedschlag emphasizes that realism’s critics often did overlook the fact that realism was not happy with the role power played in politics and that it had an emancipatory intent when showing its moral scepticism towards avowedly universal concepts such as democracy and human rights.

Germany 87 By contrast to Realpolitik-thinking political realism is in no way approving in regard to power. . . . In its view, power can never be used in an absolutely just way or undisputedly serve a positive development of the world. Political realism therefore is opposed to any identification of the interest of one particular state or a group of states with the universal interest, because it always sees the danger of a pseudouniversalism only maximizing own utility. (Siedschlag 2001: 14) While postmodernism never had a strong stand in German social sciences in general, it gained no influence in German IR at all. Although postmodern scholarship has been noticed and thoroughly reviewed once, even the reviewer, who was certainly very favourable to it, saw it merely as a reflective supplement to mainstream IR rather than an alternative (Albert 1994: 59–60). There have been some speculations about the reasons for this lack of attraction of postmodernism. If my allegations about the post-critical discipline are right, Knud Erik Jørgensen’s conclusion that postmodernism’s absence is due to the availability of Critical Theory within the discipline and to ‘Auschwitz’ (Jørgensen 2000: 19) has at least partly to be rejected. The departure of Critical Theory from German IR was already well on its way before postmodernism rose to some prominence in the Anglophone discipline. When postmodernism appeared in Germany at the beginning of the 1990s, German Critical IR Theory had faded out already. In the rare encounters which have taken place between mainstream and postmodern IR (e.g. Diez 1996, 1998; Börzel 1997), the former rejected the latter not because of normative reasons of a Critical Theoretical provenance, but because of the standards of scientific positivism (Börzel 1997: 134). Although Luhmann’s systems theory is not yet well represented in German IR, the fact that his theory is at hand might not make the establishment of postmodern thought on the German market any easier. Luhmann’s theory seems an appealing alternative for those otherwise attracted to postmodernism. It is not by accident that the researchers who introduced postmodern thinking into German IR use Luhmannian concepts in their works (e.g. Diez 1999) or have been recognized for their Luhmannian contributions (e.g. Albert 1999, 2002a). Luhmann’s theory shares some central features with postmodernism.20 Among them is his radical constructivism, the crucial importance of the concept of difference, the elimination of the subject from his social theory, and a substantial scepticism towards any chance to cure the problems of modern functionally differentiated societies by conscious intervention. However, Luhmann’s theory also has decisive advantages over postmodern theories at least in regard to a potential German IR market: it is firmly located within the scientific system, its programme and its codes. His theory is therefore more easily adaptable to the prevalent mainstream scientific

88 Christoph Humrich practice. The better accessibility of Luhmann’s works in Germany may make it even more of a competitive alternative (cf. also Wæver 1998: 706). An increasing amount of research on IR with a Luhmannian background might witness such a trend already (e.g. Stichweh 2000; Bonacker and Brodocz 2001; Albert 2002a, 2002b). Despite a very good overview article in the ZIB (Krell 1996), a feminist perspective did not enter the ZIB debate.21 Although there is currently an IR Chair with an explicit gender perspective at the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt, it would be premature to speak of an established feminist voice. This is a pity because the feminist critique took up the question of global governance and discussed it from a genderpolitical and democracy-theoretical point of view (Holland-Cunz and Ruppert 2000). Here even Habermas’ concept of deliberative democracy was dealt with in a direct relation to international negotiation (HollandCunz 2000). In other words, there have been evident connections to the ZIB debate. However, they were unfortunately not brought into dialogue with the discipline’s mainstream. The same applies to post-Marxist international political economy. Like feminism, this paradigm has not participated in the mainstream discourse, but obviously kept its debate within its own organs and publishers (the most important journal is Prokla). Since the beginning of political science in Germany, this paradigm had a relatively marginal but nevertheless at some times very visible presence with Wolfgang Abendroth as the most prominent representative (Abendroth 1973). After peace researchers accepted the failure of grand theory in the case of international development and turned away from political economy, Marxist analysis remained the only strand of international political economy in Germany where, for instance, liberal and realist political economy did not gain a foothold until the mid-1990s. Now, the political economists critical of capitalism seem to be the last ones explicitly subscribing to emancipation. The critical political economists conceive of emancipation as control and limitation of Herrschaft (e.g. Brand et al. 2000: 165–6). However, while this implies democratization of world politics, it is not recognizable how precisely this should and could be done. It is even less clear how it could be done legitimately. Here, obviously a productive engagement with the normative Habermasians may have helped. The critiques of globalization and global governance were two naturally interwoven research objects for critical international political economy (e.g. Brand et al. 2000; Scherrer 2000). The more the rest of the discipline turns its attention to these issues, the more likely it is that this strand of research may come back into the perspective of the mainstream. The book on globalization by the critical political economists Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, for instance, advanced to some sort of standard textbook even in the mainstream segment (Altvater and Mahnkopf 1999). Conversely, critical political economists also seem to see the chance to

Germany 89 contribute to the mainstream discussion of global governance and globalization (e.g. Görg 2002; Scherrer 2003). Except for a few complaints (e.g. Krippendorff 1999; Fach and Simonis 2000), the remaining Critical Theorists did little to stop or alleviate the move towards the post-critical discipline. There may be two reasons for this. On the one hand, Critical Theory in German IR did not follow the road Habermas took in his reconstruction of historical materialism. Even after the theory of communicative action had been published, critical IR theorists mostly remained within the political economy paradigm. When the latter was regarded as useless because of its increasingly self-contained sophistication (Krippendorff) or refuted by real-world development (Senghaas; Menzel), they turned into very different directions. Krippendorff, for instance, went back to a substantial claim of practical and historical reason which clearly underlies his essayistic engagements with world politics (e.g. Krippendorff 1985, 1993, 2000).22 While Krippendorff has clearly not lost his critical bite, it seems to have become almost impossible to build a broader research programme on his oeuvre precisely because the essayistic style does not explicate a fully fledged theory. This is not to say that the essayistic style is not adequate per se. On the contrary, especially for Critical Theorists it might be important to transcend the language of the discipline. However, in this form it does not help the state of disciplinary affairs. It is so detached from disciplinary discourse that it is no longer received.23

Conclusion In this chapter I have tried to show that the state of recent German IR may be characterized as a new normality in a post-critical discipline. This characterization applies in a temporal sense because a once vivid Critical Theoretical segment of German IR simply disappeared. It may be read in a dialectical sense because it produced a constructivist–institutional synthesis from the marriage of Jürgen Habermas’ Critical Theory to rationalinstitutionalism. This synthesis is, however, premised on a positivist epistemology. In the epistemological sense German IR is post-critical because in its new praxis as ‘normal science’, the discipline neither has a meta-discourse engaged in agonizing self-reflection, nor does it have a plurality of really competing paradigms which would uncover and help to correct the blind spots in the mainstream paradigm by mutual critique. The horizons of mainstream discourse are defined by a broad institutionalist paradigm, the orientation towards the world-market leading segment of US–American IR, the domination of middle-range theory and an epistemological interest in explanatory models. In addition, even observers not inclined towards Critical Theory might admit that what is visible of the discipline today somehow seems encaged within its paradigmatic horizon. Undeniably, the mainstream practice has brought about

90 Christoph Humrich interesting and pioneering research. More importantly, maybe, it has created a real identity as a scientific community. Not even the output of the very productive first ten years of German IR would have been fit to hold the candle to the fourth decade. The post-critical state of the discipline may give rise to concern, however, because its distinct constructivistinstitutionalist research programmes, which have been innovative so far, may slowly but inexorably cross a ‘boundary of boredom’, to use a term coined by Wæver (1997: 23) in another context. As is evident from my argument, I do not find the discipline’s development wholly satisfying because ‘true’ Critical Theory is no longer part of the discipline, while Habermasian Critical Theory has been used in a positivist fashion. I do not imply that this usage of Habermas is not legitimate. Neither do I want to struggle over the true Habermas exegesis. It is certain, however, that the use of Habermasian theory in the ZIB has nothing to do with Critical Theory. Thus it is a corroborating instance for my characterization of the discipline. I find it of concern that German IR is post-critical. To the obvious ‘So what?’ question nothing particular may be answered. Horkheimer reduced the case for Critical Theory to the interest in the abolition of social wrongs (Horkheimer 1970: 56). Undeniably, this interest also guides much if not most of the mainstream research in German IR. However, it is Critical Theory’s specific contention that the realization of this interest necessitates relentless reflection. It needs the permanent putting under scrutiny of the exclusive tendencies of social reality in international politics and the discipline. This contention could obviously be debated, but that debate would already be part of this reflection. It is debate on this level which is lacking in German IR today. More than the absence of a particular critical approach to IR, for instance, a Habermasian approach, it is disturbing that reflection on the normative purpose of the discipline and its possible realizations simply does not exist. It is precisely at this point that my characterization of German IR resembles the broader trend in the political and intellectual life of the Berlin Republic. There is one interesting connection between these two. At least since 1994, the new normality in the discipline is carried by a younger generation of scholars. They followed a generation of researchers, many of whom had been strongly influenced by Critical Theory. For this latter generation the Cuba Crisis, the Vietnam War and the second Cold War were important events which for them proved the practical inadequacy or even danger and moral reprehensibleness of the then existing IR theories. When the new generation was socialized into IR, the Cold War was almost over and the world entered a short phase of relatively few and lowlevel international conflicts. More importantly, however, the generation to which the older German scholars belong was in Peter Sloterdijk’s pejorative words made up of the ‘hyper-moralistic sons of national-socialist

Germany 91 fathers’ (Sloterdijk 1999) who in 1968 revolted against the missing selfreflection of the young Bonn Republic. This biographical fact may have influenced the decisive turn to Critical Theory in light of the above-mentioned world political events. It would thus also suggest why the younger generation by and large did not feel such a strong moral urge. In IR as in German society it seems that the new normality leaves little to criticize and reflect upon. Maybe, however, the newly gained self-confidence does simply not go with agonizing self-reflection.

Notes 1 Of course there was IR research in post-war Germany before the mid-1960s. However, there are good reasons for locating the beginning of the institutionalized discipline at that time (cf. Gantzel-Kress and Gantzel 1980: 202ff. and 221ff.). 2 Translations from German are my own if not indicated otherwise. 3 The debate started with contributions by Harald Müller (1994) and Thomas Risse-Kappen (1995) on the pro-Habermas side, and Gerald Schneider (1994) and Otto Keck (1995) who argued against a possible incorporation of Habermasian thought into rational institutionalism. 4 The most recent example of this sense of identity is the latest volume of the SIP’s book series entitled Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen (The new International Relations) (Hellmann et al. 2003; especially Zürn 2003). This is the most comprehensive state-of-the-art volume on German IR since its predecessor was published in 1990 (Rittberger 1990b). 5 This does not imply that this is the self-understanding of the community. 6 For good characterizations of Critical Theory in this sense see Hein and Simonis 1973; Hoffman 1987. 7 A good example of this form of critique is the reception of Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilization’ thesis. Harald Müller refutes it with explicit reference to Popper from an empirical point of view and advocates instead a ‘dialogue of cultures’. His book ends before he comes to a theoretically backed consideration as to whether such a dialogue can be found and how it might be achieved (Müller 1998). Dieter Senghaas (1998) rejects Huntington by pointing to the more fundamental conflict of modernization vs. cultural tradition. However, with its broad sweep and mostly implicit theory, his book is more an essay than a piece of more narrowly conceived social science. Holden has nicely elaborated on the different engagements with Huntington in Germany, but to my mind he sometimes implicitly over-interprets these works as Critical Theory (Holden 2001: 37–42). 8 Critical Theorists in German IR examined the concepts and practices of foreign policy, deterrence, the state and the military as institutions (e.g. Senghaas 1967; Krippendorff 1973, 1985, 1993; Simonis 1977), they dealt with economic dominance and dependence in world society (e.g. Gantzel 1975), and they engaged with Anglo-American theories of international politics (e.g. Schlupp et al. 1973). 9 Wendt, from whom I adopted the term, actually also uses ‘postcritical’ in a dialectical way. The synthesis of an interest in emancipation and an interest in problem-solving is the interest in ‘steering’ (Wendt 2001). 10 Typical for this kind of approach and work were Reinhard Meyers’ fascinating contributions to and reviews of the discipline (Meyers 1986, 1990, 1994). As far as I can see, there has, unfortunately, been no recent attempt by him to catch

92 Christoph Humrich

11 12

13 14 15

16

17 18 19

20 21

22 23

the discipline’s newer developments. Giesen, however, has a very similar approach (Giesen 1995). ‘New normality’ is especially used in connection with German foreign policy since unification. Other debates with the same stakes could be mentioned here, such as the one caused by the neo-conservative German writer Botho Strauss in 1993, or the controversy between the German writer Martin Walser and the late Chair of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Ignatz Bubis, in 1998. For accounts of these difficulties in German IR see e.g. Gantzel-Kress and Gantzel 1980; Rittberger and Hummel 1990. For the difficulties of political science in Germany see e.g. Bleek 2001. Later the specialized and also peer reviewed book series Weltpolitik im 21. Jahrhundert (World Politics in the 21st Century) was added. Nine volumes of extraordinary research have already been published. It is interesting that a certain philosophical abstinence has been noticed also by outside observers. Knud-Erik Jørgensen, for instance, has commented on a ZIB editorial by Zürn who lists issues which are under-represented in the ZIB, but without mentioning philosophy (Jørgensen 2000: 35). It is not clear to me, however, whether in Jørgensen’s view this is due to an absence of interest in philosophical debate or to a still strong philosophical underpinning of continental IR (e.g. Jørgensen 2000: 20). My own reading of recent German debates leads me to the conclusion that at least since the 1990s the last ties to philosophy have been cut so that its lack is not even felt. Recent signs suggest that this abstinence seems likely to continue. As for links to other disciplines, Klaus Dieter Wolf and Hellmann mention sociology, international law and economy. The link to philosophy is limited to epistemological reflection which in addition is assigned a purely instrumental role (Wolf and Hellmann 2003). Schimmelfennig (1997) and Plümper (1995) advocated some sort of strategic communication, which Schimmelfennig extensively elaborated on and called ‘rhetorical action’. Prittwitz (1996) pointed to a broader understanding of communicative acts than implied by Habermas’ theory of communicative action. For Holzinger (2001) finally, strategic and communicative action must be understood in terms of different speech acts. For a similar critique see Payne 2001. The fact that in the further debate contributions by the more social theoretically inclined Habermas sympathizers were obviously largely irrelevant, supports my point (Jaeger 1996; Müller 1996). However, Erhard Forndran is surely right when he points out that Siedschlag’s reconstruction leaves something to be desired (Forndran 1997: 35). Siedschlag engages in a rather superficial critique of the other approaches and a rather shallow empirical analysis, which makes it an easy target for critique and hardly attractive as an alternative. Some of these features are also shared with realism (cf. Siedschlag 1997: 398–425). In my perspective, it is telling that Birgit Locher found it necessary to emphasize that feminism is more than political correctness. In her sense not being blind on the feminine eye even provides for better explanations (!) for international politics (Locher 1996). Krippendorff is not the only former Critical Theorist who in the past ten years turned to more ‘esoteric’ themes and withdrew from the discipline’s institutionalized forums (cf. Bleek 2001: 362–3). Cf. Krippendorff 2000: 56. Another example is the polemical critique of mainstream IR by Wolfgang Fach and Georg Simonis (Fach and Simonis 2000). Although published in the ZIB, it did not provoke even the slightest reaction.

Germany 93 This may, however, also be a sign of how immune the mainstream now is against critique.

References Abendroth, W. (1973) ‘International Relations, Völkerrecht und Außenpolitik als Teildisziplinen der politischen Wissenschaft – ein Disput mit Ernst-Otto Czempiel’, in E. Krippendorff (ed.) Internationale Beziehungen, Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, pp. 13–37. Adler, E. (1997) ‘Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 3(3): 319–63. Adorno, Th.W., Albert, H., Dahrendorf, R., Habermas, J., Pilot, H. and Popper, K.R. (1969) Der Positivismusstreit in der deutschen Soziologie, Neuwied: Luchterhand. Albert, M. (1994) ‘ “Postmoderne” und Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 45–63. —— (1999) ‘Observing World Politics: Luhmann’s Systems Theory of Society and International Relations’, Millennium 28(2): 239–65. —— (2002a) ‘Governance and Democracy in European Systems: On Systems Theory and European Integration’, Review of International Studies 28(2): 293–309. —— (2002b) Zur Politik der Weltgesellschaft. Identität und Recht im Kontext internationaler Vergesellschaftung, Weilerswist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. Albrecht, C., Behrmann, G.C. and Bock, M. (2000) Die intellektuelle Gründung der Bundesrepublik. Eine Wirkungsgeschichte der Frankfurter Schule, Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Albrecht, U. (1989) ‘The Study of International Relations in the Federal Republic of Germany’, in H.C. Dyer and L. Mangasarian (eds) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 244–9. Altvater, E. and Mahnkopf, B. (1999) Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie, Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft (4th edn), Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Behrendt, S. (2000) ‘Die israelisch–palästinensischen Geheimverhandlungen von Oslo 1993’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 7(1): 79–107. Bleek, W. (2001) Geschichte der Politikwissenschaft in Deutschland, Munich: C.H. Beck. Bonacker, T. and Brodocz, A. (2001) ‘Im Namen der Menschenrechte. Zur symbolischen Integration der internationalen Gemeinschaft durch Normen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 8(2): 179–208. Börzel, T. (1997) ‘Zur (Ir-)Relevanz der “Postmoderne” für die Integrationsforschung. Eine Replik auf Thomas Diez’ Beitrag “Postmoderne und Europäische Integration” ’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 4(1): 125–37. Brand, U., Brunnengräber, A. and Schrader, L. (2000) Global Governance. Alternative zur neoliberalen Globalisierung? Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Brown, C. (1994) ‘Turtles All the Way Down: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations’, Millennium 23(2): 213–36. Checkel, J.T. (1998) ‘The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory’, World Politics 50(2): 324–48. —— (2000) ‘Bridging the Rational–Choice/Constructivist Gap? Theorizing Social Interaction in European Institutions’, Working Paper 11/2000, ARENA, University of Oslo. Czempiel, E.-O. (1986) ‘Der Stand der Wissenschaft von den Internationalen Beziehungen und der Friedensforschung in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’,

94 Christoph Humrich in K. von Beyme (ed.) Politikwissenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. PVS Sonderheft 17, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 250–63. Diez, T. (1996) ‘Postmoderne und europäische Integration. Die Dominanz des Staatenmodells, die Verantwortung gegenüber dem Anderen und die Konstruktion eines alternativen Horizonts’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3(2): 255–81. —— (1998) ‘Perspektivenwechsel. Warum ein “postmoderner” Ansatz für die Integrationsforschung doch relevant ist’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 5(1): 139–48. —— (1999) Die EU lesen. Diskursive Knotenpunkte in der britischen Europadebatte, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Fach, W. and Simonis, G. (2000) ‘Die Welt des Autors’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 7(2): 385–98. Finnemore, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52(4): 887–917. Forndran, E. (1997) ‘Grenzen des Realismus. Zu Erklärungsversuchen internationaler Beziehungen. Teil II: Zur Reichweite realistischer Argumentation’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 7(1): 33–77. Forschungsgruppe Menschenrechte (1998) ‘Internationale Menschenrechtsnormen, transnationale Netzwerke und politischer Wandel in den Ländern des Südens’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 5(1): 5–42. Gantzel, K.-J. (ed.) (1975) Herrschaft und Befreiung in der Weltgesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Gantzel-Kress, G. and Gantzel, K.-J. (1980) ‘The Development of International Relations Studies in West Germany’, in E. Krippendorff and V. Rittberger (eds) The Foreign Policy of West Germany: Formation and Contents, London: Sage, pp. 197–270. Gehring, T. (1995) ‘Regieren im internationalen System. Verhandlungen, Normen und Internationale Regime’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 36(2): 197–219. Giesen, K.-G. (1995) ‘French Cancan zwischen Positivismus, Enzyklopädismus und Historismus’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 141–70. Görg, C. (2002) ‘Einheit und Verselbständigung. Probleme einer Soziologie der Weltgesellschaft’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 9(2): 275–304. Greven, M.Th. (1991) ‘Was ist aus den Ansprüchen einer kritisch–emanzipativen Politikwissenschaft vom Ende der 60er Jahre geworden? Eine Skizze des Paradigmas und seines Scheiterns’, in G. Göhler and B. Zeuner (eds) Kontinuitäten und Brüche in der deutschen Politikwissenschaft, Baden–Baden: Nomos, pp. 221–46. Groom, A.J.R. (1994) ‘The World Beyond: the European Dimension’, in A.J.R. Groom and M. Light (eds) Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London: Pinter, pp. 219–36. Guzzini, S. (2000) ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 6(2): 147–82. Habermas, J. (1991) Erkenntnis und Interesse (10th edn), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. —— (1995) Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns. Vol. I & II, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Hein, W. and Simonis, G. (1973) ‘Theoretische und methodische Probleme einer kritischen Theorie internationaler Politik’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 14(1): 85–106.

Germany 95 Hellmann, G. (1994) ‘Für eine problemorientierte Grundlagenforschung: Kritik und Perspektiven der Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 65–90. Hellmann, G., Wolf, K.D. and Zürn, M. (eds) (2003) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden–Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Hoffman, M. (1987) ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-paradigm Debate’, Millennium 16(2): 231–49. Holden, G. (1998) ‘International Relations During and After the Cold War: A Comparative Approach to Intellectual History and Culture’, Sonderveröffentlichung März 1998, Foschungsschwerpunkt Konflikt- und Kooperationsstrukturen in Osteuropa an der Universität Mannheim. —— (2001) ‘The Politer Kingdoms of the Globe: Context and Comparison in the Intellectual History of IR’, Global Society 15(1): 27–52. Holland-Cunz, B. (2000) ‘Politiktheoretische Überlegungen zu Global Governance’, in Barbara Holland-Cunz and Uta Ruppert (eds) Frauenpolitische Chancen globaler Politik. Verhandlungsverfahren im internationalen Kontext, Opladen: Leske & Budrich, pp. 25–44. Holland-Cunz, B. and Ruppert, U. (2000) Frauenpolitische Chancen globaler Politik. Verhandlungsverfahren im internationalen Kontext, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Holzinger, K. (2001) ‘Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu einigen irreführenden Dichotomien’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 8(2): 243–86. Horkheimer, M. (1970) ‘Traditionelle und kritische Theorie’, in M. Horkheimer (ed.) Traditionelle und Kritische Theorie, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, pp. 12–56. Jaeger, H.-M. (1996) ‘Konstruktionsfehler des Konstruktivismus in den Internationalen Beziehungen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3(2): 313–40. Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 9–42. Joerges, C. (2000) ‘Transnationale deliberative Demokratie oder deliberativer Supranationalismus? Anmerkungen zur Konzeptualisierung legitimen Regierens jenseits des Nationalstaats bei Rainer Schmalz-Bruns’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 7(1): 145–61. Joerges, C. and Neyer, J. (1998) ‘Von intergouvernementalem Verhandeln zur deliberativen Politik: Gründe und Chancen für eine Konstitutionalisierung der europäischen Komitologie’, in B. Kohler-Koch (ed.) Regieren in entgrenzten Räumen. PVS Sonderheft 29/1998, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 207–34. Jones, D.L. (1999) Cosmopolitan Mediation? Conflict Resolution and the Oslo Accords, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Keck, O. (1991) ‘Der Neue Institutionalismus in der Theorie der Internationalen Politik’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift 32(4): 635–53. —— (1995) ‘Rationales kommunikatives Handeln in den internationalen Beziehungen. Ist eine Verbindung von Rational-Choice–Theorie und Habermas’ Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns möglich?’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 5–48. —— (1997) ‘Zur sozialen Konstruktion des Rational Choice Ansatzes. Einige Klarstellungen zur Rationalismus–Konstruktivismus–Debatte’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 4(1): 139–51. Krell, G. (1996) ‘Feminismus und Internationale Beziehungen. Zwischen

96 Christoph Humrich Dekonstruktion und Essentialisierung’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3(1): 149–82. Krippendorff, E. (1973) ‘Ist Außenpolitik Außenpolitik?’ in E. Krippendorff (ed.) Internationale Beziehungen, Köln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch, pp. 189–213. —— (1985) Staat und Krieg. Die historische Logik politischer Unvernunft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. —— (1993) Militärkritik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. —— (1996) ‘Germany as a World Power and as a European Power’, in B. Heurlin (ed.) Germany in Europe in the Nineties, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 64–89. —— (1999) ‘Unzufrieden. Vierzig Jahre Politische Wissenschaft’, Blätter für Deutsche und Internationale Politik (8): 991–1001. —— (2000) Kritik der Aussenpolitik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Kuhn, T.S. (1963) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Link, W. (1996) ‘Die Entwicklung des Ost–West–Konfliktes’, in M. Knapp and G. Krell (eds) Einführung in die Internationale Politik (3rd edn), Munich, Vienna: Oldenbourg, pp. 242–74. Locher, B. (1996) ‘Feminismus ist mehr als “political correctness”. Anmerkungen und Ergänzungen zu Gert Krells Literaturbericht’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3(2): 381–98. McCarthy, T. (1978) The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Meier-Walser, R. (1997) ‘Neorealismus ist mehr als Waltz. Der Synoptische Realismus des Münchener Ansatzes’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 115–26. Menzel, U. (1992) Das Ende der Dritten Welt und das Scheitern der großen Theorie, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Meyers, R. (1986) ‘Weltmarkt oder Weltpolitik? Anmerkungen zur gegenwärtigen Befindlichkeit der bundesrepublikanischen Lehre von den internationalen Beziehungen’, Neue Politische Literatur 31(2): 187–211. —— (1990) ‘Metatheoretische und methodologische Betrachtungen zur Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen’, in V. Rittberger (ed.) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen. Bestandsaufnahme und Forschungsperspektiven, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 48–70. —— (1994) ‘Virtuelle Scheingefechte im ontologischen Cyberspace. Nachfragen zum Duktus und Gehalt einer Theoriedebatte’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 127–38. Müller, H. (1994) ‘Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 15–44. —— (1998) Das Zusammenleben der Kulturen. Ein Gegenentwurf zu Huntington, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. —— (2001) ‘International Relations as Communicative Action’, in K.M. Fierke and K.E. Jørgensen (eds) Constructing International Relations, New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 160–78. Müller, M. (1996) ‘Vom Dissensrisiko zur Ordnung der internationalen Staatenwelt. Zum Projekt einer normativ gehaltvollen Theorie der internationalen Beziehungen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3(2): 367–79. Narr, W.-D. (1999) ‘Politikwissenschaft als Beruf, den wir mein(t)en. Offener Brief

Germany 97 an Ekkehard Krippendorff’, in M.Th. Greven and O. Jarasch (eds) Für eine lebendige Wissenschaft des Politischen: Umweg als Methode, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 20–37. Payne, R.A. (2001) ‘Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction’, European Journal of International Relations 7(1): 37–61. Plümper, T. (1995) ‘Quasi-rationale Akteure und die Funktion internationaler Institutionen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 49–77. Prittwitz, V. von (1996) ‘Verständigung über die Verständigung. Anmerkungen und Ergänzungen zur Debatte über Rationalität und Kommunikation in den Internationalen Beziehungen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3(1): 133–47. Risse, T. (2000) ‘ “Let’s Argue!” Communicative Action in World Politics’, International Organization 54(1): 1–40. —— (2003) ‘Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen – warum empirisch nichts so heiß gegessen wird, wie es theoretisch gekocht wurde’, in G. Hellmann et al. (eds) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden–Baden: Nomos, pp. 99–132. Risse, T., Ropp, S.C. and Sikkink, K. (eds) (1999) The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Risse-Kappen, T. (1995) ‘Reden ist nicht billig. Zur Debatte von Kommunikation und Rationalität’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 171–84. Rittberger, V. (ed.) (1990a) International Regimes in East–West-Politics, London, New York: Pinter. —— (ed.) (1990b) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. —— (1993) ‘Research on Regimes in Germany: The Adaptive Internalization of an American Social Science Concept’, in V. Rittberger (ed.) Regime Theory and International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–22. Rittberger, V. and Hummel, H. (1990) ‘Die Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” im deutschsprachigen Raum auf der Suche nach ihrer Identität: Entwicklung und Perspektiven’, in V. Rittberger (ed.) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen. Bestandsaufnahme und Forschungsperspektiven, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 17–47. Rittberger, V. and Zürn, M. (1991) ‘Transformation der Konflikte in den Ost–West–Beziehungen. Versuch einer institutionalistischen Bestandsaufnahme’, Politische Vierteljahresschrift (3): 399–424. Scherrer, C. (2000) ‘Global Governance: Vom fordistischen Trilateralismus zum neo-liberalen Konstitutionalismus’, Prokla 30(1): 13–38. —— (2003) ‘Internationale Politische Ökonomie als Systemkritik’, in G. Hellmann et al. (eds) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 465–94. Schimmelfennig, F. (1997) ‘Rhetorisches Handeln in der internationalen Politik’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 4(2): 219–54. Schlupp, F., Nour, S. and Junne, G. (1973) ‘Zur Theorie und Ideologie internationaler Interdependenz’, in K.J. Gantzel (ed.) Internationale Beziehungen als System. PVS Sonderheft 5, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 245–308. Schmalz-Bruns, R. (1995) ‘Die Theorie kommunikativen Handelns – eine Flaschenpost? Anmerkungen zur jüngsten Theoriedebatte in den Internationalen Beziehungen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(2): 347–70.

98 Christoph Humrich —— (1999) ‘Deliberativer Supranationalismus. Demokratisches Regieren jenseits des Nationalstaats’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 6(2): 185–244. Schneider, G. (1994) ‘Rational Choice und kommunikatives Handeln. Eine Replik auf Harald Müller’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(2): 357–66. Schöllgen, G. (1994) ‘National Interest and International Responsibility: Germany’s Role in World Affairs’, in A. Baring (ed.) Germany’s New Position in Europe: Problems and Perspectives, Oxford: Berg, pp. 35–50. Senghaas, D. (1967) ‘Kritik der Abschreckung. Ein Beitrag zu einer Theorie der internationalen Politik’, Dissertation, Universität Frankfurt am Main. —— (1998) Zivilisierung wider Willen. Der Konflikt der Kulturen mit sich selbst, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Siedschlag, A. (1997) Neorealismus, Neoliberalismus und Postinternationale Politik. Beispiel Internationale Sicherheit – Theoretische Bestandsaufnahme und Evaluation, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. —— (2000) Politische Institutionalisierung und Konflikttransformation: Leitideen, Theoriemodelle und Europäische Praxisfälle, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. —— (ed.) (2001) Realistische Perspektiven internationaler Politik, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. Simonis, G. (1977) Außenpolitik und Abschreckung, Frankfurt am Main: Campus. Sloterdijk, P. (1999) ‘Die Kritische Theorie ist tot’, Die Zeit, 9 September. Stichweh, R. (2000) Die Weltgesellschaft. Soziologische Analysen, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Wæver, O. (1997) ‘Figures of International Thought: Introducing Persons Instead of Paradigms’, in I.B. Neumann and O. Wæver (eds) The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making, London, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–37. —— (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not so International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52(4): 687–727. Wasmuht, U.C. (1998) Geschichte der deutschen Friedensforschung. Entwicklung–Selbstverständnis–Politischer Kontext, Münster: Agenda Verlag. Wendt, A. (2001) ‘What is International Relations For? Notes Towards a Postcritical View’, in R.W. Jones (ed.) Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 205–24. White, S.K. (1988) The Recent Work of Jürgen Habermas: Reason, Justice and Modernity, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Wolf, K.D. and Hellmann, G. (2003) ‘Die Zukunft der Internationalen Beziehungen in Deutschland’, in G. Hellmann, K.D. Wolf and M. Zürn (eds) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 577–99. Wood, S. (1998) Germany, Europe and the Persistence of Nations: Transformation, Interest and Identity, 1989–1996, Aldershot: Ashgate. Zangl, B. (1999) Interessen auf zwei Ebenen. Internationale Regime in der Agrarhandels-, Währungs- und Walfangpolitik, Baden–Baden: Nomos. Zangl, B. and Zürn, M. (1996) ‘Argumentatives Handeln bei internationalen Verhandlungen. Moderate Anmerkungen zur post-realistischen Debatte’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 3(2): 341–66. —— (1999) ‘Interessen in der internationalen Politik: Der akteurszentrierte Institutionalismus als Brücke zwischen interessenorientierten und normorientierten Handlungstheorien’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 9(3): 923–50.

Germany 99 Ziebura, G. (1990) ‘Die Rolle der Sozialwissenschaften in der westdeutschen Historiographie der internationalen Beziehungen’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 16(1): 79–103. Zürn, M. (1992) Interessen und Institutionen in der Internationalen Politik. Grundlegung und Anwendung des situationsstrukturellen Ansatzes, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. —— (1994) ‘We Can Do Much Better! Aber muß es auf amerikanisch sein? Zum Vergleich der Disziplin “Internationale Beziehungen” in den USA und in Deutschland’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 91–114. —— (2003) ‘Die Entwicklung der Internationalen Beziehungen im deutschsprachigen Raum nach 1989’, in G. Hellmann et al. (eds) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden–Baden: Nomos, pp. 21–46.

4

Spain Caterina García Segura

Introduction: no secret to keep Spain has been almost completely ignored in the few academic works offering a comparative view of the study of International Relations (IR). The country has never enjoyed its own chapter, and its presence, when existing, has been limited to a very broad reference to Spanish works from indirect sources without specific or direct analysis of Spanish works.1 Although the precise reasons for this are not clear, we are aware that to the majority of the worldwide IR community the situation of the discipline in Spain is, paraphrasing Jørgensen, if not the ‘best kept secret’, at least some sort of mystery. Anticipating some hypothesis, we might follow those authors pointing to the ‘language issue’ to explain the low profile of non-Anglo-Saxon IR in the mainstream. The Anglophone character of the discipline has undoubtedly contributed to the Spanish isolation.2 However, the language is not the only obstacle; the late development of the discipline in Spain, the particular features of the Spanish contributions, the scarce participation of the Spanish IR academic community in international associations and conferences, and the absence of Spanish authors in the main specialized journals have also contributed to this sort of ‘Spanish invisibility’. On this note, we welcome this opportunity to offer a deeper view of IR in Spain. We believe that although there are no secrets to keep, there is a story to tell. In order to do so, with some adaptations we will follow the guidelines provided by the editors (Introductory chapter) and used by Wæver in his attempt to construct a sociology of International Relations and to explore the differences between the developments of the discipline in different countries (Wæver 1998). First, we will deal with the emergence and development of the discipline by analysing both political and social conditioning factors. Second, we will place the study of Spanish IR within the academic-institutional framework of social sciences in Spain. Third, we will try to offer a broad view of Spanish IR by exploring the internal intellectual structures of the discipline in Spain. Finally, we will refer to the latest developments in the field of Spanish IR.

Spain 101

The late development of International Relations in Spain A first approach to the historical development of IR in Spain supports the view of a late process compared to the evolution followed by the main trend of the discipline in Europe and the USA. At the beginning of the twentieth century Spain disregarded the emergence of IR when it began to develop throughout the Anglo-Saxon world. It was only by the mid1950s, when the discipline was considered to be consolidated in the USA, that Spain started out in the field of IR. Celestino del Arenal, author of the largest and most detailed studies on this process (Arenal 1979a, 1979b, 1998), distinguishes two stages in the history of IR in Spain. The first stage starts in 1957 and is considered to be the beginning of IR in Spain. The second stage starts in 1973 and corresponds to the consolidation of the field in Spain. Prior to these two stages, between 1834 and 1957 Arenal also identifies a series of early works that he names the ‘prehistory of the study’ of IR in Spain. Although Arenal’s evaluation on the discipline’s level of consolidation may be qualified, we will follow his scheme, since he selects the significant dates of the academic-institutional advances attained by the discipline in Spain.3 Without developing an extensive analysis,4 we will initially raise some points concerning the period prior to the discipline’s emergence in Spain. It is during this period that the seeds of the later development are to be found. In general, three causes kept Spain isolated from the great shock that, immediately following the First World War, fuelled the emergence of IR in both Europe and the USA (Arenal 1979a: 42–3; Barbé 1994: 86).5 Two of them were political in nature; the third was of an academic-institutional character. Among the political causes, the first stemmed from the domestic environment. Spain faced serious political and social problems that required the exclusive political attention of the government. The second one, on the contrary, was linked to Spain’s incorporation into the international system. Spain clearly played a secondary role in the international arena and remained aside from the experiences of the First World War that led to the study of IR. The third cause referred both to the fact that IR issues came to be studied from within the field of international law, and the limitations of the Spanish university system in general. The two former causes led, in some cases, to a demagogic and idealist treatment of every single issue concerning the international presence of Spain. In contrast, the third promoted a legal approach to the analysis of all problems deriving from the First World War and, in turn, to the analysis of the whole international system. Subsequently, the Spanish Civil War (1936 to 1939), the victory of Franco and the imposition of the dictatorship brought about the isolation of all Spanish intellectuals with any European or internationalist inclinations. These events also saw the promotion of those defending the patriotic ideas of Francoist exaltation, with the result that the distance between

102 Caterina García Segura the mainstream of IR being developed in the democratic world and in Spain certainly increased. Some events contributed to the emergence of the discipline prior to its de facto initial stage. First, a series of publications emerged with divergent approaches on international issues. Overall, the authors came from two fields: international law and diplomatic history. The former studied how the international legal system shaped international relations and the latter focused on the international policy of Spain, this second group of works being more interesting for the evolution of our discipline. Among others, the essays written by Camilo Barcia Trelles with a geopolitical approach would constitute a good example of these initial works.6 The wide approach of Barcia Trelles was that of realism. He had an organic conception of international order and conceded a central role to the analysis of history; although he did not believe in the recursive character of history, he considered that geopolitics had a lot to learn from it. Paradoxically, it was also in the 1930s when Salvador de Madariaga wrote what may be considered ‘the first contribution made by a Spanish author to the very Theory of International Relations’ (Arenal 1979a: 184). Unfortunately, at that time it was barely known of Spain because it was published only in English in the USA (Theory and Practice of International Relations, Philadelphia, PA: Swarthmore College, 1937).7 Arenal also concedes a significant role to the publication in 1943 of ‘Comunidad internacional y sociedad internacional’ (‘International Community and International Society’) by the legal expert Antonio Poch y G. de Caviedes. This article is often considered to be the first serious effort to analyse international society in scientific, not ideological terms, as well as the first analysis of international problems from a realist approach, and not merely from a legal perspective. It also constitutes the point of departure for most of the subsequent Spanish accounts of international society. Although it is difficult to measure his influence, it has to be mentioned that between 1935 and 1937 Hans J. Morgenthau was in Spain where he taught international law at the Institute for International and Economic Studies and lectured at the Union of Spanish Societies of International Studies. Second, the School of Political and Economic Sciences was established in 1943 at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM). The first academic programme of this School, approved in 1944, contained several courses on international affairs. In the early 1950s, attention to international issues went hand in hand with the work of some outstanding international lawyers (Antonio Truyol, Luis García Arias and Mariano Aguilar Navarro) who adopted Max Huber’s sociological approach to international law, included important references to history as an essential resource, and distanced themselves from the ius-naturalism of early international law. This sociological concept is viewed by Arenal as an effort to go beyond the previous formalistic legal approaches through the concept of ‘internationality’. This refers to the set of interstate relations and rela-

Spain 103 tions between groups or individuals influencing state powers.8 Although contributions to international reflection from other disciplines (political science, theory of the state) also played some part, they had a more limited and isolated character. In sum, during this period prior to the birth of the discipline, the main features of the study of international issues in Spain were: leadership of internationalists and historians, the combination of ius gentium from the Spanish School of international law with a sociological concept of the subject of study, and the importance of history as a foundation for the study of IR. The year 1957 marks the birth of the study of IR in Spain. Nearly forty years after the creation of Woodrow Wilson’s Chair of International Relations at the University of Wales, the first Chair of International Relations was created at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Around the holder of this Chair, Antonio Truyol, emerged the first core of IR scholars, most of them international lawyers. The generational change by scholars trained in political science would not take place until the 1980s. During this decade, some scholars with a specific background in politics specialized for the first time in International Relations and obtained chairs in this field.9 Also in 1957 Truyol published La teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales como sociología (The Theory of International Relations as Sociology), a work based on the memoir about the concept of the discipline that he presented to obtain the Chair. This work was to become the main reference for the Spanish conception of IR. As Truyol himself suggests, the book was conceived in a historical period when both the determination of the object and the justification of the autonomy of IR were crucial (Truyol 1973: 12). Thus it is not surprising that Truyol concentrated most of his efforts on fulfilling this complex task. Very briefly stated, the author holds a sociological conception of the discipline in which IR is presented as a theory of international society or as an international sociology (Truyol 1973: 54). He also argues that the path followed by the discipline in Europe is not necessarily the same as in the USA, where it evolved hand in hand with the development of political science (Truyol 1973: 23). By defending these ideas, Truyol aligns himself with Georg Schwarzenberger, who understands IR as a theory of international society, a branch of sociology, against the views expressed by Hoffman, who conceives IR as political science and denies the possibility of explaining international relations in sociological terms because there is no such thing as an international community (Truyol 1973: 59).10 Around the Department of International Studies at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and from 1957 onwards, the profile of IR in Spain would be shaped in the midst of an adverse political and academic context: material scarcity, anarchical study programmes, hierarchical dominance of classical social sciences and a complete lack of interest by political elites (Arenal 1979a: 70).

104 Caterina García Segura What Arenal defined as the stage of consolidation starts in 1973. According to him, two facts determine the arrival of a new period: on the one hand, the publication of Medina’s La teoría de las relaciones internacionales (Theory of International Relations) (Medina 1973) and Truyol’s La sociedad internacional (International Society) (Truyol 1993); on the other hand, the approval of the new academic programme for the School of Political Science and Sociology at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Medina’s work follows Truyol’s sociological conception of the discipline, but it identifies more closely with political science (Medina 1973: 24, 185–6). Truyol’s work focuses on the formation, evolution and conceptualization of international society. The most remarkable feature of the new academic programme was the establishment, for the first time, of a course on ‘International Relations’ independent from international law. Considering that until then both disciplines had always been taught in a common course on ‘International Law and International Relations’, this step meant the recognition of the status of IR as a distinct academic field. From here onwards, the evolution of the discipline would reinforce or modify its initial features. In the following, these features will be described more closely: (1) the late emergence of IR as a consequence of the social and political conditions in Spain; (2) its origins in international law and its subordinated position in relation to that discipline; (3) the import of all foreign theoretical production from the very first days; (4) its definition as sociology of International Relations and as theory of international society; (5) the constant reference to history; (6) its gradual consolidation as an independent discipline from international law.

Context and academic-institutional features of International Relations in Spain The academic-institutional context surrounding both the teaching and research on International Relations constitutes an essential factor in understanding the situation and characteristics of both the discipline and the theory in Spain. The current situation is the result of the discipline’s evolution. Our aim is twofold. First, to examine to what extent the origins of the discipline have conditioned its theoretical developments. Second, to analyse how the institutional framework of teaching and research resulting from these origins still determines the main features of IR in Spain. Since Spanish IR has received a quite rare and generic treatment in comparative studies, it may be useful to introduce a broad presentation of its institutional framework as the first step. In the Spanish university system, the community of scholars is generally divided into different groups according to what has been called ‘areas of knowledge’. These areas were formally established for the first time in 1984.11 They fulfil several functions and their existence affects such aspects as the organization of teaching and the access to teaching posi-

Spain 105 tions in the Spanish university system. Thus, courses to be taught are assigned to ‘areas of knowledge’ at every university, but some courses of a dual nature may be shared by teaching staff belonging to different ‘areas of knowledge’. In these cases, each university decides on the area responsible for that particular subject according to its contents, but some other factors such as power relations between departments or the availability of professors and lecturers also have a significant impact upon the final decision. Therefore, it is not surprising that a particular subject may be taught under distinct ‘areas of knowledge’ in different universities. It is not exceptional either to find universities where one subject is simultaneously taught by staff belonging to two or more different ‘areas of knowledge’. Since the Spanish university system assigns teaching staff to ‘areas of knowledge’, teaching positions are regulated according to those areas. Access to teaching positions depends on a national contest where candidates go through public exercises evaluated by a committee formed by members of the particular ‘area of knowledge’. Here we find the first peculiarity of Spanish IR reflecting its origins and severely conditioning the current situation: International Relations does not have its own ‘area of knowledge’, but shares a single one with international public law. This is a relic from the past and it does not mean IR’s scientific independence is denied by the Spanish international legal doctrine. Casanovas y La Rosa, for instance, distances himself from the traditional conceptualization of IR as ‘material sources’ of the international legal system when he affirms that ‘the development of both international society in the 20th century and studies analyzing its transformations have consolidated International Relations as an autonomous scientific discipline’ (Casanovas 1987: 149–50). Nevertheless, the inertia from the past is stronger than one might expect: even though there is no formal hierarchy between the two fields of the same ‘area of knowledge’, international public law and International Relations, in practical terms there is a certain subordination of IR vis-à-vis international law. The weight of the discipline which fuelled the birth of International Relations in Spain is still felt. As we will discuss in the following section, IR emerges in Spain from the discipline of international law or, more precisely, ‘our discipline emerges “from” and “against” Law’ (Barbé 1994: 87). As a first sign of this relation of informal subordination we note that vacancies of teaching positions for IR courses are announced under the specific profile of ‘International Relations’. In clear contrast, when the vacancies of international public law are announced, no specific profile is specified, thus implicitly assuming that the successful candidate to the teaching position is equally qualified for international law and International Relations. It may be argued that these are formal issues with no effective significance, but we believe that they illustrate a meaningful message: the de facto institutional subordination of our discipline to

106 Caterina García Segura international law. A second sign of this relationship is reflected in the norms regulating national contests to teaching positions. In accordance with the regulation, all members of the evaluating committee may be professors or lecturers of international public law, even when the advertised vacancy is for an IR position. Norms regulating national contests allow for this possibility because members of the committee are randomly drafted.12 Given the proportion of IR scholars in relation to the proportion of international public law scholars, the chances of having representatives from the former group are significantly low.13 The appointment of Committees (with sheer dominance of international lawyers or total lack of political scientists) necessarily affects the approach of questions addressed to candidates. This has contributed to the IR scholars’ claim for the creation of their own ‘area of knowledge’, distinct from international law (Arenal 1999: 338), and because the IR community considers that the scientific independence of the discipline, sufficiently proved, is not reflected in the teaching positions assigned to IR professors and lecturers (Arenal 1999: 337–8; García Segura 2003: 22). Stemming in part from the above-mentioned situation, a second peculiarity of the discipline in Spain is the debate about the relation of IR to the other social sciences. The institutional context has affected these relations and, except for the early period of the discipline’s development, the lines followed by the debate respond more to corporatist interests than to scientific arguments. As studies of the discipline in Spain point out (Arenal 1999; García Segura 2003), the institutional context has opened the door to situations of professional ‘intrusion’.14 In turn, these have transformed the claim for the independence of the ‘area of knowledge’ into a claim for allocation of budget resources in connection with teaching positions and courses. Situations differ notably between universities: while, in some, the ‘rivals’ are colleagues coming from international public law, in others, teaching duties of some IR courses are disputed by political scientists or even by historians. Having said this, it is important to note that the academic-institutional relations with neighbouring disciplines are not always necessarily conflictual. In some cases, these relations are not only stable and respectful, but also allow for productive intellectual co-operation. A third feature of International Relations in Spain, undoubtedly linked to the institutional context, is the early self-perception of consolidation. This perception is in sharp contrast with the cautious evaluations made in other European countries considered in Spain to be in a more advanced position. Thus, after observing its late emergence, Arenal argues that the discipline reached its consolidation in Spain from 1973 onwards (Arenal 1979a: 135ff.). The paradoxical character of this interpretation stands out when compared with the evaluations of Christopher Hill and Barry Buzan on the state of the discipline in the United Kingdom or the analysis on the French case by Smouts. According to Buzan, the third stage of the English

Spain 107 School of International Relations runs from 1977 to 1992, and it is characterized by both the consolidation of the discipline and, in certain aspects, the replacement of the old generation by a new one (Buzan 2001: 473). Hill outlines the fact that ‘it has taken 60 years for the subject to become accepted as a legitimate form of serious scholarship in the university world itself’ (Hill 1989: 274). Smouts argues that when the first French textbooks of International Relations appeared in the 1960s and 1970s, they were no more than updated variants of the subjects of international law and international organization (Smouts 1989: 221). At the same time, she critically suggested that by 1989 the discipline of International Relations in France lacked enough ‘critical mass’ and that it remained fragmented, ‘with a few strong points but with some considerable gaps’ (Smouts 1989: 225). In our opinion, the need to assert itself in defensive terms (‘against’ law) has led the discipline to overemphasize its achievements. We believe that it is in this sense that Arenal’s words should be understood when affirming in 1979 that: ‘today we find a group of Spanish authors who have committed themselves to the study of International Relations as a scientific discipline and to the elaboration of a theory of the international society’ (Arenal 1979a: 7). These are words of affirmation addressed indirectly to the Spanish community of international lawyers. In fact, in a later work written when the independence of the discipline was no longer questioned, Arenal himself shows a more critical perception: ‘in the 40 years since the teaching of International Relations took shape in Spain, beginning in 1957, the evaluation of what has occurred in this field is not excessively optimistic, although the achievements throughout this period are important enough’ (Arenal 1999: 319). From our point of view, the optimistic evaluations need to be qualified if the reflection on the discipline is placed in the European context (García Segura 2003: 4). In this line, in 1994 the situation of International Relations in Spain was regarded as ‘incipient’ and ‘promising’ in the Anglo-Saxon literature (Groom 1994: 219–36). John Groom included Spain in the group of Mediterranean countries (with Italy, Greece and Turkey) that shared four main features regarding the state of the discipline. First, Groom pointed out the existence of a still-reduced group of scholars of International Relations. Second, he referred to the existence of a solid basis which suggested that firm foundations had been laid for the discipline. Third, as regards the main bibliography used, he outlined the dominance of Anglo-Saxon and French literature, albeit he echoed the existence of publications in the national languages of the different countries analysed. Finally, he remarked that IR scholars within this group of countries were members of departments of political science or law, and that they had to fight for the recognition of IR’s validity and independence. In the particular case of Spain, Groom mentioned the works of Truyol, Mesa and Arenal (Arenal 1979a, 1993; Mesa 1980; Truyol 1973,

108 Caterina García Segura 1993) on the theory of International Relations and underlined the appearance of works with substantial comments on classical IR authors (Barbé 1990). It may be argued that the volume of Spanish authors and publications in 1994 was substantially larger than that considered by Groom, but his remarks illustrate the level of perception of these works beyond the Spanish boundaries.15 These remarks also allow us to compare national and foreign perceptions. From the Spanish perspective, taking into account the previous situation, the achievements of the discipline since the mid-1970s support the view of its consolidation, but if the comparative spectrum is enlarged to the European and American realities, then the situation was, and still is, certainly unsatisfactory. In a more optimistic light, there is still a long way to go to catch up with the levels of IR development in the universities of countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Germany or the USA. As both the national and foreign views agree, this distance is reflected in the shortcomings and deficiencies that, in spite of the achievements attained, may still be detected. In sum, from our point of view the current situation of the discipline could be described as consolidated in Spanish universities in terms of scientific and academic acknowledgement, although some problems still exist, derived from its late introduction in the academic programmes and from the fact that its historical dependence on other disciplines remains. A fourth feature refers to the link between the bureaucratic process of access to the public education service and an ‘intellectually creative’ production process: the requirements of the national contests lead to ‘the systematic and updated reflection on international relations as a scientific discipline, linked to the works designed to obtain university chairs’ (Barbé 1994: 87).16 Barbé states that this individual reflection linked to professional goals has placed the Spanish discipline in the mainstream; by this she understands that Spanish scholars get to know and handle mainstream sources, which is an unavoidable requirement to succeed in the national contests. This is the way international relations in Spain receives the scientific-theoretical production from the main academic-institutional centres, but this does not mean that a home-grown theoretical production comparable to that generated in other countries exists. Although we would not apply to Spain what Jørgensen defines as the ‘CCF-doctrine’ – Clones, Copies or Franchise – (Jørgensen 2000: 11), we could devise an ‘AA-doctrine’ – Analysis and Adaptation – to label the theoretical production in Spain. We will discuss this idea below, but it is important to note here that this doctrine would reflect the way International Relations is theorized in Spain: an extensive knowledge and analysis of the theories elaborated in other countries and a rigorous reflection leading to the import of foreign theories following their previous interpretation and adaptation to the Spanish subjects of interest. The result is that in most cases Spanish works build a theoretical framework for the analysis of international issues that merges theories or concepts from different approaches instead of

Spain 109 clearly identifying themselves with one. Even acknowledging Barbé’s statement on the elaboration process of those works designed to obtain either a chair or a lectureship, we believe there is a need for some qualification. In our opinion, the creative character of these works is somewhat doubtful since a certain ‘corporatist culture’ tends to colour them with a highly conservative tone. The study of the discipline is not conceived without an exhaustive review of the Spanish literature, and the paradoxical result is an over-dimensioning of the Spanish literature in relation to the European or the American contributions which, in fact, constitute the main source of inspiration for most Spanish works. Although not explicitly stated, the above analysis assumes that the main centres of Spanish IR’s intellectual production are universities. Spain lacks a centre or an institute of International Relations connecting both the academic and the political arenas such as those existing in other Western countries.17 This fact partly shows the poverty of contact and communication between the administration and the universities concerning international affairs and foreign policy (Arenal 1999: 336). In the chapter of deficiencies we also need to note that there is not a single Spanish specific journal on International Relations.18 The following section will discuss the internal intellectual structures of the discipline by introducing the institutional context where IR operates.

The Spanish ‘tradition’ of International Relations From the analysis of Spanish scientific production we can infer two different traditional directions: the reflection on foreign theoretical production and the analysis of international society (García Segura 2003: 12). Rather than producing IR theory, Spain has produced works on IR theory. Spain constitutes no exception in the discipline as a whole, where ‘[t]heories are mainly produced in the United States’ (Wæver 1998: 703). Spanish works about theory present exhaustive analyses and presentations of foreign theoretical production and discuss the positioning of the authors in relation to the theories elaborated in other countries (what we have called the ‘AA-Doctrine’). In Spain, there are also works of conceptualization and systematization, and, in general terms, there is a great concern for the rigorous application of categories and concepts to both the analysis of international society and the elaboration of case studies. However, in the same sense as Smouts denies the existence of a French School of International Relations (Smouts 1989: 227), we cannot speak of the existence of a ‘national’ theoretical production, understanding as such the production of specifically Spanish IR theories.19 In fact, this is the meaning of Arenal’s words when he states that ‘Spanish authors do not intend to discover a new way in International Relations, but on the basis of the contributions made outside Spain, they try to offer their own conception of them’ (Arenal 1979a: 188).

110 Caterina García Segura Having said that, some Spanish authors defend the existence and the singularity of a Spanish ‘tradition’. Although this tradition may lead one to think of the existence of a Spanish theory, it actually refers to a set of commonly shared features. Such a ‘tradition’ is defined by the articulation of a common intellectual and ideologically plural space around the study and characterization of international society (Arenal 1999: 329; Barbé 1994: 89–93). Barbé has argued its singularity on the basis of the following features: defence of the discipline’s autonomy and affirmation of its singular nature; predominance of the Grotian tradition albeit with room for Kantian approaches; adoption of a traditional methodology and rejection of behaviourist formalism;20 recognition of the significant role of history as an auxiliary discipline; sociological orientation and analytical conception of the theory; and significance of the problématique (Barbé 1994: 90–1).21 Salomón has furthered the study of what she calls the ‘Spanish perspective of international society’ and has compared it with the approach of the English School. Salomón’s analysis goes beyond the historical study and explores the present situation of the Spanish ‘international society perspective’. She reaches four conclusions (Salomón 1999: 106–14). First, despite the strong Grotian roots, the influence of Christian ius-naturalists from the Salamanca School translates into a greater importance accorded to the transnational dimension of international society.22 Second, at the methodological level, a traditional and interpretive approach prevails, as well as historical-philosophical tools that bring the Spanish perspective closer to the reflectivist approach and distances it from the formalism of some rationalists. In this sense, the insistence of the ‘international society perspective’ on conciliating divergences between rationalists and reflectivists is remarkable.23 Third, at the epistemological level, she states that neither the ‘positivist’ label nor postmodern relativism are adequate to define the total commitment of the ‘international society perspective’ to the scientific method. Finally, she points to the existence of a strong normative component in the Spanish perspective of international society that would bring it closer to ‘critical theory’ in the broad sense. With regard to external influences, although all foreign contributions are welcomed in Spain, there is an overall prevalence of American, British and French works (as well as Scandinavian works published in English), followed to a lesser extent by works from other countries (e.g. Italy, Germany, Argentina, Mexico). Awareness of foreign contributions, nevertheless, does not imply that their respective impact and follow-up reach a similar intensity. Despite the acknowledged American predominance, during the first stages of the discipline in Spain the reception of Francophone production, especially the ‘French school of forces profondes’, was remarkable. This is reflected in the number of translations into Spanish of French textbooks. Such ‘Francophilia’ was consistent with the historical-sociological approach to International Relations adopted in

Spain 111 Spain, but also corresponded with the French connection of the Spanish intellectuals opposed to the Francoist regime. Today, the dominance of Anglo-Saxon influences is undisputed. This is clearly illustrated by the references used in most research works or, for instance, the references recommended to students in course syllabuses. Despite the fact that the subject of this chapter is not IR teaching but the state of the discipline and its theoretical production, it is perhaps worthwhile to finish this section with a word on teaching. It reflects some symptomatic features which may reveal more clearly some of the contradictions between discourse and practice. Traditionally, the consolidation of teaching activities in the Spanish university has been considered an indicator of the level of consolidation reached by a discipline. The general conclusion from its analysis is that IR has become established in the field of social sciences in the Spanish university system as regards both its scientific and academic recognition. Nevertheless, some problems related to its late incorporation into academic programmes and to its historical dependence on other disciplines still remain.24 Since the establishment of the Political Science School at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid was considered a milestone in the evolution of Spanish IR, and since political science, for that reason, became the natural expansion area of IR studies, it is worth noting that fourteen universities now offer graduate studies in political science. Furthermore, courses on International Relations are also currently taught in other graduate studies. All in all, by 2002 thirty-two academic programmes included courses on International Relations. This is a remarkable increase. Surprising as it may seem, given the traditionally close relationship between International Relations and international law, IR courses in legal studies are rather exceptional, in spite of a number of proposals put forward by the IR community. Besides the basic course on International Relations, academic programmes currently offer a number of related courses corresponding to research areas of professors and lecturers. The different courses may be grouped into nine issue areas: (1) International Relations theory; (2) analysis of international society – this category includes courses on the history of international relations, and all courses focused on current problems and issues of the contemporary international society; (3) international organizations; (4) foreign policy analysis; (5) security and conflicts; (6) international cooperation; (7) regional studies; (8) European studies;25 and (9) communication and international relations. The increase in both the number of political science schools and IR teaching in other studies has not always implied a higher number of teaching staff with a specific IR profile. Bearing in mind the definitive normalization of the discipline in Spain, one of the major concerns of the Spanish IR community is the extended practice of disregarding the

112 Caterina García Segura specificity of IR profiles when IR teaching is assigned in our universities. After analysing all syllabuses of IR courses, our conclusion is that two very different types emerge: those having a politics-based approach and those having an eminent legal approach that, in some cases, differs marginally from syllabuses of courses on international institutions or international organizations. To conclude this section, we will refer briefly to a series of different trends observed in IR teaching. They derive from, and sometimes contrast with, the theoretical trends already noted: (1) the analysis of international society follows a chronological perspective closer to the French historical sociology than to the issue analysis prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon world; (2) in some cases issue analysis complements the chronological approach to study the latest tendencies in international relations; (3) in spite of the transnational conception of international society defended by professors and lectures, the student is offered a rather state-centric view closer to realism than to the often referred Grotian tradition. Smith’s comments on the discipline as a whole, ‘the discipline is far more realist, far more statecentric and far more unquestioning of the dominance of realism and positivism than is the case within IR Theory’ (Smith 2000: 379), could be applied to Spain. The multidisciplinary approach claimed at the theoretical level is generally absent in classrooms.

The state of International Relations research in Spain during the 1990s Professor Arenal (1999: 329) considers most of the Spanish scientific production as part of the common intellectual space built around Truyol’s contributions and consolidated by Medina and Mesa, and gradually joined by the other members of the Spanish IR community.26 In the years following the consolidation of the discipline in Spain the research agenda was quite homogeneous (reflections on IR theory and international society), and it was quite easy to identify both the tradition and the paradigm followed by IR works. In recent years, theoretical works have reoriented their course by paying increasing attention to partial aspects of theory and diversifying the empirical research agendas. As a result, ascribing works to one paradigm or another is not so easy today (Barbé 1994: 91, 93). Now in Spain, as in the case of France (Wæver 1998: 709), few works include explicit references to the theoretical approach held by the author, and this is in clear contrast with the openly stated theoretical positions of the Spanish authors during the initial stages of the discipline. Due to limitations of space, it is not possible to list all Spanish works of recent years here. Assuming the risk that a panoramic view could be incomplete, the main lines of research guiding the majority of Spanish IR works will instead be presented.27 The aim of this presentation is not to

Spain 113 offer an exhaustive list of works and authors, but to reflect the diversity of the IR scene in Spain. First of all, a line of research focused on the current pluralism of IR theory could be identified.28 These works continue the general reflection on IR theory and respond to the theoretical proliferation post-Cold War. Second, also in this line, some authors have tried to bring to the study of IR in Spain an approach already consolidated and currently in expansion in the Anglo-Saxon scientific scene: international political economy.29 Third, it is important to mention here the works incorporating the contributions of the so-called critical trend of International Relations into Spanish theoretical reflections.30 Fourth, within this common body constituted by the analysis of international society and aside from the studies of general scope,31 there has been a certain theoretical concern for the main trends in contemporary International Relations: globalization32 and regionalization.33 Fifth, in this latter category, several studies have focused on the Latin American processes34 and, in a much more extensive way, on European integration.35 Among the studies on the European integration process, the analysis of the EU foreign policy has received very special attention.36 Sixth, it is worth noting those conceptual developments and empirical studies about globalization and regionalization that update previous empirical research lines: (a) the external activity of sub-state political entities as a result of the challenges, opportunities and conditions brought about by globalization and regionalization;37 (b) new security dimensions and European security structures,38 a line that renewed traditional security studies focused on international organizations of defence; and (c) development and inequality issues that are worsening dramatically as a result of globalization.39 Last but not least, the analysis and the history of Spanish foreign policy plays an important role in Spanish scientific activity.40

Conclusion – Spanish IR: following American leadership but closer to continental IR theory IR in Spain has come a long way since its formal birth in 1957. Efforts to consolidate its independence from the discipline of origin (international law) have been persistent and achievements cannot be underestimated. At the scientific level, in Spain there is no debate over the nature of the relationship between our discipline and international public law, but problems at the academic-institutional level still remain. Spanish scientific production in International Relations focuses on the study, analysis and reflection around the theories elaborated in the AngloSaxon world (the ‘AA-Doctrine’), as well as on the analysis of international society whose specificity – the so-called ‘Spanish tradition’ – is supported by several authors. As a result of the causes described above (i.e. the institutional origin of the discipline, socio-political conditions, language exclusion), in some

114 Caterina García Segura aspects the state of International Relations in Spain is not only far away from the American and the British situation, but also from the other European national communities. Even accepting this gap, the way in which IR is studied in Spain is closer to the European tradition than to the American mainstream. The following paragraphs will deal with the features of this proximity and will analyse those aspects of Spanish scientific production that allow for an evaluation of its dependence or independence from the American mainstream, as well as for a consideration of its proximity or distance with regard to the European discipline. In order to do so, the extent to which the conclusions reached by the comparative works of Wæver, Jørgensen and Smith may be applied to the Spanish case will be analysed. Although many point to the maintenance of American hegemony within the discipline (Brown 2001: 203; Smith 2000: 375; Wæver 1998: 688),41 they also observe significant disciplinary differences between the US and Europe (Jørgensen 2000; Smith 2000: 385; Wæver 1998: 726). They stress the huge distance between the current situation and that described by Hoffman in 1977 or even that portrayed by Holsti in 1985. In this context, even though Spanish IR remains within the American corset common to the discipline, some features make it closer to what Jørgensen considers to be the ‘continental theory of International Relations’. Within this grouping, Spanish production would share more similarities with both the French and the Italian disciplines.42 At the theoretical level, we observe that in Spain, as in many other countries, scholars faithfully reproduce the analytical framework of the discipline built around the American mainstream, not around national theoretical production. As Smith has pointed out, this is obvious when the discipline is presented in chronological terms (Smith 2000: 376–8), which entails a misrepresentation somehow linked to the historical interests of American foreign policy. In a similar way, the great debates may not have been very significant in Spain and their explanatory properties may now be questioned (Grasa 1997a: 131), but they still occupy a central place in any IR course. It is still possible to find versions of the discipline’s history being no more than ‘elegant restatements of “common knowledge” of our past’ reproduced ‘without looking systematically at the past’ (Wæver 1998: 692). In sum, as Wæver has observed in key national IR communities, in Spain we follow the American debates and teach American theories. This leads to the paradoxical situation outlined by Jørgensen with reference to continental theory, where ‘our students are told the well-known stories about “Great Debates” or “Paradigms” . . . but their teachers do not (research) as they preach’ (Jørgensen 2000: 31).43 In this sense, while ‘Americaphilia’ applies especially to the level of theoretical and metatheoretical reflections, when it comes to analysing and conceptualizing international society, the Spanish IR community owes more to the English School or to the French tradition (in its historicist approach).

Spain 115 With regard to the theoretical position adopted by the Spanish discipline in IR debates, following Jørgensen’s scheme we can affirm that, again, there is a greater proximity to continental than to Anglo-Saxon positions. First, as is also the case in Germany and France, due partly to the origins of the discipline, Spain has not witnessed the turn from idealism to the realist approach prevailing in the Anglo-Saxon world. As we have already seen, the Grotian tradition prevails in Spain. Second, in Spain there has also been a persisting resistance to the introduction of ‘American’ behaviourism that today is reflected in the rejection of neorealist formalism. The Spanish approach is much closer to the European tradition in terms of ‘a historicist attempt to capture an epochal transformations of the European order’ than to the American one, ‘driven by methodology and general theory’ (Wæver 1998: 724).44 Third, most of Jørgensen’s conclusions on the third debate would be fully applicable to the Spanish case. Thus postmodern scholarship never became popular in Spain, but critical theory is considered to be a legitimate tradition to work within; constructivism begins to attract interest, albeit the Spanish approach would be closer to the European one – where constructivism is more often defined as substance – than to the American one – where it is instead developed as a method (Wæver 1998: 715); the neo–neo debate has been studied and discussed (García Picazo 1998; Grasa 1997b) but has not existed as such among Spanish scholars; as regards controversies between IR and peace research, as in the rest of Europe, in Spain there is also a group of authors who have a past but not a present in peace research. In general we agree with Smith when he points out that ‘the academic communities in the UK and Europe are far more open to a variety of approaches and epistemologies than is the case in the US’ (Smith 2000: 385). However, we would qualify this statement in the Spanish context where, in spite of the reception (knowledge and analysis) of new theoretical trends, their application certainly remains limited. In turn, the characteristic gap in Spanish IR between the theoretical discourse and its application in empirical studies of international society remains unaltered. In the academic-institutional framework where IR teaching and research take place, in Spain we may note the reproduction of the hierarchical scheme that we find in the USA, where IR is a two-tiered discipline: the upper tier is occupied by the authors participating in theoretical debates and publishing in leading journals, and the lower tier by other authors working on empirical studies (Wæver 1998: 718). In this sense, the above-mentioned exercises serving to progress in the academic world may be conceived as an ‘initiation rite’ where every scholar has to demonstrate his or her intellectual capacity to deal with IR theory. Some scholars will afterwards stay in the upper tier, and others will limit their incursion to this ‘initiation rite’ and will return to the lower tier of empirical studies. We have already mentioned that there is no specific IR journal in Spain,

116 Caterina García Segura but publishing in foreign journals and edited books, in Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (Spanish Journal of International Law) and in Revista de Estudios Políticos (Journal of Political Studies) serves the ‘validation role’ that, at the international level, is played by publishing in International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, International Security, World Politics, Review of International Studies, European Journal of International Relations, Millennium and Journal of Peace Research. This hierarchy established by the publication sites is also taken into account when research activities are evaluated by national public authorities. We noted above that Spanish scholars generally remain isolated from international conferences and associations of International Relations,45 and their limited participation in international forums is mainly concentrated in the European scene (especially in the Pan-European Conference of the Standing Group on International Relations). We believe that this is far from hazardous; if there is any identity or proximity feeling with any non-Spanish intellectual community, it would be with the European one in the broad sense. We have also observed the absence of publications by Spanish scholars in the main journals. However, some signs indicate a gradual opening up of the isolation of the Spanish IR community. Both the number of publications in foreign languages (especially English) and the participation in research projects and edited books with foreign scholars (especially European) are increasing. In my opinion, this new situation has been influenced both by the awareness of the need to make the effort of ‘language opening’46 and the new status acquired by Spain in Europe after its accession to the European Communities. Indeed, most of the Spanish production published abroad focuses on issues related to European studies. Another singularity of the Spanish situation certainly affecting the scientific production is the nearly non-existent connection between the academic world and the political sphere, in contrast with the American case. We cannot claim, however, that this link is substituted for a stronger one between the IR discipline and civil society, as Smith suggests in the British case (Smith 2000: 399). There are some signs of change, but in Spain the discipline is still limited to university circles surrounded by an indifferent society. The development of IR in Spain has been remarkable, but the way ahead is still a long one. Although closer to continental IR than to the American mainstream, Spanish IR is still perceived to be far from the centre. It also remains considerably unknown outside Spain. The PanEuropean Conferences on IR, the EU inter-university cooperation programmes and the European Journal of International Relations are some of the instruments within our reach in order to abandon our peripheral position and to rescue Spanish IR from being the best-kept secret, even in Europe.

Spain 117

Notes 1 For instance, the references to Spain contained in Groom (1994: 219–36) and Jørgensen (2000: 33) fall into this category. 2 It is common in this type of work (Drulák and Druláková, Chapter 7, this volume; Lucarelli and Menotti, Chapter 2, this volume; Wæver 1998) to count the national references that have appeared in the top journals. We have consulted the Social Sciences Citation Index (which includes six out of the seven publications Wæver considers to be the leading journals in the field and uses to count the presence of European authors’ articles) and there was not a single Spanish work as of mid-2002. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, data used in this section have been obtained from Arenal (1979a). 4 For a detailed perspective of the discipline’s history in Spain, as well as for a concrete analysis of the relevant Spanish production until the mid-1970s, we strongly recommend the above-mentioned works by Arenal. 5 We should mention here that this isolation occurred with respect to the approach to the analysis of international issues adopted in the Anglo-Saxon world since the First World War, which later on would evolve into the discipline of IR. This is not to say that studies on international issues or on Spanish foreign policy issues (in some cases more politically than scientifically oriented) were not developed at all (such as ‘Africanism’, the Cuban crisis or the debate on the First World War). 6 Mesa observes that Barcia Trelles, author of several articles published since the 1920s, has been considered by international lawyer Miaja de la Muela to be the ‘Master of the following generations’; to this, Mesa adds that ‘even a considerable part of our [IR] works must be included into this perspective’ (Mesa 1980: 19). Mesa refers to the influence that Barcia Trelles cast upon the first generation of IR scholars. Other views consider that Barcia Trelles was undervalued in Spain because of his realist approach, but in Germany he was acknowledged by Carl Schmidt and, more recently, by G. Maschke. 7 The first meta-study on Salvador de Madariaga’s thought about IR theory was published in Spain in 1982 (Piñol 1982). 8 Arenal (1994: 155). 9 Scholars with a background in politics are becoming the largest group in IR positions, but it is worth noting that the background of current IR scholars in Spain is still quite diverse (among others, political science, international law, history and communication sciences). Nearly all Spanish scholars, whatever the discipline they come from, have followed specialized training in IR. 10 Truyol bases his analysis on the works of Hoffman (Contemporary Theory in International Relations (1960) and ‘Théorie et relations internationales’, Revue Française de Science Politique (1961)) and Schwarzenberger (Power Politics: A Study of World Society (1941)). Truyol aligns himself with other European authors (Aron, Chevallier, Duroselle) whom he considers to be representatives of this sociological conception of IR theory. After presenting Hoffman’s and Schwarzenberger’s conceptions of IR, Truyol concludes that IR theory is a sociology of international life, a sociological theory of international society. 11 Real Decreto 1888/1984 of 26 December (BOE 257/84 of 16 October 1984). This norm has been revised in 1996 and in 2000 but revisions have not affected the status and condition of International Relations. 12 This situation has worsened with the entry into force of the 2002 ‘Law of Universities’ (Ley Orgánica de Universidades). This law substitutes the previous national contests for what is now called a qualification process (habilitación). Without entering into too much detail, it is worth noting that from now on the

118 Caterina García Segura

13

14

15

16 17

18

19 20 21

seven members of the committee deciding on an IR vacancy may not be IR professors or lecturers, while under the previous system two out of five members of the committee were appointed by the university advertising the vacancy, unconstrained to appoint two IR professors or lecturers. Among the group of university scholars holding a chair in ‘international public law and international relations’, 81 per cent are international public law scholars, whereas only 19 per cent are International Relations scholars. As regards specifically lecturers, the respective percentages are 76.5 per cent and 23.5 per cent. In the last study on the situation of IR teaching in Spain we stressed that among the twenty-seven Spanish universities which ran some courses in the field of IR, only twelve had academic staff with this specific background, whereas in the other fifteen the teaching duties were assumed by international law scholars (García Segura 2002: 9). Despite the achievements experienced in this field, the dominant perception remains the same even today. Spain is mentioned as one of the countries where IR is gaining strength and where young scholars of great talent are ‘appearing on stage’ (Groom and Mandaville 2001: 158). This process of reflection also takes place in the works designed to obtain a lecturership. In the case of those works designed to obtain a chair, they are generally published as textbooks (more or less adapted to the teaching needs). There are, however, some private centres, in some cases with large public participation such as the Centre d’Informació i Documentació de Barcelona (CIDOB) or, until very recently, the Centro Español de Relaciones Internacionales (CERI) and the Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals (IBEI). They offer postgraduate studies in International Relations and dedicate some efforts to research. Nevertheless, their relevance in the research scene is very limited and their teaching activities are carried out mainly by scholars from different universities. We should also mention the Real Instituto Elcano de Estudios Internacionales y Estratégicos, a private foundation organizing seminars, debates, forums and symposiums. IR scholars have only recently succeeded in gaining some ‘space’ in Revista Española de Derecho Internacional. In spite of being the journal of the Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales (Spanish Association of International Law and International Relations Scholars), traditionally this journal accepted no IR contributions. Other Spanish journals on international studies regularly include contributions on International Relations, such as Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals and Política Exterior. I agree with Tony Porter when he points out the lack of correspondence between nationality and theoretical perspective (Porter 2001: 131). Such rejection may be identified in explicit terms in the works of Medina and Mesa (Medina 1973: 136–9; Mesa 1980: 94). In Spain there is no similar study to that elaborated by Porter about Canadian IR (Porter 2001: 138–44). However, from my own knowledge of the Spanish literature and the Spanish IR community I would suggest that, were such a study applied to Spain, its conclusions would not differ substantially from Porter’s on Canada. That is, if it exists, the Spanish approach would be characterized by: (1) a way of studying IR that is more focused on issue areas than on the elaboration of theoretical approaches; (2) openness to heterodox approaches, incorporation of foreign contributions and a tendency towards eclecticism; (3) a certain sensibility (greater than the American approach) towards the problems of ‘peripheral’ countries; (4) a historicist nature; and (5) irrelevance of nationality as a criterion to select a bibliography for teaching purposes – language is decisive and most works translated into Spanish tend to be used.

Spain 119 22 There is a basic difference between the Spanish conception of an international society with certain moral values inspired by Christian ius-naturalism and the English conception of a Grotian contractual international society. In the world vision of these Spanish authors there are other differences, such as the preeminence of the idea of solidarity between the members of international society and the existence of more categories of members than in the English School vision (Arenal 1979a: 21). Finally, we have to observe that in Spain a theory of international society has not been developed as it has by the English School. In this sense, Spanish scholars borrow the concepts elaborated by the English School to explain international society. However, in some cases this is done without the suitable adaptation that the different departure points (interstate society/transnational society) should recommend. 23 She refers to Barbé’s example on European security architecture in the postCold War, where a global approach to international society and conceptual elements borrowed from neorealism and structural realism appear together. 24 Here we will follow the conclusions reached in a previous research (García Segura 2002). 25 EU studies stand apart from regional studies not only because they have expanded further than other geographical and geopolitical areas, but also because of their linkage to the European Union’s political and institutional system. 26 Arenal quotes Lozano Bartolozzi, Mestre and Peñas as Spanish scholars working outside this space. 27 Only one reference of representative authors for each line of research (the most general and representative in our view) is selected and quoted here. The proximity or contact between some lines of research would allow some references to be labelled under several categories, but each reference would be quoted only once. Since I focus on those lines grouping the majority of all research done in Spain, some important contributions on very specific issues may not be included here (i.e. studies on the Mediterranean region or studies on cultural and religious factors in international relations). For a complementary view on these issues, see the internet page of the Spanish Directory of IR Scholars (Directorio de Profesores de Relaciones Internaciones). This electronic file created in 1999 includes a selection of works for each Spanish scholar. See http://www.aepdiri.org. 28 Aguirre 1996; Arenal 1998; García Picazo 1998; Grasa 1997a; Salomón 2002. 29 This approach may be identified, for instance, in the different works of Cornago, García Segura, Ibáñez and Sanahuja. 30 Cornago 1998; García Segura 2000; Rodríguez Manzano 2001. 31 García Picazo 2000; Mesa 1992. 32 García Segura 1999; Grasa 2000a; Ibáñez 2000. 33 Aldecoa and Cornago 1998. 34 García Pérez 2000a; Ibáñez 2000; Rodríguez Manzano 1998. 35 Barbé 1997; Castro 2002; García Picazo 1997; Salomón 1996. 36 Aldecoa 1998; Barbé 2000; Feliu 1997; Salomón 2000; Serra 2000; Sotillo 2001. 37 Aldecoa and Keating 1999; Castro 2002; Cornago 1999; García Pérez 1998; García Segura 2001a; Ugalde 2001. 38 Barbé and Izquierdo 1998; Calduch 1997; Caracuel 1997; García Pérez 2000b; Marquina 1995; Marrero 2001; Sanahuja 2002. 39 García Segura 2001b; Grasa 2000b; Pérez 2001; Sanahuja and Galán 1999. 40 Arenal 1994; Barbé 1999; Calduch 1994; Feliu 2002; García Pérez 2000b; Grasa 1997a; Ibáñez 1995; Marín 1994; Marquina 1995; Mesa 1996; Palomares 1994. 41 Although they constitute a smaller group, there are also authors who deny or qualify its current significance and highlight the richness and diversity of

120 Caterina García Segura

42

43 44 45

46

European production (Groom and Mandaville 2001; Jørgensen 2000). Within this debate, the distinction suggested by Crawford and Jarvis in the conclusion of the volume edited by them and focused on the analysis of this particular issue certainly seems useful: ‘While there is no clear and absolute consensus on the issue of whether IR continue (or ever was) an American Social Science, the essays collectively point toward the conclusion of an overwhelming preponderance of American theoretical influences’ (Crawford and Jarvis 2001: 20). Although I agree with Jørgensen’s basic division between the production in the Anglo-Saxon area and the ‘continental European’ area, I believe that some signs do support the existence of significant differences between diverse contributions to the so-called ‘IR continental Theory’. It is a non-tested hypothesis, but I observe a larger convergence of the Spanish production – mainly before the 1980s – with the works produced in France or Italy than with those produced in Germany or other Northern European countries. Nossal (2001) also comes to this conclusion. Crawford refers to this categorization to encapsulate the difference between British IR (epistemologically founded) and American IR (methodologically oriented) (Crawford 2001: 238). Although the reasons for this are various and each personal case should be analysed individually in order to gain a better understanding, there is one factor that certainly affects all Spanish scholars: the lack of resources and university support to participate in such events. The significance of this factor seems clear since an effort in the opposite direction – coming from the English-speaking IR community – is not likely to happen.

References Aguirre, I. (1996) ‘La teoría normativa de las Relaciones Internacionales, hoy’, Cursos de Derecho internacional de Vitoria-Gasteiz 1995, Madrid/Bilbao: Tecnos/Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 45–96. Aldecoa, F. (1998) ‘Los cambios recientes de la sociedad internacional como estructura de oportunidad para el desarrollo de las relaciones internacionales de la Unión Europea’, in F. Mariño Menéndez (ed.) Acción Exterior de la Unión Europea y Comunidad Internacional, Madrid: BOE/Universidad Carlos III, pp. 25–53. Aldecoa, F. and Cornago, N. (1998) ‘El nuevo regionalismo y la reestructuración del sistema mundial’, Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 50(1): 59–113. Aldecoa, F. and Keating, M. (eds) (1999) Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations of Regional Governments, New York: Frank Cass. Arenal, C. del (1979a) La Teoría de las relaciones internacionales en España, Madrid: International Law Association (Spanish section). —— (1979b) ‘El estudio de las Relaciones Internacionales en la España del siglo XIX’, Revista de Política Internacional (163): 7–45. —— (1993) Introducción a las relaciones internacionales, Madrid: Tecnos (1st edn 1990). —— (1994) Política exterior de España hacia Iberoamérica, Madrid: Ed. Complutense. —— (1998) ‘Teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales y Sociedad Internacional’, Actas del IV Congreso Vasco de Sociología II: 753–60, Bilbao: Asociación Vasca de Sociología/Gobierno Vasco. —— (1999) ‘La enseñanza de las Relaciones Internacionales en España’, in L. Garau and R. Huesa (eds) Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales en el

Spain 121 mundo Mediterráneo, Actas de las XVII Jornadas de la Asociación Española de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales, Madrid: BOE, pp. 319–38. Barbé, E. (1990) ‘Estudio preliminar’, in H.J. Morgenthau Escritos sobre política internacional, Madrid: Tecnos, pp. xix–lv. —— (1994) Relaciones Internacionales, Madrid: Tecnos. —— (1997) ‘European Values and National Interest’, in A. Landau and R. Whitman Rethinking the European Union, London: Macmillan, pp. 129–46. —— (1999) La política europea de España, Barcelona: Ariel. —— (2000) ‘La PESC: desafíos políticos y límites institucionales’, in E. Barbé (ed.) Política exterior europea, Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 107–28. Barbé, E. and Izquierdo, F. (1998) ‘Present and Future of the Joint Actions for the Mediterranean Region’, in M. Holland (ed.) CFSP Joint Actions for the Mediterranean, London: Pinter, pp. 120–35. Brown, C. (2001) ‘Fog in the Channel: Continental International Relations Theory Isolated’, in M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Buzan, B. (2001) ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR’, Review of International Studies (27): 471–88. Calduch, R. (ed.) (1994) La política exterior española en el siglo XX, Madrid: Ediciones Ciencias Sociales. —— (1997) ‘La Unión Europea Occidental y la Seguridad Común Europea’, Monografías del CESEDEN (21): 201–12. Caracuel, M.A. (1997) Los cambios en la OTAN tras el fin de la guerra fría, Madrid: Tecnos. Casanovas y La Rosa, O. (1987) ‘Derecho Internacional público’, in J.J. Ferreiro, J. Miquel, J. Mir and P. Salvador Coderch (eds) La enseñanza del Derecho en España, Madrid: Tecnos, pp. 145–87. Castro, J.L. de (2002) ‘La cooperación transfronteriza externa como instrumento favorecedor de la próxima adhesión de los países de Europa Central y Oriental’, Cuadernos Europeos de Deusto (26): 63–71. Cornago, N. (1998) ‘Desarrollo, subdesarrollo y postdesarrollo: análisis crítico del debate contemporáneo’, Cursos de Derecho Internacional de Vitoria-Gasteiz 1997, Madrid/Bilbao: Tecnos/Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 39–88. —— (1999) ‘Diplomacy and Paradiplomacy in the Redefiniton of International Security’, in F. Aldecoa and M. Keating (eds) Paradiplomacy in Action: The Foreign Relations of Regional Governments, New York: Frank Cass, pp. 40–57. Crawford, R.M.A. (2001) ‘Where Have All the Theorists Gone – Gone to Britain, Every One? A Story of two Parochialisms in International Relations’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity on International Thought, New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 221–42. Crawford, R.M.A. and Jarvis, D.S.L. (2001) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity on International Thought, New York: State University of New York Press. Feliu, L. (1997) ‘The European Union as a Mediterranean Actor’, Quaderni Forum, 11(2): 21–40. —— (2002) ‘Marruecos en la política exterior española de la democracia: percepciones desde la literatura académica’, in A. Ramírez and G. López García (eds)

122 Caterina García Segura Antropología y antropólogos en Marruecos. Homenaje a David M. Hart, Barcelona: Bellaterra, pp. 327–70. García Pérez, R. (1998) ‘La acción exterior de Galicia hacia Iberoamérica’, Dereito 7(2): 71–94. —— (2000a) ‘La Unión Europea ante las crisis humanitarias: la construcción de una estructura de seguridad común’, Sistema (159): 75–96. —— (2000b) ‘España y la Segunda Guerra Mundial’, in J. Tusell, J. Avilés and R. Pardo (eds) La política exterior de España en el siglo XX, Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva/UNED, pp. 301–21. García Picazo, P. (1997) ‘La identidad europea: entre la apertura y el ensimismamiento. Ensayo de fundamentación teórica’, Revista de Filosofía Política (9): 71–91. —— (1998) Las relaciones internacionales en el siglo XX: la contienda teórica. Hacia una reflexión reflexiva y crítica, Madrid: UNED. —— (2000) ¿Qué es esa cosa llamada ‘Relaciones Internacionales’?, Madrid: Marcial Pons. García Segura, C. (1999) ‘La globalización en la sociedad internacional contemporánea: dimensiones y problemas desde la perspectiva de las Relaciones Internacionales’, Cursos de Derecho Internacional de Vitoria-Gasteiz 1998, Madrid/Bilbao: Tecnos/Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 315–50. —— (2000) ‘La contribución de la Economía Política Internacional a la reflexión teórica de las Relaciones Internacionales’, Revista Española de Derecho Internacional LI(2): 427–68. —— (2001a) ‘Les stratégies internationales de la Catalogne: nationalisme politique et pragmatisme économique’, Bulletin d’Histoire politique 10(1): 99–109. —— (2001b) ‘Globalización y desigualdad’, Tiempo de Paz (60): 31–40. —— (2003) ‘La enseñanza de las Relaciones Internacionales en España’, La Unión Europea ante el siglo XXI: los retos Niza, XIX Jornadas de la Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales, Madrid: BOE, pp. 393–419. Grasa, R. (1997a) ‘La reestructuración de la teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales en la posguerra fría: el realismo y el desafío del liberalismo neoinstitucional’, Curso de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales de Vitoria-Gasteiz 1996, Madrid/Bilbao: Tecnos/Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 103–47. —— (1997b) ‘Política exterior española en un año de tránsito’, Anuario Internacional CIDOB 1996, Barcelona: CIDOB, pp. 29–47. —— (2000a) ‘Globalització, sobirania i interdependència’, in E. Fossas (ed.) Les transformacions de la sobirania i el futur polític de Catalunya, Barcelona: Proa, pp. 217–50. —— (2000b) ‘La cooperación para el desarrollo de la Comunidad Europea: naturaleza, mecanismos y políticas’, in E. Barbé (ed.) Política exterior europea, Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 55–106. Groom, A.J.R. (1994) ‘The World Beyond: The European Dimension’, in A.J.R. Groom and M. Light (eds) Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London: Pinter, pp. 219–36. Groom, A.J.R. and Mandaville, P. (2001) ‘Hegemony and Autonomy in International Relations: The Continental Experience’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity on International Thought, New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 151–65.

Spain 123 Hill, Ch. (1989) ‘The Study of International Relations in the United Kingdom’ in H.C. Dyer and L. Mangasarian (eds) The Study of International Relations: the State of the Art, Basingstoke: Macmillan in association with Millennium, pp. 265–74. Ibáñez, J. (1995) ‘La política exterior española ante la inmigración magrebí’, Papers (46): 95–105. —— (2000) ‘La realidad de la globalización. Procesos, factores y actores de un incipiente sistema global’, Revista de Investigaciones Políticas y Sociológicas 1(1): 41–61. Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 9–42. Marín, M.F. (1994) ‘La política exterior española entre la crisis de 1898 y la dictadura de Primo de Rivera’, in R. Calduch (ed.) La política exterior española en el siglo XX, Madrid: Ediciones Ciencias Sociales, pp. 19–46. Marquina, A. (1995) Confidence Building and Partnership in Western Mediterranean, Madrid: Asociación Atlántica española. Marrero, I. (2001) ‘Avances en el ámbito de la seguridad y defensa europea’, Tiempo de Paz (62): 38–59. Medina, M. (1973) La teoría de las relaciones internacionales, Madrid: Seminarios y Ediciones, S.A. Mesa, R. (1980) Teoría y práctica de las Relaciones Internacionales, Madrid: Taurus (1st edn 1977). —— (1992) La Nueva Sociedad Internacional, Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. —— (1996) La reinvención de la política exterior española, Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales. Nossal, K.R. (2001) ‘Tales that Textbooks Tell: Ethnocentricity and Diversity in American Introductions to IR’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity on International Thought, New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 167–86. Palomares, G. (1994) ‘La política exterior española: de la dictadura de Primo de Rivera a la guerra civil’ and ‘La política exterior española durante la guerra civil’, in R. Calduch (ed.) La política exterior española en el siglo XX, Madrid: Ediciones Ciencias Sociales, pp. 47–106. Pérez, K. (2001) Diccionario de acción humanitaria y cooperación para el desarrollo, Barcelona: Icaria. Piñol, J. Ll. (1982) ‘La teoría de las relaciones internacionales de Salvador de Madariaga (1886–1978)’, Revista de Estudios Internacionales 3(2): 435–65. Porter, T. (2001) ‘Can There Be National Perspectives on Inter(national) Relations?’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity on International Thought, New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 131–47. Rodríguez Manzano, I. (1998) ‘El nuevo marco político e institucional de la integración centroamericana’, in J.A. Sanahuja and J.A. Sotillo (eds) Integración y desarrollo Integración y Desarrollo en Centroamérica. Más allá del libre comercio, Madrid: IUDC/UCM-Los Libros de la Catarata, pp. 141–77. —— (2001) ‘Mujer, género y teoría feminista en Relaciones Internacionales’, in Cursos de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales de Vitoria-Gasteiz 2000, Madrid/Bilbao: Tecnos/Universidad del País Vasco, pp. 239–92. Salomón, M. (1996) ‘Spain: Scope Enlargement Towards the Magreb/Arab

124 Caterina García Segura World’, in F. Algieri and E. Regelsberger Synergy at Work: Spain and Portugal in European Foreign Policy, Bonn: European Union Verlag, pp. 91–109. —— (1999) Proyecto docente, Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (unpublished work). —— (2000) ‘La ampliación de la Unión Europea hacia el centro y el sur de Europa’, in F. Morata (ed.) Políticas Públicas en la Unión Europea, Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 335–60. —— (2002) ‘La teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales en los albores del siglo XXI: diálogo, disidencia, aproximaciones’, Revista CIDOB d’Afers Internacionals (56): 7–52. Sanahuja, J.A. (2002) Guerras, desastres y ayuda humanitaria. El nuevo humanitarismo internacional y la respuesta española, Barcelona: Intermón/Oxfam. Sanahuja, J.A. and and Galán, M.G. (1999) La cooperación al desarrollo en un mundo en cambio. Reflexiones desde nuevos ámbitos de intervención, Madrid: CIDEAL. Sanahuja, J.A. and Sotillo, J.A. (eds) (1998) Integración y Desarrollo en Centroamérica. Más allá del libre comercio, Madrid: IUDC/UCM-Los Libros de la Catarata. Serra, F. (2000) ‘La dimensión Este de la UE: políticas para los países de la Europa Central, del Este y Rusia’, in E. Barbé (ed.) Política exterior europea, Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 107–28; pp. 159–90. Smith, S. (2000) ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(3): 374–402. Smouts, M.C. (1989) ‘The Study of International Relations in France’, in H.C. Dyer and L. Mangasarian (eds) The Study of International Relations: the State of the Art, Basingstoke: Macmillan in association with Millennium, pp. 221–8. Sotillo, J.A. (2001) ‘Las relaciones de la Unión Europea con Centroamérica’, in J. Roy and R. Domínguez Rivera (eds) Las relaciones exteriores de la Unión Europea, México: UNAM, pp. 251–61. Truyol, A. (1973) La teoría de las Relaciones Internacionales como sociología. Introducción al estudio de las Relaciones Internacionales, Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Políticos (1st edn 1957). —— (1993) La sociedad internacional, Madrid: Alianza (1st edn 1974). Ugalde, A. (2001) ‘La participación vasca en el movimiento europeísta y federalista’, in V.M. Amado and S. De Pablo (eds) Los vascos y Europa, Vitoria-Gasteiz: Fundación Sancho el Sabio, pp. 313–46. Wæver, O. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52(4): 686–727.

5

The Nordic countries Jörg Friedrichs

This chapter is about IR theory in the Nordic countries (i.e. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Iceland). A special focus is on the three Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Denmark, Norway), which are more interconnected among each other than with the two other Nordic countries. The chapter deals primarily with books and articles published since the early 1990s, when the last comprehensive survey of Scandinavian IR appeared (Jönsson 1993a).1 I argue that, at least if compared with the evolution of the discipline in other European countries, the development of Nordic IR theory stands out as a success story. The Nordic communities of IR scholars have been fairly successful in overcoming their marginal position vis-à-vis American IR. When comparing the trajectory of the discipline in the Nordic countries with developments in countries such as France and Italy, it would be hard not to acknowledge that the ‘Nordic Network’ has fared considerably better in challenging the intellectual hegemony of the American mainstream. My survey of Nordic IR theory is based on the following two criteria of evaluation: 1

2

Insofar as individual scholars and scientific communities in the academic periphery have a strong interest in joining the discussions going on at the centre, the success of an academic community may be measured by its ability to gain access to the discipline via the centre. Since it would be naive to assume that successful scholarship is necessarily also good scholarship, the excellence of an academic community must be measured by its capacity to provide original contributions to ongoing debates and to set qualitatively innovative issues on the research agenda.

Only if both of these criteria are fulfilled may the ‘Nordic network’ be considered a model to be emulated by other European IR peripheries. The first section of this chapter deals with the first criterion. I argue that the success of Nordic IR has very much to do with the particular way in which scholars from the Nordic countries share their knowledge with

126 Jörg Friedrichs one another and with scholars from other parts of the world, particularly from the USA. To substantiate this claim, I provide a broad-brush picture of the institutional history of Nordic IR. In particular, I show that Nordic IR has developed from a situation of national fragmentation towards massive research cooperation both at the regional level and beyond. The result of this strategy has been the piecemeal emergence of an increasingly diversified ‘Nordic network’ of IR scholars. This has gone hand in hand with a pooling of intellectual resources and a relative opening up of the Nordic IR community, which in turn has created the critical mass and density of intellectual transactions necessary to challenge the hegemony of American IR. Today, Nordic IR is a truly integrated academic community with distinctive national sub-communities, and with connections to most other relevant communities of scholars worldwide. In the second section I turn from academic sociology to more substantive issues. As I have argued above, there is no compelling reason why the success of Nordic IR in overcoming its marginal position vis-à-vis American IR should be mirrored by the substantive quality of the Scandinavians’ scholarly production. Although Nordic scholars have undoubtedly gained access to large editorial markets and to the inner circles of discursive power, taken alone this is not yet a guarantee for the quality of their intellectual work. There is no a priori reason why success at the level of academic sociology should translate into intellectual vibrancy. Accordingly, it would be impossible to render justice to Nordic IR theory without assessing the substantive quality of scholarly production. To fulfil this task, it will be necessary to critically assess a variety of substantive contributions to IR theory by Nordic authors. Only if it turns out, as a result of this critical examination, that Nordic IR is both well connected to the Anglo-American centre and providing innovative scholarship may it be regarded as a model to be emulated by other IR communities. In the conclusion, I draw an ideal-typical comparison between the French strategy of academic self-reliance, the Italian strategy of resigned marginality and the Nordic strategy of multi-level research cooperation as three different developmental pathways for academic peripheries to cope with the intellectual hegemony of American IR. I necessarily have to limit this comparison to a generic outline. The comprehensive framework is unfolded elsewhere (Friedrichs 2004). Nevertheless, even a sketchy comparison suggests that Nordic IR may be regarded as a model for other IR peripheries on the European continent. What is more: the Nordic penchant for multi-level research cooperation is likely to be the winning strategy for the embryonic ‘Eurodiscipline’ of IR, which thereby may become a powerhouse of innovative theorizing and a real match for the American core.

The Nordic Countries 127

Multi-level research cooperation Today, Nordic IR scholars dispose of a variety of attractive outlets for their academic production. As a matter of fact, many Nordics have gained access to the academic world market by getting their books and articles published by English and American publishers (Goldmann 1995). At the same time, a generation of mostly younger Scandinavians is networking with scholars from other European countries to create an integrated European IR community (Jönsson 1993a: 160). Scholars from the Nordic countries meet at region-wide conferences and publish their essays in Nordic reviews, namely Cooperation and Conflict, the Journal of Peace Research and Scandinavian Political Studies. At the same time, Nordic scholars keep their national academic markets. In short, Nordic IR scholars are operating and cooperating at several distinct levels simultaneously (see Figure 5.1).2 By this arrangement, Nordic scholars have become players in a sort of ‘multi-level game’ of academic relations. This is a comfortable situation insofar as their position at the intersection of different layers yields them clear benefits. Nordic scholars gain visibility at the international level, they benefit in terms of intellectual diversity and independence, and they can permit themselves the luxury of shifting from one editorial outlet to the other, which is favourable to their professional detachment. Certainly, all this would be much more difficult to achieve for their continental colleagues from, say, France or Italy; but as for the Nordic scholars: how has this comfortable placement at the intersection of various academic communities come about? What is the secret behind the organizational success of Nordic scholars in comparison to their continental colleagues? And what lessons may be learned from the Nordic network for the progressive development of other academic peripheries, namely in Europe? To provide an answer to these questions, in the remainder of this section I will depict how Nordic IR has been evolving towards multi-level research

Figure 5.1 Outlets for the scholarly production of Nordic IR scholars.

128 Jörg Friedrichs cooperation over the past forty years (for a more extensive and more thoroughly documented version see Friedrichs 2004: 66–72). To begin with, both the academic discipline of IR and the competing field of peace research were established somewhat earlier in the Nordic countries than in many countries of the Continent. In Sweden, Denmark and Norway, IR and peace research were institutionalized already in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Taking into account the discipline’s common period of origin in the three countries, one might expect the first generation of Scandinavian scholars to have immediately formed a network of research cooperation all over the region. However, this has not been the case. On the contrary, the first IR chairs in the Scandinavian countries were created by political decisions at the national level, pursuing a variety of national research agendas. Every country, if not every research institute and university department, had its own ideas regarding the appropriate subject matter and methodology of the newly founded discipline. As a result, regional research cooperation among Nordic scholars may have seemed relatively unlikely for the future. The apparent fragmentation of early Nordic IR should not, however, obscure the fact that most contributions fell broadly within the behaviourist mainstream of the time. Especially in Sweden and Norway, IR scholars and social science departments were positively inclined towards behavioural science. In the words of Dag Anckar (1991: 241), the behavioural wave ‘swept through Nordic political science, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, i.e. exactly at the time when the first chairs for IR were established. Although the venerable traditions of International Law, Diplomatic History, Political Philosophy and, in Sweden and Finland, Geopolitics continued to inform the research interests of many scholars, positivist methodology provided a most welcome reason for writing off the mother disciplines as unscientific. This may be regarded as a strategy of intellectual emancipation. At the same time, the initial affinity between Nordic and American Social Science is probably the main explanation why Nordic IR scholars were able to become so quickly ‘true mainstream pushing older traditions back to protosciences’ (Apunen 1993: 2). Although there were some exceptions to the rule – such as the Francophile professor Erling Bjøl in Denmark and the historical outlook of IR studies in the same country – Nordic authors widely accepted the trendsetting function of ‘American social science’. Initially, the young Nordic IR communities showed the typical characteristics of marginal peripheries. On the one hand, they were characterized by penetration (i.e. intense and one-sided dependence on the core); on the other hand, they suffered from fragmentation (i.e. scarce integration among and even within the peripheries) (cf. Galtung 1971). This was mirrored by the fact that IR scholars from the Nordic countries were eager to absorb the latest developments of American IR. At the same time, the primary addressee of their scholarly production was the

The Nordic Countries 129 domestic audience of their respective countries. Accordingly, most of the time they were writing in the Nordic languages, while only sometimes using English to address a more international audience. In pursuing this two-track strategy, the embryonic Scandinavian IR communities largely bypassed the regional level of research cooperation. This is somewhat astonishing if one takes a closer look at the specificities of political discourse and political practice in the Nordic countries, where the idea of regional cooperation has a long history. Most prominently, the Nordic Council has been working since 1952 as a catalyst for regional cooperation. Although the Nordic Council never had too much influence on concrete policy choices, its activities included regional coordination in the fields of culture and science. Given the social and political aims of the Nordic Council, what could have been more obvious than to coordinate research activities in social and political science? And which field of social and political science could have had more strategic importance for regional research cooperation than IR? It seems that it was only a matter of time for a ‘Nordic network’ of IR scholarship to be constituted. Consistent with these considerations, the Nordic Council began in the mid-1960s to promote research cooperation among Nordic political scientists in general. Most notably, Scandinavian Political Studies has been published since 1966 by the political science associations of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Focusing on comparative politics, a series of Nordic conferences was taking place to further the development of strong networks of regional research cooperation. In 1978, when political cooperation among the Nordic countries was already in decline after the accession of Denmark to the European Community, political scientists agreed on the foundation of a Nordic Political Science Association (NOPSA). It was expected that the newly founded NOPSA would trigger off a new wave of Nordic research cooperation. Efforts to foster Nordic cooperation were not limited to political science in general. Similar efforts were also taking place in the fields of IR proper, including peace research. After several years of tough negotiations, the Nordic Council of Ministers finally agreed in February 1966 on the establishment of the ‘Nordic Cooperation Committee to further research in international politics including peace and conflict research’. From 1986, known under the acronym NORDSAM, the Cooperation Committee supported and disseminated information about Nordic research on international affairs. Moreover, NORDSAM arranged conferences and seminars with the aim of increasing cooperation among Nordic IR scholars and, most importantly, published an influential IR journal at the regional level, Cooperation and Conflict. The journal served as a regional forum and as an important editorial outlet for contributions by Nordic authors, using English as a lingua franca. In addition, NORDSAM had a modest fund for research support, which was particularly useful for

130 Jörg Friedrichs encouraging young researchers to meet each other and for financing the participation of Nordic scholars at international conferences. Together, these financial and institutional opportunities created a strong incentive for regional research cooperation among Nordic IR scholars. As already stated, a first setback to regional research cooperation among Nordic IR scholars came when Denmark joined the European Community in 1973 and began to shift its resources away from the NORDPLUS student exchange programme towards the Western European ERASMUS programme. Nevertheless, cooperation among Nordic IR scholars continued for the time being, and the apogee of Nordic research cooperation was reached at the beginning of the 1980s. When the Nordic Council began to reduce the funding of joint research projects, however, the decline of research cooperation rapidly set in. Probably the most fateful consequence of this financial drain was the paralysis of the quarterly Cooperation and Conflict in the late 1980s. The demise of the Cooperation Committee and the crisis of its journal culminated in the formal dissolution of NORDSAM, decided in 1990 by the Nordic Council of Ministers. However, in the meantime Nordic research cooperation had developed a momentum of its own. Nordic scholars continued to cultivate informal contacts and to meet at the fringes of conferences. In 1991, a group of scholars founded a new membership-based organization, the Nordic International Studies Association (NISA). Since then, NISA has been arranging regular Nordic conferences and periodic graduate student training workshops. The association is explicitly committed to continuing the networking activities that were previously facilitated by NORDSAM. Most importantly, the review Cooperation and Conflict survived the dissolution of NORDSAM and was rescued by a private publisher. Certainly, the heydays of Nordic research cooperation in the early 1980s are now over. Nevertheless, the formal and informal collaboration among Nordic IR scholars is thriving. In the meantime, Nordic scholars have considerably diversified their networking activities. Apart from the conventions organized by the Nordic International Studies Association (NISA), scholars from the Nordic countries frequently gather at the conventions of other associations, such as the American International Studies Association (ISA), the British International Science Association (BISA), and the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) with its Standing Group on International Relations (SGIR). In addition, the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence is an important point of reference for IR scholars from the Nordic countries. These manifold institutional opportunities provide an important incentive for Nordic IR scholars to practice multi-level research cooperation. In short, ‘a fruitful network pattern of concentric circles is emerging, with Scandinavian cooperation as a stepping-stone to European and, finally, global contacts’ (Jönsson 1993a: 160).

The Nordic Countries 131 The reorientation of Nordic IR scholars from regional towards multilevel research cooperation is probably also due to the fact that the Nordic model is in decline as a foreign policy instrument, whereas European integration has become increasingly important for the Nordic countries. As a result, continental IR is now an increasingly interesting target for Nordic IR students and scholars alike. Ever more students from the Nordic countries are participating in the ERASMUS student exchange programme, thereby becoming acquainted with the academic study of International Relations in the countries of the European Union. This scheme of student exchange is paralleled by intellectual exchange between Nordic scholars and their colleagues from other parts of Europe, and a series of volumes (co)edited by Scandinavians bears witness to the recent trend towards research cooperation at the pan-European level (Allan and Goldmann 1992; Carlsnaes and Smith 1994; Clark and Neumann 1996; Jørgensen 1997; Neumann and Wæver 1997; Christiansen et al. 1999; Mozaffari 2002). Thanks to its particular strategy of regional research cooperation, the Nordic community of IR scholars has developed from a cluster of internally fragmented, marginal academic peripheries into a uniquely successful ‘Nordic network’ of multi-level research cooperation. Over time this has led to a situation where, at least for Nordic IR scholars, academic recognition comes from publication at international level. Arguably the habits of networking and the tradition of writing in English, which can both be traced back to the 1970s and 1980s, were the necessary conditions for Nordic IR to develop from a plurality of closed academic communities into an open and integrated academic society.

The substance of scholarly production The placement of the Nordic IR communities at the centre of a complex network of multi-level research cooperation has certainly left its imprint on the theoretical and methodological orientation of the authors concerned. Indeed, the networking of Nordic authors in the field of IR research has been accompanied by a clear diversification of their theoretical and methodological orientations. It is striking that Nordic authors frequently place themselves at the intersection between different disciplines and research traditions. To cite only a few examples from the past fifteen years, Nordic IR theory has ‘met’ Marxian political economy (Ougaard 1990), social anthropology (Eriksen and Neumann 1993), comparative historical sociology (Hall 1999), and post-Soviet studies (Pursiainen 2000). As has been argued in the introduction to this chapter, however, there is no logical reason why intellectual diversity and research cooperation should lead to innovative theoretical approaches. Accordingly, it will be necessary to dedicate a section to the critical evaluation of substantive

132 Jörg Friedrichs scholarship by Nordic authors. This is not an end in itself. On the contrary, it will help answer the question whether or not multi-level research cooperation should be emulated by other IR communities. In order to give a tentative answer to that question, Nordic contributions will be analysed in relation to intellectual movements beyond the Nordic region. Only if it can be demonstrated that Nordic authors are making a tangible contribution to these debates, and only if there is a link between intellectual diversity and the substantive quality of scholarship, will it be plausible to regard multi-level research cooperation as a model for the development of the discipline in other academic peripheries, namely on the European continent. This leads us to the fundamental question whether there are any substantive and/or stylistic specificities of Nordic IR scholarship at all. In the important article ‘International politics: Scandinavian identity amidst American hegemony?’, Christer Jönsson (1993a) has singled out the comparative advantages of the Scandinavian communities of IR scholars vis-àvis the American mainstream. In Jönsson’s view Scandinavian scholars are less obsessed with political relationships among great powers, and more disposed to include sub-national actors in their analytical framework. What is more, they are generalists rather than specialists, and less involved in policy advice than their American colleagues. As a result they are more inclined to embed their scholarship in the broader context of history and political science. Or, in the words of Ole Wæver (1994: 251): What distinguishes the Scandinavian School is first of all a commitment to weak theory: neither the over-ambitious American grand theory and/or raw empiricism, nor the English middle-range theory and/or historical studies. . . . This comes close to the Americans in focusing on a limited number of factors, and close to the British in staying away from the overall general theory of foreign policy. On the one hand, in these assessments the American mainstream is taken as the immutable point of reference for Scandinavian scholarship; on the other hand, Scandinavian scholarship is presented as a corrective to some flaws of the American mainstream. To support this view, Jönsson adduces a series of success stories in the fields of foreign policy analysis, negotiation studies, and research on international cooperation – ‘areas where the Scandinavians’ relative success can be accounted for by their capability to capitalize on the comparative advantages identified’ (1993a: 149). In this optic, the most important forte of Scandinavian generalists consists of their ability to build bridges, and the formulation of innovative middle-range theories whereby the dominance of American IR is bypassed, and the weakness of the centre is turned into an advantage for the periphery. Whereas American IR is in an identity crisis after the end of the Cold War, it is said that Scandinavian scholars are fully entitled to

The Nordic Countries 133 abandon their inferiority complex. ‘Not being bound by a parochial agenda or perspective, Scandinavian researchers have gained a reputation as active participants in the international scholarly discourse’ (Jönsson 1993a: 158). Although it is difficult to imagine that Nordics are completely free from parochialism, Nordic IR may be seen within certain limits as a corrective to the limitations of the American mainstream. However, it is important to note that the focus of Jönsson’s article is almost exclusively on empirical research within the traditions of behaviourism and positivism. Indeed, behavioural science and positivist methodology have never been fully abandoned by Nordic IR and maintain a couple of strongholds, particularly in Norway and Sweden (Anckar 1991: 258; Jørgensen 2000: 16). However, although behavioural science is still a useful starting point for a survey about Nordic IR, over the 1990s behaviourism and positive science have more and more eroded and came to be only part of the story. Over the past ten or fifteen years, there has been a revival of a more critical stance that poses an explicit challenge to positive and behavioural science. Mostly under the banner of post-positivism, this critical movement has gained much influence in Nordic IR. In line with these considerations, this section begins with a discussion of moderate scientific revisionism, then turns to more radical scientific revolutionism, and finally discusses the Copenhagen school of security studies, which is the most prominent example of Nordic post-positivism and has become something of a flagship of Scandinavian IR on the Continent. While Jönsson’s research report about Scandinavian IR dates from the early 1990s, the literature discussed is primarily from the past ten or fifteen years. The focus is on scholarly production from the Scandinavian countries (i.e. Sweden, Denmark and Norway, and sometimes including Finland). It is rather obvious that this survey cannot render full justice to Nordic IR theory in all its ramifications. Therefore, the chapter is limited to the identification of some carefully selected theoretical and methodological trends and does not aim at reviewing Nordic IR theory in its entirety. At this point, a series of further limitations of this research report have to be mentioned. First, the focus is on contributions to grand theorizing about the principles that organize political interaction between and beyond national territories. Second, the focus is on literature written in English. This is not to deny that there are interesting contributions in the vernacular languages as well, and some of them are explicitly mentioned. However, since the primary interest of this chapter is directed towards Nordic IR as a regionally integrated academic community, the focus is on literature in the English lingua franca. Third, I will not go into very much detail when discussing individual authors and their contributions; this is justifiable precisely because most of the literature is written in English and therefore easily accessible to anyone.

134 Jörg Friedrichs

Scientific revisionism The sympathetic critique and further development of existing approaches is a sort of cottage industry among Nordic scholars. They frequently strive to expand the frontier of science by exposing the approaches of their American colleagues to a friendly critique, and by correcting some of their flaws and biases. A typical example of this moderate kind of scientific revisionism is the work of Hans Mouritzen from Denmark. Mouritzen has taken the empirical phenomenon of Finlandization and adaptive politics as a starting point, analysing in particular the acquiescence of Denmark and Sweden vis-à-vis Germany in the national-socialist era (Mouritzen 1988; for adaptive politics see Petersen 1977; Rosenau 1981). The Nordic Quisling regimes nicely illustrate the fact that small and middle-sized states are more concerned with their strategic environment than with the international system as a whole. If this is true, the Waltzian assumption of the units being directly constrained by the system is inadequate to account for the behaviour of small states and middle-sized powers (cf. Waltz 1979). Insofar as state behaviour is less determined by the balance of power in the international system than by the threats and incentives in the strategic environment, structural realism has to be corrected. The fact that states are located in a salient strategic environment leads to the recognition of a division between the operational mode of the international system and the observable behaviour of its units (Mouritzen 1997; cf. Walt 1987). In other words, if states are spatially immobile and power wanes with distance, then state behaviour is dependent on the contingencies of their geographical location in the international system (Mouritzen 1998). These are fairly simple insights. However, despite their limited scope, they have inspired a theoretically informed research programme that combines the theory of adaptive politics with historical knowledge and area expertise, thereby correcting important flaws of structural realism (Mouritzen 1995; Mouritzen et al. 1996). Taking into account the relevance of the theoretical and empirical results of this research programme, Mouritzen’s cautious reformulation of structural realism has demonstrated its innovative potential. In other cases, by contrast, the friendly critique of the mainstream comes dangerously close to carrying coals to Newcastle. This is observable, for example, when Nordic authors are ‘introducing’ democracy as an independent variable (Goldmann 1986; Sørensen 1993), or when they are ‘assessing’ the logic of internationalism and internationalization as a factor in world politics (Goldmann 1994, 2001). This kind of scholarship may lead to interesting empirical and conceptual findings, but it is questionable whether it poses any tangible challenge to the routine of positive science. On the other hand, moderate scientific reformism can be extremely relevant in the context of ongoing theoretical debates. For

The Nordic Countries 135 example, the discussion of unequal development and different forms of statehood is of enormous theoretical relevance in the context of both the debate about globalization and the discussion whether and to what extent states are ‘like units’ (Holm and Sørensen 1995; H.-H. Holm 2001; Sørensen 2001). In a similar way, it is important to study the transformative impact of nationalism and regionalism on international politics (Hettne et al. 1998, 2000). It turns out that, from a heuristic standpoint, moderate scientific reformism has both its positive and its negative aspects, but, be that as it may, it has had for a long time programmatic status among Scandinavian authors (Sørensen 1991, 1998). It is probably fair to say that the traditional mainstream of Scandinavian IR scholars is committed to the correction of some carefully selected flaws of structural realism and liberal institutionalism, without thereby challenging the fundamental tenets of positive science. In contrast to this moderate version of scientific reformism, however, Nordic authors have also embarked on more radical endeavours. Although ‘radical reformism’ sounds like a contradiction in terms, academic practice has shown that the friendly critique of ‘science as usual’ does not necessarily stop at the factual boundaries of positive science. For example, a group of Swedish authors from the University of Lund have tried for many years to contribute a theoretical and methodological input that clearly goes beyond the tenets of positive science. Under the direction of Christer Jönsson, they have applied cognitive approaches and role theory to foreign policy analysis and to the study of regimes (Jönsson 1982, 1993b; cf. Westerlund 1987); they have proposed the introduction of organization theory and network analysis into the study of international organization and cooperation (Jönsson 1986; cf. 1987); and they have tried to introduce the historical, symbolic and cognitive analysis of communication and signalling as a complement to conventional bargaining theory (Jönsson 1990; Aggestam and Jönsson 1997; Jönsson and Tallberg 1998; Jönsson and Aggestam 1999). Although these proposals are clearly going beyond the ontological reach of positive science, the authors carefully avoid a definitive rupture with the terminology and practice of conventional scholarship (cf. also Midgaard 1980; Stern and Sundelius 1997; Underdal 1998). Oddly enough, the liaison of a positivist epistemology with a post-positivist ontology does not prevent these authors from staying within the ‘broad church’ of normal science (cf. Kratochwil and Ruggie 1986). Another case of ‘radical reformism’ is provided by the Swedish scholar Walter Carlsnaes, who in his early years embarked upon a long detour on the concept of ideology (1981, 1986). Later on, his reflections on the utility of the agency-structure perspective for foreign policy analysis culminated in the claim that ‘this re-conceptualization can incorporate not only (a) certain rationality assumptions of action, (b) psychological-cognitive

136 Jörg Friedrichs explanatory approaches, and (c) the role, broadly speaking, of situationalstructural factors, but also (d) an institutional perspective combined with (e) comparative study analysis’ (1992: 245). Of course, in the context of a case study it is indeed feasible to design a narrative that is compatible with all these claims, but it is impossible to do this in a theoretically coherent way, and Carlsnaes himself ironically refers to his own framework as the ‘casserole approach’ (1994: 282). The framework has become so large and all-encompassing that there is no clear focus any more, and it is an open question how this should be compatible with classical foreign policy analysis. Nevertheless, Carlsnaes does not overtly renounce the claim that his reflections are reconcilable with the tenets of positive science. Altogether, the contributions discussed under the heading of scientific reformism are trying to expand the frontiers of science without inflicting a mortal blow to the mainstream. Quite obviously, different authors have pursued this strategy in a more or less radical, more or less coherent and more or less innovative way. In any event, scientific revisionism constitutes a crucial genre of Nordic IR scholarship, and there is no doubt that this has led to a variety of highly appreciable contributions.

Scientific revolutionism Over the past decade it has become evident that behaviourism, if it were ever, has ceased to be the dominant approach in Nordic political science (Jørgensen 2000: 16). As opposed to the USA, rational choice is at best one among many approaches to political science in the Nordic countries and cannot aspire to a hegemonic position (Nannestad 1993). Or, in other words: Nordic IR scholarship today is certainly not a proxy of what is – or used to be – the American mainstream. Nordic scholars are well integrated into the current theoretical and methodological debates that are going on in other parts of the world, especially in the UK and continental Europe. An increasing faction of mostly younger Nordic IR scholars is explicitly and deliberately moving beyond whatever they perceive to be the positivist mainstream. The debate was opened up at the beginning of the 1990s by a furious pamphlet against the postmodernist challenge to conventional IR studies (Sørensen 1991). At that time the article did not provoke a response, and it was only five years later that the Nordic debate about post-positivism was formally initiated by a sharp invective written by a Norwegian professor against what he perceived to be postmodernist infiltration into the discipline (Østerud 1996). In defence of a presumed standard of ‘serious’ scholarship, postmodernism was heavily attacked as ‘foggy’, ‘lofty’, ‘muddy’ and ‘elusive’. Soon after, the pamphlet received its response from a young scholar who tried to defend postmodernism against that caricature (Patomäki 1997; cf. Østerud 1997). Due to their Manichean nature, this debate was not entirely free from intellectual aridity. Nevertheless, it did generate some interesting reflec-

The Nordic Countries 137 tions at a high level of sophistication, both in a more commonsensical and post-positivist mood (Malnes 1997; Neumann 2001a; Patomäki 2002). In the meantime, Nordic authors have produced an interesting body of postpositivist literature on a variety of issues. Many Nordic post-positivists belong to the younger generation and define themselves in opposition to whatever they perceive to be ‘mainstream’. Despite their common disapproval of positive science, however, these authors clearly do not form a homogeneous group. In what follows, I try to review the post-positivist literature by Nordic IR scholars in its own right, without paying too much attention either to internal feuds among different sects or the ritualistic demarcation of post-positivism against the mainstream.3 The individual contributions to this literature may be located along a spectrum that goes from intellectual detachment to political commitment. At one end of the spectrum there is the genealogical critique and deconstruction of abstract concepts such as sovereignty, international society and statehood (Bartelson 1995, 1996, 1998, 2001). Further down the line, we find studies about the relationship between ‘self’ and ‘other’ and the emergent security order in post-Cold War Europe (Tunander 1995, 1997). At the other extreme, some authors have lent their voice to political projects of identity formation, namely the construction of a ‘New Hansa’ around the Baltic Sea, and the ‘Barents Euro-Arctic Region’ (Joenniemi 1993, 1997; Tunander 1995: 115–36; Wæver 1997; for an ironic response see Nilson 1997). Over many years, the preoccupation with concepts such as identity and culture has been the most common feature of the Nordic post-positivist movement (cf. Eriksen and Neumann 1993). Within this literature, there is a series of interesting attempts to re-examine history in order to gain fresh insights into the world-political process. Thus Erik Ringmar (1996a) has dealt with the ontological status of the state as a collective self embedded in a complex texture of narratives which people construct to make sense of the world.4 The same author (1996b) has also provided an identity-driven explanation for Sweden’s decision to join the Thirty Years War. According to his explanation, the Swedes did not go to war in defence of their national interest, whether real or perceived, but rather to establish their collective identity in the first place. This historical study serves to bring home the typically post-positivist argument that identities are logically and ontologically prior to interests. In a similar vein, Iver Neumann has contributed some reflections about international relations as self/other relations (Neumann 1996a, 1996b, 1999; cf. Eriksen 1992, 1993, 1995; Harle 2000). The emphasis of these studies is upon European identity politics at local, national and continental level. In a series of historical case studies, Neumann has analysed the construction of ‘the East’ as Europe’s constitutive other. These case studies comprise, among other things, the persistent exclusion of the Ottoman Empire from the European society of states and the secular discrimination against Russia as ‘backward’ and ‘barbarian’.

138 Jörg Friedrichs It is interesting to note that the tidal wave of identity studies, which swept over the Nordic region in the early and mid-1990s, has been ebbing away over the past few years. Of course it is not easy to speculate about the reasons for such academic trends. Nevertheless, the decline in identity studies may be related to the fact that something resembling Heisenberg’s law applies also to self/other relations. As long as you do not focus on social identity you know that it is there; but as soon as you try to fix it with your observational tools, it is gone. As a result, part of the new generation of Nordic IR scholars is moving away from the elusive quest for social identity. It is probably fair to say that some of these scholars have already entered the phase ‘after post-positivism’ (e.g. Rasmussen 2000). Another possible route out of the identity trap is to study the causal impact of ideas, for example, by applying image theory to foreign policy analysis (Elgström 2000). When the pendulum of identity studies swings back, the return towards scientific revisionism is an obvious fallback position. In the meantime, however, it must be admitted that some post-positivist research on collective identity is still going on, mostly combined with a focus on policy relevance (e.g. Neumann 2001b). In any case, the post-positivist branch of Nordic IR scholarship has not been limited to the study of collective identity. Particularly in the field of European integration, there is another consolidated branch of postpositivist literature by Nordic authors.5 On the one hand, this comes in the shape of the meta-theoretical critique of existing approaches (Wind 1997, 2001; Ojanen 1998). On the other hand, deconstruction is complemented by attempts to launch a new theoretical agenda of reflectivist and/or constructivist approaches to European governance (Jørgensen 1997; Christiansen et al. 1999; Ekengren 2002). Although these attempts are mostly on a high level of abstraction, there has been at least one empirical case study applying social constructivism (Marcussen 1999). Especially at the level of the member states’ attitude towards European integration, some scholars have tried the practical application of discourse analysis (U. Holm 1997; Larsen 1997; Hansen and Wæver 2002). This has been extended to the European Union as a whole (Larsen 2000). There is also a book on European governance as a new form of deliberative democracy (Eriksen and Fossum 2000). Whereas the tidal wave of post-positivist studies about social identity is ebbing away, the constructivist approach to European integration is increasingly in vogue.

Constructivist security studies The so-called ‘Copenhagen school’ of security studies around Bary Buzan and Ole Wæver, who used to be affiliated to the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute, is clearly the most renowned flagship of Scandinavian post-positivism. Especially in the late 1990s, the Copenhagen school has unleashed a veritable stream of review articles and critical reflections

The Nordic Countries 139 (McSweeney 1996; Buzan 1997; Buzan and Wæver 1997; Huysmans 1998; Wæver 1999). Building on Buzan’s expanded agenda for security studies (1983, 2nd edn 1991), the authors of the Copenhagen school are committed to a ‘holistic’ view of security. After the end of the Cold War, they argue, it is becoming increasingly futile to limit the concept of security to the territorial integrity of sovereign states. Indeed, the political use of the security discourse may be observed in an increasingly broad range of sectors from the economy to the environment (cf. Stern 1995). Especially in the so-called societal sector, the state is often bypassed when it comes to defending collective identity against external threats. The Danish referendum against the Maastricht Treaty and the Swiss abstention from European integration are two cases in point. At the same time, European integration is seen by many as a protective umbrella against the nightmares of European history, from ethnic nationalism to militaristic power politics. Be that as it may, after the end of the Cold War the questions of ‘security for whom’ and ‘security from what’ are ever more frequently asked, especially in Europe. Taking these debates as a starting point, Ole Wæver from the Copenhagen school has focused on the European security agenda (Wæver et al. 1993; Wæver 1996, 1998, 2000).6 Apart from dealing with real problems in time and space, the authors of the Copenhagen school involve themselves in more abstract theoretical generalizations about security in the military, environmental, economic, societal and political sectors. In a deliberately tautological manner, ‘securitization’ is defined as the move whereby an issue is defined as a security issue. Whenever a social group has come to agree that ‘if we do not tackle this problem, everything else will be irrelevant (because we will not be here or will not be free to deal with it in our own way)’, the problem concerned has been transformed into a security issue. In other words: the transformation of something into a security issue is the result of a specific socio-linguistic practice called ‘securitization’ or ‘the security speech act’. Securitization is the move that takes politics beyond the established rules of the game and gives legitimacy to the use of extreme measures in order to tackle an issue (Buzan et al. 1998: 23–36).7 For the ex-post-evaluation of security politics, such an approach provides an interesting framework of analysis (e.g. Wagnsson 2000). However, if one imagines that the security speech act became the operational definition of security in the real world, an important safeguard against the uncontrolled proliferation of brinkmanship would be lost. As a matter of fact, the Copenhagen approach to security studies is deliberately blind to questions of true or false, right or wrong. If securitization is a socio-linguistic practice that may concern any referent object, there is little conceptual space left for an evaluation of the appropriateness of particular security speech acts. If Basque terrorists, for example, feel threatened in their

140 Jörg Friedrichs societal identity by the existence of the Madrid central government, the Copenhagen school prima facie does not provide any framework to establish whether this is justified or not. If security claims are treated in such an indiscriminate fashion, there is no inherent limit to the expansion of the security discourse towards ever more sectors, referent objects and threats. This is not to deny that, at least to a certain extent, the security discourse as a social and political practice may actually work like that. Extremists frequently do raise their claims in terms of societal security. Nevertheless, conceptualizing security as nothing else but the outcome of a socio-linguistic practice is problematic due to its potentially dangerous consequences (Eriksson 1999). As everybody knows, and as the authors of the Copenhagen school recognize, whenever an issue is promoted to the urgency of a security threat, normal democratic procedure is in danger of being overruled. Substantive assumptions about what does and does not qualify as a security issue are therefore indispensable for the maintenance of order both at the domestic and at international level. To be sure, the authors of the Copenhagen school are ready to defend themselves. For example, they may object that pointing out that a security concern is often simply a decision to transform something to a level where it might become safe from criticism and discussion is an extremely critical observation in itself, paving the way for a disclosure of the trick. However, the Copenhagen school does not seem to be very much engaged in this sort of critical disclosure. In any case, the Copenhageners have not come up with any guidelines for distinguishing between serious threats, which deserve a certain immunity from democratic control and debate, and other problems that do not deserve this treatment. Therefore, it is at the very least correct to say that the Copenhagen school is not fulfilling its own critical potential.8 For obvious reasons of political common sense, substantial barriers against an uncontrolled proliferation of the security agenda should be treated as an integral part of the security discourse itself. If it makes sense at all to view security as a socio-linguistic practice, it is certainly not sufficient to consider security claims as the outcome of a speech act. After all, concrete security claims are always embedded in a broader set of discursive practices and language games that constitute the very conditions for their meaningfulness. This is not to belittle the important role of the Copenhagen school for the intellectual development of security analysis. However, if whatever counts as a security issue for the parties involved is also seen as a security issue by the external observer, this will further enhance the narcissism of identity politics. This is recognized at least in part by Ole Wæver, who is personally very fond of ‘desecuritization’ as a strategy to achieve stability and peace (1998, 1999); but from a theoretical point of view that may not be enough. To curb the dreadful logic of the Ausnahmezustand, scholars have the social

The Nordic Countries 141 responsibility to uphold reasonably pragmatic and instrumental ways of dealing with security problems, whether military or not.

Conclusion After this tour d’horizon it has now become possible to assess the achievements of Nordic IR theory. In its development and performance, Nordic IR theory seems to be a success story. As has been shown in the first section of this chapter, Nordic scholars have successfully generated an environment of multi-level research cooperation that grants them, at the same time, access to and critical distance from the American core of the discipline. Moreover, they are constantly engaged in a diversified network of intellectual exchange with scholars from the European Continent and other parts of the world. This success at the level of scientific networking goes hand in hand with a considerable intellectual vibrancy of scholarly production. As has been shown in the second section, Nordic scholars are protagonists both in the moderate correction of the mainstream and in the postmodernist quest for more radical theoretical alternatives. Taking into account the relative paucity of authors, which have never exceeded the number of researchers at five or six large American universities, both the theoretical diversity and the intellectual vibrancy of Nordic IR theory are indeed impressive. This leads us back to the question whether the long march of Nordic scholars towards multi-level research cooperation is something which scholars from other European IR communities should emulate. To answer that question, one has to clarify in the first place what the possible alternatives to multi-level research cooperation are. In my book European Approaches to International Relations Theory, I distinguish between the French quest for academic self-reliance and the Italian acceptance of intellectual marginality as two further strategies for coping with marginality vis-à-vis the American core of the discipline (Friedrichs 2004). Given the preponderance of American scholarship, French IR represents the ambitious quest for national emancipation via academic selfreliance. Even French authors themselves are starting to recognize that this strategy does not work. Italian IR represents the frustrated attempt of a weak periphery to be directly connected with the centre. This has eventually led to a situation of resigned marginality. Nordic IR, by contrast, has successfully taken the path of multi-level research cooperation. Nordic scholars are working closely with scholars from other countries and regions, while at the same time maintaining their distinct national research orientations. Through this strategy, the Nordic network of IR scholars has managed to break the vicious circle of intellectual marginality. Over the past forty years, Nordic IR has become a quantité non négligeable within the discipline as a whole. Although the present examination cannot conclusively prove the point

142 Jörg Friedrichs that Nordic IR is better organized than other European IR communities, there is sufficient prima facie evidence to suggest that, in comparison with the Nordic model of multi-level research cooperation, neither French nor Italian IR has been particularly successful in overcoming its marginal position vis-à-vis the American core. What is more: with regard to theoretical substance, Nordic scholars seem to have produced more relevant contributions than most of their continental colleagues, at least according to the standards of current theoretical debates at the international level. In fact, the incentive structure of academia in many European countries renders multi-level research cooperation an almost unattainable option for scholars from these countries. Engagement in transnational networking activities may be much less rewarding to French and Italian scholars than to their colleagues from the Nordic countries. Moreover, in some continental European countries the scarce familiarity with English constrains the space for an autonomous choice between different options of scientific networking. However, insofar as academic scholars are ultimately the masters of their own strategic choices, it seems reasonable to suggest that the Nordic model of multilevel research cooperation is the winning strategy to challenge the intellectual hegemony of the American mainstream. Unfortunately this is not the place for a detailed analysis of the relative merits and defects of different modes of knowledge production by different academic communities. Perhaps a glance at the other chapters in this book may help in that regard. It will be up to the reader to assess whether knowledge production by other European communities of IR scholars is up to the standards set by Nordic IR. Be that as it may, there is one conclusion that is relatively safe to make: multi-level research cooperation is clearly desirable from the ideal vantage point of an embryonic ‘Eurodiscipline’ of International Relations. If IR is really to become a sustainable and vibrant intellectual enterprise at the pan-European level, it will be crucial to overcome the encapsulation in parochial institutions and the impermeability of national academic traditions. As this survey of the Nordic network suggests, multi-level research cooperation is highly conducive both to the originality of theoretical approaches and to the development of an integrated community of IR scholars – whether at the Nordic or at the pan-European level.

Notes 1 Cf. for Sweden: Hydén et al. 2002: 115–21; Angstrom et al. 2003; for Norway: Underdal 1997: 314–20; for Finland: Apunen and Aaltola 2000. 2 The picture could be complemented by mentioning Nordic research cooperation with Eastern Europe, the Baltic Sea area, the Third World and so on. 3 The apparent cleavages between the ‘establishment’ and its ‘contenders’ are often misleading. As we have seen in the last section, there are scholars in the realm of ‘normal science’ who de facto go far beyond the tenets of positivism.

The Nordic Countries 143

4 5 6 7 8

Similarly, it is not uncommon to find scholars in the post-positivist camp who, at least sometimes, make fairly conventional arguments despite their declared nonconformist predilections. Although the Swede Erik Ringmar is working and publishing in Great Britain rather than in Scandinavia, he is mentioned here because of his Nordic roots and the influence of his work on Nordic identity studies. Already in the 1970s and 1980s the Norwegian scholar Martin Sæter (1971) was renowned for his modified version of (neo)functionalism. On regional security complexes more in general see Buzan and Wæver 2003. At the root of this concept lies language philosophy, namely the speech act theory by the British philosopher John Austin (1962; cf. already Midgaard 1980). I owe this observation to Tonny Brems Knudsen.

References Aggestam, K. and Jönsson, C. (1997) ‘(Un)ending conflict: challenges in post-war bargaining’, Millennium 26(3): 771–93. Allan, P. and Goldmann, K. (1992) The End of the Cold War: Evaluating Theories of International Relations, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. Anckar, D. (1991) ‘Nordic political science: trends, roles, approaches’, European Journal of Political Research 20(3–4): 239–61. Angstrom, J., Hedenstrom, E. and Strom, L.-I. (2003) ‘Survival of the most cited? Small political science communities and international influence: the case of Sweden’, European Political Science 2(3): 5–16. Apunen, O. (1993) ‘ “Eurodiscipline” wanted? International Relations as a research orientation and academic discipline in Europe’, in F.R. Pfetsch (ed.) International Relations and Pan-Europe: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Findings, Münster: Lit, pp. 1–17. Apunen, O. and Aaltola, M. (2000) Trends and Milestones in the Study of International Relations in Finland, paper presented to the ECPR joint sessions of workshops in Copenhagen, Denmark, 14–19 April. Austin, J.L. (1962) How to do Things with Words, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bartelson, J. (1995) A Genealogy of Sovereignty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— (1996) ‘Short circuits: society and tradition in international relations theory’, Review of International Studies 22(4): 339–60. —— (1998) ‘Second natures: is the state identical with itself?’, European Journal of International Relations 4(3): 295–326. —— (2001) The Critique of the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buzan, B. (1983) People, States and Fear: The National Security Problem in International Relations, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 2nd edn (1991) People, States and Fear: An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold-War Era, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. —— (1997) ‘Rethinking security after the Cold War’, Cooperation and Conflict 32(1): 5–29. Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (1997) ‘Slippery? Contradictory? Sociologically untenable? The Copenhagen school replies’, Review of International Studies 23(2): 241–50. —— (2003) Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

144 Jörg Friedrichs Buzan, B., Wæver, O. and de Wilde, J. (1998) Security: A New Framework for Analysis, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Carlsnaes, W. (1981) The Concept of Ideology and Political Analysis: A Critical Examination of its Usage by Marx, Lenin, and Mannheim, Westport, CT: Greenwood. —— (1986) Ideology and Foreign Policy: Problems of Comparative Conceptualization, Oxford: Blackwell. —— (1992) ‘The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis’, International Studies Quarterly 36(3): 245–70. —— (1994) ‘In lieu of a conclusion: compatibility and the agency-structure issue in foreign policy analysis’, in W. Carlsnaes and S. Smith (eds) European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, London: Sage, pp. 274–87. Carlsnaes, W. and Smith, S. (eds) (1994) European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, London: Sage. Christiansen, T., Jørgensen, K.E. and Wiener, A. (eds) (1999) ‘The social construction of Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy 6(4) [special issue]; 2nd edn (2001) The Social Construction of Europe, London: Sage. Clark, I. and Neumann, I.B. (eds) (1996) Classical Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan. Ekengren, M. (2002) The Time of European Governance, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Elgström, O. (2000) Images and Strategies for Autonomy: Explaining Swedish Security Policy Strategies in the 19th Century, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Eriksen, O.E. and Fossum, J.E. (eds) (2000) Democracy in the European Union: Integration through Deliberation?, London and New York: Routledge. Eriksen, T.H. (1992) Us and Them in Modern Societies: Ethnicity and Nationalism in Mauritius, Trinidad and Beyond, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. —— (1993) Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, London: Pluto Press. —— (1995) ‘We and us: two modes of group identification’, Journal of Peace Research 32(4): 427–36. Eriksen, T.H. and Neumann, I.B. (1993) ‘International Relations as a cultural system: an agenda for research’, Cooperation and Conflict 28(3): 233–64. Eriksson, J. (1999) ‘Observers or advocates? On the political role of security analysts’, Cooperation and Conflict 34(3): 311–30. Friedrichs, J. (2004) European Approaches to International Relations Theory: a House with Many Mansions, London and New York: Routledge. Galtung, J. (1971) ‘A structural theory of imperialism’, Journal of Peace Research 8(2): 81–117. Goldmann, K. (1986) ‘ “Democracy is incompatible with international politics”: reconsideration of a hypothesis’, in K. Goldmann, S. Berglund and G. Sjöstedt, Democracy and Foreign Policy: The Case of Sweden, Aldershot: Gower, pp. 1–43. —— (1994) The Logic of Internationalism: Coercion and Accommodation, London and New York: Routledge. —— (1995) ‘Im Westen nichts Neues: seven International Relations journals in 1972 and 1992’, European Journal of International Relations 1(2): 245–58. —— (2001) Transforming the European Nation-state: Dynamics of Internationalization, London: Sage. Hall, M. (1999) Constructing Historical Realism: International Relations as Comparative History, Lund: Studentlitteratur (Ph.D. thesis).

The Nordic Countries 145 Hansen, L. and Wæver, O. (eds) (2002) European Integration and National Identity: The Challenge of the Nordic States, London and New York: Routledge. Harle, V. (2000) The Enemy with a Thousand Faces: The Tradition of the Other in Western Political Thought and History, Westport, CT: Praeger. Hettne, B., Inotai, A. and Sunkel, O. (eds) (2000) The New Regionalism and the Future of Security and Development, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan. Hettne, B., Sörlin, S. and Østergård, U. (1998) Den globala nationalismen: Nationalstatens historia och framtid, Stockholm: SNS Förlag. Holm, H.-H. (2001) ‘A disaggregated world order in the making: policy towards failed states as an example’, International Politics 38(3): 357–74 Holm, H.-H. and Sørensen, G. (eds) (1995) Whose World Order? Uneven Globalization and the End of the Cold War, Boulder, CO: Westview. Holm, U. (1997) ‘The French garden is no longer what it used to be’, in K.E. Jørgensen (ed.) Reflective Approaches to European Governance, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, pp. 128–45. Huysmans, J. (1998) ‘Revisiting Copenhagen: or, on the creative development of a security studies agenda in Europe’, European Journal of International Relations 4(4): 479–505. Hydén, G., Immergut, E., Öhngren, B., Ruin, O. and Underdal, A. (2002) Swedish Research in Political Science: An Evaluation, Stockholm: Vetenskapsrådet. Joenniemi, P. (ed.) (1993) Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region, Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. —— (ed.) (1997) Neo-nationalism or Regionality: The Restructuring of Political Space around the Baltic Rim, Stockholm: Nordiska Institutet för Regionalpolitisk Forskning. Jönsson, C. (1986) ‘Interorganization theory and international organization’, International Studies Quarterly 30(1): 39–57. —— (1987) International Aviation and the Politics of Regime Change, New York: St Martin’s Press. —— (1990) Communication in International Bargaining, New York: St Martin’s Press. —— (1993a) ‘International politics: Scandinavian identity amidst American hegemony?’, Scandinavian Political Studies 16(2): 149–65. —— (1993b) ‘Cognitive factors in explaining regime dynamics’, in V. Rittberger (ed.) Regime Theory and International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 202–22. —— (ed.) (1982) Cognitive Dynamics and International Politics, New York: St Martin’s Press. Jönsson, C. and Aggestam, K. (1999) ‘Trends in diplomatic signaling’, in J. Melissen (ed.) Innovation in Diplomatic Practice, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, pp. 151–70. Jönsson, C. and Tallberg, J. (1998) ‘Compliance and post-agreement bargaining’, European Journal of International Relations 4(4): 371–408. Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR theory: the best kept secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 9–42. —— (ed.) (1997) Reflective Approaches to European Governance, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan. Kratochwil, F.V. and Ruggie, J.G. (1986) ‘International organization: the state of the art of an art of the state’, International Organization 40(4): 753–75. Larsen, H. (1997) Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis: France, Britain and Europe, London and New York: Routledge.

146 Jörg Friedrichs —— (2000) ‘The discourse on the EU’s role in the world’, in B. Hansen and B. Heurlin (eds) The New World Order: Contrasting Theories, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, pp. 217–24. McSweeney, B. (1996) ‘Identity and security: Buzan and the Copenhagen school’, Review of International Studies 22(1): 81–93. Malnes, R. (1997) Filosofi for statsvitere, Oslo: Tano Aschehoug. Marcussen, M. (1999) ‘The dynamics of EMU ideas’, Cooperation and Conflict 34(4): 383–411. Midgaard, K. (1980) ‘On the significance of language and a richer concept of rationality’, in L. Levin and E. Vedung (eds) Politics as Rational Action: Essays in Public Choice and Policy Analysis, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 83–97. Mouritzen, H. (1988) Finlandization: Towards a General Theory of Adaptive Politics, Aldershot: Avebury. —— (1995) ‘The Nordic model as a foreign policy instrument: its rise and fall’, Journal of Peace Research 32(1): 9–21. —— (1997) ‘Kenneth Waltz: a critical rationalist between international politics and foreign policy’, in I.B. Neumann and O. Wæver (eds) The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making?, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 66–89. —— (1998) Theory and Reality of International Relations, Aldershot: Ashgate. Mouritzen, H., Wæver, O. and Wiberg, H. (eds) (1996) European Integration and National Adaptations: A Theoretical Inquiry, Commack, NY: Nova Science. Mozaffari, M. (ed.) (2002) Globalization and Civilizations, London and New York: Routledge. Nannestad, P. (1993) ‘Paradigm, school, or sect? Some reflections on the status of rational choice theory in contemporary Scandinavian political science’, Scandinavian Political Studies 16(2): 127–45. Neumann, I.B. (1996a) Russia and the Idea of Europe: A Study in Identity and International Relations, London and New York: Routledge. —— (1996b) ‘Self and other in international relations’, European Journal of International Relations 2(2): 139–74. —— (1999) Uses of the Other: ‘The East’ in European Identity Formation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. —— (2001a) Mening, materialitet, makt: En inføring i diskursanalyse, Bergen: Fagbokforlaget. —— (2001b) Norge – en kritikk: Begrepsmakt i Europa-debatten, Oslo: Pax. Neumann, I.B. and Wæver, O. (eds) (1997) The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making? London and New York: Routledge. Nilson, H.R. (1997) ‘Nordic regionalization: on how transborder regions work and why they don’t work’, Cooperation and Conflict 32(4): 399–426. Ojanen, H. (1998) The Plurality of Truth: A Critique of Research on the State and European Integration, Aldershot: Ashgate. Østerud, Ø. (1996) ‘Antinomies of postmodernism in international studies’, Journal of Peace Research 33(4): 385–90. —— (1997) ‘Focus on postmodernism: a rejoinder’, Journal of Peace Research 34(3): 337–8. Ougaard, M. (1990) Magt og Interesser i den globale samfundsformation: Bidrag til den historiske materialismes teori om internationale relationer, Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget (Ph.D. thesis; English summary pp. 311–38). Patomäki, H. (1997) ‘The rhetorical strategies and the misleading nature of

The Nordic Countries 147 attacks on “postmodernism”: a reply to Østerud’, Journal of Peace Research 34(3): 325–9. —— (2002) After International Relations: Critical Realism and the (Re)Construction of World Politics, London and New York: Routledge. Petersen, N. (1977) ‘Adaptation as a framework for the analysis of foreign policy behavior’, Cooperation and Conflict 12: 221–50. Pursiainen, C. (2000) Russian Foreign Policy and International Relations Theory, Aldershot: Ashgate. Rasmussen, M.V. (2000) A Time for Peace, Copenhagen: Institute of Political Science (Ph.D. thesis). Ringmar, E. (1996a) ‘On the ontological status of the state’, European Journal of International Relations 2(4): 439–66. —— (1996b) Identity, Interest and Action: A Cultural Explanation of Sweden’s Intervention in the Thirty Years War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenau, J.N. (1981) The Study of Political Adaptation, London: Pinter. Sæter, M. (1971) Det politiske Europa. Europeisk integrasjon: Teori, idé og praksis, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Sørensen, G. (1991) ‘A revised paradigm for International Relations: the “old” images and the postmodernist challenge’, Cooperation and Conflict 26(2): 85–116. —— (1993) Democracy and Democratization: Processes and Prospects in a Changing World, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. —— (1998) ‘IR theory after the Cold War’, Review of International Studies 24 (special issue): 83–100. —— (2001) Changes in Statehood: The Transformation of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Stern, E.K. (1995) ‘Bringing the environment in: the case for comprehensive security’, Cooperation and Conflict 30(3): 211–37. Stern, E.K. and Sundelius, B. (1997) ‘Understanding small group decisions in foreign policy: process diagnosis and research procedure’, in P. ‘t Hart, E.K. Stern and B. Sundelius (eds) Beyond Groupthink: Political Group Dynamics and Foreign Policy-making, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 123–50. Tunander, O. (1995) Murar: Essäer om makt, identitet och territorialitet, Århus: Nordisk Sommeruniversitet. —— (1997) ‘Post-cold war Europe: synthesis of a bipolar friend–foe structure and a hierarchic cosmos–chaos structure’, in O. Tunander, P. Baev and V.I. Einagel (eds) Geopolitics in Post-Wall Europe: Security, Territory and Identity, London: Sage, pp. 17–44. Underdal, A. (1997) ‘Studiet av internasjonal politikk’, Norsk Statsvitenskapelig Tidsskrift 13(3): 299–324. —— (1998) ‘Explaining compliance and defection: three models’, European Journal of International Relations 4(1): 5–30. Wæver, O. (1994) ‘Resisting the temptation of post foreign policy analysis’, in W. Carlsnaes and S. Smith (eds) European Foreign Policy: The EC and Changing Perspectives in Europe, London: Sage, pp. 238–73. —— (1996) ‘European security identities’, Journal of Common Market Studies 34(1): 103–32. —— (1997) ‘The Baltic Sea: a region after post-modernity’, in P. Joenniemi (ed.) Neo-nationalism or Regionality: The Restructuring of Political Space Around the Baltic Rim, Stockholm: Nordiska Institutet för Regionalpolitisk Forskning, pp. 293–342.

148 Jörg Friedrichs —— (1998) ‘Insecurity, security and asecurity in the West European non-war community’, in E. Adler and M. Barnett (eds) Security Communities, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–118. —— (1999) ‘Securitizing sectors?’, Cooperation and Conflict 34(3): 334–40. —— (2000) ‘The EU as a security actor: reflections from a pessimistic constructivist on post-sovereign security orders’, in M. Kelstrup and M.C. Williams (eds) International Relations Theory and the Politics of European Integration: Power, Security and Community, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 250–94. Wæver, O., Buzan, B., Kelstrup, M. and Lemaitre, P. (eds) (1993) Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, New York: St Martin’s Press. Wagnsson, C. (2000) Russian Political Language and Public Opinion on the West, NATO and Chechnya: Securitization Theory Reconsidered, University of Stockholm: Department of Political Science (Ph.D. thesis). Walt, S.M. (1987) The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Waltz, K.N. (1979) Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Westerlund, U. (1987) Superpower Roles: A Comparative Analysis of United States and Soviet Foreign Policy, Lund: Lund Political Studies. Wind, M. (1997) ‘Rediscovering institutions: a reflectivist critique of rational institutionalism’, in K.E. Jørgensen (ed.) Reflective Approaches to European Governance, Basingstoke and London: Macmillan, pp. 15–35. —— (2001) Sovereignty and European Integration: Towards a Post-Hobbesian Order, London: Palgrave.

6

United Kingdom Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen

Introduction From a continental European perspective Britain appears, in many respects, to be a ‘little America’. In the UK, we find the biggest and best organized International Relations (IR) community in Europe with the biggest and best annual conference and a unique journal and book publication infrastructure. Compared to the rest of Europe these features are nothing but unique. But British IR is not simply ‘little America’. Indeed, with reference to special characteristics such as the integration of history and theory, the inclusion of fields of international law, international ethics, diplomatic studies, sociology, political theory and philosophy, and a tradition of theoretical pluralism and tolerance, it may be argued that British IR has qualitatively even more to offer than American IR. This makes it a formidable task to analyse British IR in any comprehensive or exhaustive fashion. Fortunately, several available accounts try to accomplish this task (Smith 1985, 2000; Hill 1989; Richardson 1990; Olson and Groom 1991; Holden 2002). In contrast to these accounts, this study has an inescapable character of a view from abroad with a focus on the cultural, institutional and theoretical aspects highlighted in the Introduction to this book, including (1) the most important debates and (2) the most important original British contributions to the development of IR theory since the symbolic initiation of the discipline in 1919. As a consequence of the latter point a great deal of attention is paid to the English School, the theoretical flagship of British IR. We are acutely aware that this will not be equally applauded in all quarters. However, while the theoretical and scientific claims of the English School can be disputed, it can hardly be disputed that this school has developed the best-known and most influential distinctly British contribution to IR theory. The school is also the backbone of British IR in the sense that it continues to give it identity and coherence. For many scholars it is a theoretical, methodological and normative position to write from, relate to or argue against, much as realism has been for American IR. Consequently, the English School has been at the centre of some heated debates in British IR and

150 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen beyond, sometimes as a part of a larger British movement as in the second great debate in the 1960s, sometimes as the object of criticism from other British quarters including critical theory and political theory, and sometimes in internal strife as, for instance, in the debate between conservative pluralists and progressive solidarists. The arguments are as follows. First, notwithstanding the recent qualification of the exact historical status of the realist–idealist debate in Western IR (Schmidt 1998; Wilson 1998), the English School evolved to some extent as a reaction to it. Moreover, the English School has taken a long time to get rid of its fear of becoming associated with the inter-war internationalism destroyed by E.H. Carr. Second, the comparative advantages of British IR are not only a consequence of an ability to combine political theory with IR theory as argued by Chris Brown (2000). It is, more broadly, a consequence of the multi-disciplinary classical approach which allows British scholars to draw also on international law in original analyses of institutional change, political community and the use of force to mention some leading examples. Third, the political theory of international society and its historical foundation in constitutive and fundamental institutions, international rules and international ethics provide British IR with a relatively stable and objective platform for critical evaluations of current political change. Most recently, this critical potential has been evident in evaluations of post-Cold War humanitarian intervention, the war against terror following 9/11 and not least the war against Iraq in 2003.

The formation of British IR: idealism, realism and the third way According to the conventional account, the rise of an independent IR discipline may be related to a double institutional move following the First World War: first, the creation of the League of Nations as an attempt to secure peace by means of international law and world organization; second, the creation of IR departments in the UK and the USA as a means of improving the academic knowledge of this subject and thereby contributing to the prevention of another disastrous world war (Zimmern 1939: 7–8; Olson 1972: 10–13, 16–18; Kennedy 1987: 852–63). Institutionally and normatively, British IR was indeed launched in the years following the First World War as an attempt to do better in the study of IR, and as a contribution to peace, order and cooperation. Thus, having taken over the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Politics (established in 1919) at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Charles K. Webster said in his inaugural lecture in February 1923 that if an ordered and scientific body of knowledge had existed in 1914, ‘the catastrophe might have been averted’ (Olson 1972: 10). Two other leading British IR professors of the inter-war period, Charles A.W. Manning (London) and

United Kingdom 151 Alfred Zimmern (the first IR professor in Aberystwyth), also believed in international law and organization, although Manning never expected more of the League of Nations than that the states were ‘willing and able to practice at any one time’ (Northedge 1979: 3). They also believed in the potential of the new discipline, even though Manning (1962: ix–xii, 211–13) – who played with terms such as ‘Social cosmology’ and ‘Metadiplomacy’ for the emerging discipline – argued that the field should be seen as unique and independent (although it was to draw on elements from sociology, international law, economics, diplomatic studies, ethics and philosophy), while Zimmern thought that it was rather a ‘special branch’ of established university disciplines including sociology, history, political science and philosophy (Zimmern 1939: 351–60; Olson 1972: 13–20). In spite of the leap forward following the First World War the element of continuity in early British IR should not be underestimated. When evaluating the discipline in 1938, S.H. Bailey pointed to diplomatic history, international law and early political science as relevant sources but without quite the optimism of 1919: diplomatic history was criticized for looking back, international lawyers for preferring case studies over theoretic analysis and political science for being too immature in Britain in contrast to the state of affairs in the USA (Olson 1972: 11–12). Bailey and others were apparently hoping for more, but in Britain the academic study of IR remained indebted to older university disciplines.1 Elements of continuity are not the same as a lack of progress, however. First, much of the work associated with liberal and legal internationalism was not simply of an idealist or speculative nature, it was also analytic, systematic and realistic. In early 1937, Webster systematically discussed the dimensions, problems and requirements of peaceful change while noting that the attempt to establish a system of collective security had failed (Webster 1937: 3–24). Similarly, Manning (1937: 178–90) discussed how Hersch Lauterpacht’s (1937: 140–65) proposal for the development of an international legislature could realistically be given political substance, namely in ways that foreshadowed much of the content of the United Nations (UN) and its Charter. Second, around the Second World War British IR fostered path-breaking classical realist work, most notably by E.H. Carr, Georg Schwarzenberger, Martin Wight and Herbert Butterfield. Most famous is Carr’s attack on liberal and internationalist utopianism which he contrasted with the detached realist analysis of power and conflicting national interests, but not without warning against realist cynicism and other shortcomings (Carr 1964: 89–94). Wight presented his historically informed and systematic analysis of power politics in 1946, while Butterfield contributed with important and original insight regarding the security dilemma a few years later (Butterfield 1949: 89–91; 1951: 17–29). Like the other classical realists, Butterfield took a historical and interpretive approach to the subject which allowed him to combine ideological

152 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen and structural elements in his account of the mutual fear associated with the security dilemma. In its legal, historical, institutionalist and classical realist quarters, British IR had thus become more systematic, more scientific and more theoretical at the beginning of the 1950s. However, British scholars remained indebted to classical disciplines such as history, law, sociology and philosophy, the common denominator of most of them being an interpretive and historical approach. This shows – as later British achievements – that the classical interpretive approach can perfectly well lead to the development of IR theory in spite of some American scepticism (Keohane 1988, 1989: 8). As for theoretical debate, the most important encounter was E.H. Carr’s 1939 attack on utopian idealism in The Twenty Years’ Crisis which played a central role in paving the way for the academic triumph of detached realism. In fact, the idealist–realist debate did not gain real strength until after the Second World War, although the distinction, and sometimes the direct encounter, between the utopians and the realists were present in inter-war publications on both sides of the Atlantic.2 However, in the years following the Second World War, the resentment of the internationalists over the realist rhetoric was outspoken. The distinguished international lawyer Hersch Lauterpacht (who was based in Britain from the early 1920s onwards) formulated his counter-attack on Carr and the leading American realists including Morgenthau, Kennan and Herz as follows: For what is the method of the typical realist who confronts us in argument? He says: ‘I am a realist; I am a sound person; I am a practical man; I look to realities; I see things as they are and not as I would like them to be.’ To his opponents he says: ‘You are a Utopian; you are a dreamer; you see people and events as what you think they ought to be and not as what they are’. (Lauterpacht 1975: 53)3 According to Lauterpacht, the realist thus only sees ‘the conspicuous fact of organized national society and the amorphous international community’, the state being ‘the guardian of a whole moral world, but not a factor within an organized world’ (ibid.: 61). Clearly, the internationalist quarters of British legal institutionalism had an image of international relations as grounded in an international societal reality, an image which grew out of ‘the Grotian tradition in international law’ (Lauterpacht 1946). Thus, in opposition to Carr’s (1964: 85–8) destructive (for internationalism) insistence on the relativist nature of any standard of international conduct, there was from an early point a conscious search for an academic via media in British IR. This is also evident from Manning’s (1937: 169–90) pragmatic but constructive discussion of some of Lauterpacht’s (1937: 135–65) internationalist proposals for world order. In contrast, Carr

United Kingdom 153 (1964: 162–9, 211–12) rejected both Lauterpacht and the idea of international society.4 Further progress in the development of a theoretical via media capable of integrating history and law into a political theory of international society took shape in the work of early English School writers during the first two decades following the Second World War. The rejection of the idealist–realist dualism, which excluded the Grotian tradition, was at the heart of Wight’s lectures on ‘international theory’ at the London School of Economics (LSE) in the late 1950s. Drawing on the classics of political theory and international law, Wight found something useful in all three traditions. Ultimately, however, he favoured the Grotian via media (Wight 1966b, 1991: 268) and stressed that the most fundamental question for the theory of international politics is ‘what is international society’? (Wight 1991: 30–48). Thus, in the second version of Power Politics (1978), Wight added a theory of the patterns, principles and institutions of international society to his older theory of the patterns of power, and in Systems of States (1977) he also accounted for the historical evolution and cultural underpinnings of European international society. Likewise, Manning developed his popular lectures on ‘the structure of international society’ at the LSE from 1949 onwards, and in 1962 he finally published his major work, The Nature of International Society, a highly original and lasting contribution drawing on sociological and linguistic analysis as well as jurisprudence.5 Butterfield became another leading figure in the English School in the 1960s after having established the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (another important institution in the history of British IR)6 with Wight in 1959. As pointed out by Timothy Dunne (1998: 71–88), Butterfield gradually left his tragic realist position in favour of a more Grotian outlook, and he made a strong contribution to the committee’s research agenda on the historical and comparative study of states systems along with Wight, Bull and Adam Watson.7 This original line of enquiry was launched in order to answer a number of big and ambitious questions: Does the history of mankind imply that any states system is likely to develop societal structures such as common rules, practices and institutions? How do such societal elements vary across different historically known states systems? Does order among political units require a degree of hierarchy such as great power concert, hegemony, dominion, suzerainty or empire? Is a common culture a necessary condition for the establishment of common societal structures? What happens to modern international society in the process of expansion? Other major committee contributions to the theory of international society include Diplomatic Investigations (Butterfield and Wight 1966) and The Anarchical Society by Hedley Bull (1977) which may be seen as the theoretical culmination of the work done by the first and second generation of English School writers based at the LSE, in the British Committee and elsewhere.8

154 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen What united these scholars was the Grotian point that international politics unfold inside a social and political order in which states as well as peoples, individuals, international organizations and a number of other actors are engaged in habitual and regularized interaction based on shared interests and values, shared norms and rules, and shared institutions and practices.9 The fundamental institutional analysis developed by especially Wight and later Bull, but discernible also in the work of Manning, Watson and Alan James, was a powerful way to escape the trappings of earlier idealist organizational studies in spite of the fact that the English School has never finished the task of accounting for the boundaries, the hierarchy and the working of such institutions (Buzan 2004: 161–204). International organizations such as the League of Nations and the UN are obviously much more vulnerable to change than are fundamental and constitutive meta-institutions like the mutual recognition of sovereignty, diplomacy, international law, the balance of power, great power management and war. Such institutions are grounded in the history of the states system and in its political and social logic. This is why Bull following Wight referred to international organizations as ‘pseudo institutions’ (Bull 1977: xiv), an observation which should serve to highlight the entirely different nature of fundamental institutions and not as an encouragement to disregard international organizations.10 For these reasons, fundamental institutions are a stronger basis of theory construction and analysis than international organizations, although this point has been hard to accept for American champions of neoliberal institutionalism (Keohane 1988). Another analytical and strategic advantage of the concept of fundamental institutions is that it brings power politics and state reason back in, but in a way which makes these aspects of international politics internal to and ultimately contingent upon international society and its most fundamental practices. This does not mean that the realist sources of inspiration should be dismissed, but the English School evolved more in opposition to the realist tradition of thought than as a qualification of it. This is very evident in Butterfield and Wight’s introduction to Diplomatic Investigations (1966: 11–13) and Bull’s (1966a) masterly essay ‘Society and anarchy in international relations’ from the same volume: a formidable attack on the domestic analogy regarding the Hobbesian state of nature in international relations and the associated elements of the realist position.

British IR and the second great debate: closing the US or closing the ES The members of the British Committee could not help noticing that the view on science and methodology held by many of their American colleagues inhibited a serious investigation into the political, historical, societal and moral questions they found important (Dunne 1998: 117, 122–4).

United Kingdom 155 These questions required the interpretive and inductive methods of what Butterfield and Wight (1966: 11, 12) called the ‘classical’ disciplines of history, philosophy, political theory, international law and military studies. This attitude was shared by the majority of British IR, and some scholars were also explicit in their rejection of the behaviouralist and positivist movement (Northedge 1976: 9). But it was Bull (1969) who stepped forward to confront American champions of behaviouralism and positivism such as Morton Kaplan, Thomas Schelling, David Singer, Karl Deutsch, Bruce Russett and Kenneth Boulding in his ‘case for a classical approach’. According to Bull (1969: 26–38), ‘hard’ methods such as the construction of models and hypotheses, verification and falsification, deduction, simulation, quantification and prediction were not applicable in any strict sense on key questions regarding international order, international society, fundamental institutions and normative dilemmas. It was like walking to the streetlight to search for something you had lost in the dark. Furthermore, by reducing international politics to an experimental game of identifying problems and designing solutions and by cutting themselves off from history and philosophy, the Americans had deprived themselves of the means of self-criticism (Bull 1969: 37). Instead Bull advocated the classical methods of judgement and interpretation derived from philosophy, history and law (Bull 1969: 20) to which he later added the Weberian demand for an explicit formulation and critical investigation of one’s own assumptions and values as well as the argument that verification and falsification is possible, but not without historical interpretation (Bull 1972: 32, 1977: xv). 11 There is no doubt that Bull – who had the backing of the great majority of British IR12 and strongholds also on the Continent and in some American quarters – managed to bring the traditionalists back on the offensive. He concluded his forceful attack on the American behaviouralists with an appeal to the (British) traditionalists that they ‘should remain resolutely deaf’ to demands from the Americans to follow them down the so-called scientific road (Bull 1969: 38).13 According to some observers, it even became common wisdom among the British traditionalist school and its offshoots in Australia, Canada and elsewhere that Bull ‘saved everybody else the trouble of taking the behaviouralists seriously’.14 Clearly, Bull’s self-confident and polemical attack on the behaviouralists amounted to a call for a closure of this new methodological turn in American IR. Later, however, some British scholars argued that it was rather the English School which ought to be closed. This challenge came from Roy E. Jones who blamed the school for a lack of precision, absence of central methods of the social sciences such as statistic analysis and models, and a habit of formulating research questions and theses which could not be answered or falsified with any certainty (Jones 1981: 1, 8). Obviously, Jones’ polemical critique of the English School – the name he had chosen for the circle of international society theorists he attacked and thus

156 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen brought into broader public knowledge – echoed the counter-arguments against Bull and the traditionalist camp raised by the American behaviouralists in the 1960s (Kaplan 1969: 43–4, 55–7; Vital 1969: 146–7, 153). In this way, British IR got its own internal version of the second great debate; somewhat delayed but no less polemical, although the tone was perhaps sharper among the still marginalized British followers of the socalled scientific approach than among the younger representatives of the English School who responded (Suganami 1983; Grader 1988; Wilson 1989). It should be noted, however, that Bull did not attack the American behaviouralists without second thoughts, including the acknowledgement that the behaviouralist demand for rigour, precision and structure was agreeable, but he hastened to add that these ideals were attainable and indeed attained within much work done in the classical approach (1969: 36; 1972: 51–2; 1976: 115). Moreover, many theorists of the English School and the broader traditionalist camp shared the interest of the (American) behaviouralists in systems analysis. It is true that the British have tended to prefer questions to hypotheses; institutional analysis to structural analysis; the identification of practices to the determination of processes; the formulation of general principles and likely scenarios to prediction; interpretation of meaning to observation of behaviour; and induction over deduction. But the goal has still remained the construction of general theory (international society, international order, international justice), middle-range theory (e.g. sovereign statehood, diplomacy, nationalism, intervention, situational ethics), and the establishment of a theoretical and analytical discipline. Moreover, holism, systems analysis, construction of middle-range theory, institutional analysis, precision, distinction and comparison are not techniques that require either an explanatory or an understanding approach (to take the terms favoured by Hollis and Smith 1990). This does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea to mix these two epistemological positions. The point is that many of the scientific standards of political science may be accomplished by taking both roads. This point is perhaps not fully recognized in British IR (neither by critics nor followers of the classical approach) which sometimes seems to regard political science as a superior science offering the possibility of attaining higher academic standards, if only the British could become fully integrated with it.15

Pluralist, solidarist and critical perspectives: friendly fire from Booth and Brown In his paper on ‘The Grotian conception of international society’, Hedley Bull (1966b) relaunched the classical distinction between the naturalist and the positivist position on the nature of international law now under

United Kingdom 157 the labels solidarism and pluralism. According to Bull, the question at issue between solidarists and pluralists is not so much concerned with what is actually contained in international law at a given point in time. It is rather a question as to what kind of legal rules are most appropriate to the working of international society: rules reflecting an assumption of a relatively high degree of international solidarity, cooperation and unity (solidarism), or rules reflecting a belief that international society is a pluralist order in which states agree on the requirements of coexistence but not on collective enforcement of common standards or the content of the ‘good life’ (pluralism). Unfortunately, the intention and effect of Bull’s essay was not to stimulate any real or broad English School inquiry into the nature and potential of the Grotian or solidarist conception of international society, although he managed to some extent to make up for this towards the end of his career (Bull 1983; Bull et al. 1990). On the whole, there has been a tendency among key members of the English School including not least Bull (1966b, 1977: 77–98) to dismiss the possibility of an international society organized more or less systematically along the principles of solidarism. Bull argued that solidarist ideas concerning human rights, the use of force and collective enforcement of international law were principles that, in the absence of sufficient international solidarity, could have the effect of ‘undermining those structures of the system, which might otherwise be secure’ (Bull 1966b: 70). Similarly, Butterfield and most of the members of the British Committee were uncomfortable when they were confronted with solidarist ideas as illustrated by Dunne in a fascinating passage on Wight’s attempt to defend the solidarist conception at a committee meeting (Dunne 1998: 100–4). Writers like Bull and Butterfield wanted to show where and how realism had got things wrong but without throwing themselves into the arms of the idealist streams of thought so terribly discredited by Carr and others in the mid-twentieth century. They wanted to recapture the Grotian theory of international society in a non-utopian form (Bull 1966a: 36–40, 1977). They wanted to avoid any risk of being accused of reducing the problems of international order and justice to a question of international regulation and organization (Bull 1966b: 69–73; Bull 1977: xiv, 40–52, 142–51). Arguably, the shadow of Carr’s 1939 attack on the utopians continued to inform mainstream British IR, possibly even into the 1990s.16 Thus, in spite of Wight’s forceful intervention in favour of the solidarist position and in spite of John Vincent’s (1986) careful reopening of it, the distinction between pluralism and solidarism has, at least until recently, mostly served as an analytical bastion from which caution and prudence could be encouraged and ideas of human rights and world governance exposed to what was considered a necessary critique and warning. Not surprisingly, this internal tension between a conservative pluralism and a less visible progressive solidarism has given rise to a great deal of criticism of

158 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen the English School and some doubt regarding its merits, not least in the ethical and critical quarters of British IR. Chris Brown, to take one leading example of a (mostly) friendly critic, has sometimes put forward an ambivalent evaluation of the school and its founding figures. On the one hand, Brown seems to be unwilling to forgive Martin Wight for his famous essay ‘Why is there no international theory?’, in which he argued that whereas political theory has to do with the promotion of the ‘good life’ in domestic society and thus with governance and progress, international theory is inherently about repetition and thus the domain of the historian rather than the philosopher: international theory ⫽ historical interpretation (Wight 1966a: 32–3). Brown (2000: 116–17) finds this position disappointing, arguing that David Boucher’s Political Theories of International Relations is one ‘very good reason for scepticism about the English School’ since Boucher ‘comprehensively destroys the notion that there is no classical international theory’. This statement overlooks the fact that in his lectures on the three traditions of thought developed in the late 1950s, Wight (1966b, 1991) gave an original and ground-breaking answer to his own deliberately provocative (Butterfield and Wight 1966: 13) call for the construction of an independent discipline and theory of international politics with rich references to classical political theorists and writers on international law including a majority of those whom Chris Brown (2000: 117) finds adequately discussed in the much more recent work of Boucher. On this point, Brown gives Wight too little credit. On the other hand, Brown finds much hope in the English School. Having consented to Stanley Hoffman’s (1977) and Ole Wæver’s (1998a) main conclusion that IR remains – more or less – an American social science, Brown (2000: 115) argues that owing partly to the general British preference for the classical approach, partly to the continuing importance of the English School, British IR has a comparative advantage over American IR when it comes to the point where IR theory meets political theory, his main examples being humanitarian intervention and the changing nature of political community (Brown 2000: 115).

Humanitarian intervention and political community On humanitarian intervention, Brown’s focus on the moral responsibility of the international community to act – and its responsibility to do so in accordance with international law and organization – corresponds with the views of other more or less friendly critics of the English School such as Ken Booth, Fred Halliday and Martin Shaw. These scholars have posed the challenging question whether international society, as accounted for and defended by the English School, is more a ‘tolerator of human wrongs’ (Booth’s expression) than a ‘protector of human rights’ as Nicholas Wheeler (1996: 129–33) and Timothy Dunne (1995) have put it when addressing this challenge. Likewise, Booth (1994) and Halliday

United Kingdom 159 (1994: 102) have indicated that the theory of international society has served to rationalize self-interested great power behaviour and disrespect of international law including the rights and duties of the individual, while Shaw (1994: 132–5, 173–6) has called for a stricter collective protection of populations at risk and thus for a stronger academic critique of post-Cold War international society. Although the approach is different and the tone less dusty, this critique of the English School resembles the views on the individual, international law and international organization put forward by earlier solidarist writers (e.g. Lauterpacht 1946). The ability of the English School to face up to these solidarist and critical challenges – and thus to fulfil the potential identified by Chris Brown – depends on its ability to expose the state and the international order to critical evaluation, and its ability to point to, rather than exclude or suppress, possibilities of solidarist and progressive change which are either right at hand or not entirely out of the question in the longer run. To be fair, the pluralists have not completely excluded the possibility of collectively authorized (humanitarian) intervention (Bull 1984: 194–5; Jackson 2000: 249–59). Still, among the first two generations of English School writers only Wight gave whole-hearted and unconditional support to the solidarist conception of international society and the doctrine of humanitarian intervention. He considered the solidarist view that individuals, peoples and international organizations are bearers of international rights and duties along with the state to be more fruitful and more ‘flexible and true to the variety of international life’ than the theoretically more clearcut state-focused positivist doctrine (Wight 1966b: 101–2). Moreover, at a time when the general opinion was that it had been discredited in theory and practice, he gave his support to the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, arguing that it ‘may present itself as an exercise, not simply of the right of self-preservation, but of the duty of fellow-feeling and cooperation’ (Wight 1966b: 116). Strikingly, Wight discussed and defended the doctrine of humanitarian intervention as well as the broader solidarist conception of international society with exactly the kind of originality that Brown has rightly located in the English School and British IR more generally, namely a combination of international society theory and political theory as well as an equally important historical and legal analysis. Human rights and humanitarian intervention have also been defended by a few third-generation English School scholars, but with caution. On human rights John Vincent (1986: 152) concluded that ‘there is now an area of domestic conduct . . . that is under the scrutiny of international law’. Similarly, Adam Roberts has written with sympathy about international humanitarian law and the evolution of a practice of humanitarian intervention at the UN in the 1990s, but not without warning us that the key problems of humanitarian intervention have not yet been solved (Roberts 1993, 1999). The strongest English School (and British) case for humanitarian intervention against genocide and atrocities has thus come

160 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen from the fourth generation of the English School, especially Nicholas Wheeler and his Saving Strangers (2000), which stands out as a forceful challenge to all relevant actors in international politics to turn moral consciousness into moral action.17 A theory of humanitarian responsibility and humanitarian intervention informed by the solidarist conception of international society and substantiated by reference to international history, international humanitarian law and international organization thus runs in the English School from Wight to Vincent, Roberts and Wheeler. Adding pluralist insights to this, there is also a basis for discussing the political and ethical dilemmas triggered by humanitarian intervention (Roberts 1993; 1999; Jackson 2000: 249–93).18 However, in the attempt to identify and strengthen the bases of international humanitarian action, the English School still needs the support of solidarist and critical quarters. On the transformation of political community – the second stronghold of the English School and British IR identified by Brown (2000) – one central question is whether the English School can deal with the development from a primarily interstate and Western European Community to a strongly integrated pan-European Union with supranational elements. This development – which involves dynamics of inclusion and exclusion, the stipulation of rights and duties for the individual and new forms of citizenship and governance – has been desired and foreseen in the work of Andrew Linklater for a long time, although The Transformation of Political Community is perhaps his strongest statement concerning the potential of contemporary international society with respect to the extension of political community and citizenship both above and below the state (Linklater 1998: esp. 184–203). In such analyses, Wight’s (1977, 1978) work on order and society as circles of political community organized and held together by principles of legitimacy, cultural bonds and practices of inclusion and exclusion offers valuable inspiration.19 Linklater’s work is rather unique, but there have been other English School-inspired studies of the EU and of political community more generally, for instance, under the auspices of the so-called reconvening of the English School where this is a priority (Buzan 2001: 485; 2004: 195–204, 206, 211).

Institutional change and institutional challenge: ICC and the war against Iraq Arguably, the comparative advantages of British IR are relevant not only to humanitarian intervention and political community but also to most changes in the institutional bases of international society. One obvious example could be the recent establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which calls for studies focusing on the international legal and political consequences of this solidarist institutional innovation. Marc Weller’s (2002) analysis of the US attempt to prevent the ICC from

United Kingdom 161 achieving any practical importance is a good example of such a line of enquiry. Another example is the political, legal and ethical implications of the de facto revival of international trusteeship arrangements in the late 1990s with Kosovo and East Timor as the primary examples. Here solidarist analyses by scholars such as Mervin Frost (1991) and Peter Lyon (1993) have been countered by pluralist analyses by Robert Jackson (2000: 294–315) and Will Bain (2003). Thus, conservatism runs in the English School alongside progressivism. Together, however, these two strands of British IR provide a platform for a theoretically informed debate about the responsibility of the international community for war-torn and failed societies. It should also be noted that there is a special English School tradition for a critical evaluation of great power behaviour. The theoretical starting point for such analyses is not least Bull’s (1977: 200–29, 297–301) argument that great power responsibilities for international order and society involve not only special rights, but also special duties. Consequently, the great powers can act more or less as great responsibles or great irresponsibles (Bull 1980). In the 1990s, these analyses focused on the will (or lack of will) of the great powers to intervene politically and militarily against atrocities, civil war and state failure around the world. After the terror attacks on New York and Washington on 11 September 2001, the focus of attention has been the way the USA has handled the challenge from terrorism and rogue states in the so-called war against terror, which has triggered a number of critical reactions from British scholars. Not surprisingly, the doctrine of preventive war launched by the Bush administration has been deplored or condemned not only in solidarist and critical but also in pluralist quarters of British IR, not least in light of the subsequent war against Iraq in 2003. To claim a right of preventive war comes close to rejecting the principle of non-intervention and the general ban on the use of force in international law. The current US National Security Strategy therefore presents a serious challenge to some of the institutional bases of international order. For these reasons, Roberts (2003: 45–8) deplored that the war against Iraq was fought partly on the basis (and inevitably in the light) of the US attempt to revive the old doctrine of preventive war. However, he did not clearly condemn the attack on Iraq, in spite of the fact that the UN Security Council did not authorize the use of force in order to disarm Iraq, and in spite of the fact that only a minority of the members of the Security Council (and of the UN) were of the opinion that the time had come to give up the weapons inspections and resort to force (Knudsen 2004). A clear condemnation of the war against Iraq has come from other English School writers, however, most notably Dunne (2003: 309–17). According to Dunne, the war against Iraq amounted to an attack on some of the constitutive principles of international order and international society including the principle of non-intervention, the ban on the use of

162 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen force, and the obligation to respect international rules and share in the working of international institutions. In Dunne’s sharp conclusion this amounts to an attack on international society itself, and he argues that the USA has for the moment ‘contracted out of international society’ (Dunne 2003: 316).20 Some might argue that Dunne has taken his argument concerning the US assault on international society to the limit. However, there is no doubt that US policy since 9/11 amounts to a rejection of at least the solidarist conception of international society and its assumptions concerning the role of international law and international organization. Pluralist foundations like non-intervention and the general ban on the use of force have also been shaken. To believers in international society much comfort may be found in the fact that the war against Iraq and the arguments on which it was based were turned down by a clear majority of states inside and outside the UN Security Council. Consequently, the USA has not succeeded in changing the basic rules of international society through dictate. It has merely succeeded in breaking international law, but under widespread international protest, something that can be handled inside the theory and practice of international society. However, it was surrender to unilateral great power dictate concerning changes in constitutive principles and institutions of international society which was at stake under the confrontation over Iraq in the UN Security Council and beyond (Knudsen 2004). Therefore, the article by Dunne is a formidable testimony of the critical potential of the English School. Moreover, the critique is not informed by anti-great power sentiments but by the theory of the institutional bases of international society. In conclusion, Chris Brown’s well-taken point about the comparative advantages of British IR can be taken considerably further if we do not stop where IR theory meets political and normative theory. International law is a third important leg in many strong British analyses of international use of force, political community and institutional innovation. Furthermore, it makes quite a difference whether the IR theory in question is the international society approach or the American flagships of realism, liberalism and constructivism.

The ‘reconvening’ of the English School and the prospects of fruitful encounters The question is, however, whether this comparative advantage is uniquely British. Traditionally, international law and political theory have been important elements also in some continental IR communities along with the classical approach, and continental Europe has proud traditions when it comes to the study of political community and humanitarian intervention (Knudsen 1997). If there is ‘fog in the channel’ as argued by Brown (2001), it is more by choice than by necessity. As a

United Kingdom 163 matter of fact, British IR has been guilty of a certain lack of interest in continental scholarship. With the exception of particularly ECPR sessions and the pan-European conferences in the 1990s, encounters with continental IR theory have been individual rather than institutional. Examples include Barry Buzan, who is a co-founder of the Copenhagen School, and John Groom, who has cultivated relations with the French scene. Similarly, a traditional Southern notion such as ‘the sociology of international relations’ – widespread in France, Italy and Spain – suggests that there is some commonality between the English School and these IR communities as also evident from the contributions to this volume, but not many have cared to explore it. Commonality is also indicated by the fact that in many textbooks a leading French theorist like Raymond Aron is often boxed as an ‘awkward realist’, a fate often shared by Wight, Butterfield and Bull. There is also the flaring similarity between Aron and E.H. Carr in the sense of being multi-faceted, impossible to box and therefore the source of enduring debate. Concerning epistemology, the triangle Aron, Carr and Karl Mannheim is crying out for further exploration. Apparently Steve Smith (2000: 398) is right when he states that ‘the UK IR profession has a very ambiguous relationship with the development of a European IR community’. Some conclude that the UK cannot constitute a credible counter-hegemonic force on its own (whereas a common IR European community potentially can) while others fear that the European road ‘threatens the cohesion of the Anglo-American intellectual tradition by involving other very different intellectual communities and traditions’. Smith’s (2000: 394–400) own sympathy is clearly with those who see British IR as being already very different from, and much healthier than, American IR, and with those (e.g. Wæver 1998a) who argue that continental European and British IR are moving together to form a counterweight to the predominantly realist and rational choice inspired American hegemony. This is also part of the rationale of the current attempt led by Barry Buzan to ‘reconvene’ the English School, a formulation that should be read as a commitment to continue and strengthen the work in this tradition.21 One of Buzan’s key ambitions is that the English School should now fulfil its potential as a general perspective on IR comparable to realism, liberalism, constructivism and post-positivism on a worldwide scale, and the school is actually seen as such in a number of recent publications (Stern 1995; Burchill and Linklater 1996; Wæver 1998b; Jackson and Sørensen 2003; Sterling-Folker 2005). Moreover, the English School’s emphasis on intersubjectively shared constitutive norms and rules as well as its interpretive methodology are consonant with at least part of the increasingly influential constructivist IR literature as pointed out in a number of contributions since the late 1980s (Wendt and Duvall 1989; Dunne 1995; Wæver 1998b; Reus-Smit 2005).

164 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen However, the English School can hardly approve of American attempts to build a constructivist IR theory on positivist foundations. As was pointed out in a sharp critique of mainstream (American) constructivism by Steve Smith (2000: 389–92), Alexander Wendt’s (and Adler’s and Checkel’s) version of constructivism may be seen as an attempt to conquer the middle ground of IR by combining a post-positivist position on ontology and a positivist position on methodology and epistemology. In this way, constructivism becomes the third leg in the rationalist neo–neo research programme founded in the late 1980s, and thus an integral part of the American mainstream. In contrast, the English School combines its historical and sociological analysis of intersubjectively shared norms, rules and institutions with an interpretive approach. Consequently, it has basically the same quarrels with the more positivist version of constructivism as it had with American behaviouralism in the 1960s. For these reasons, the English School seems to have the closest relationship with what Smith (2000: 391) calls ‘neo-classical’ social constructivism derived from Weber and Durkheim, and with the interpretive IR variant developed by Nicholas Onuf and Friedrich Kratochwil focusing on language, rules and choices. In any case, the encounter between the English School and constructivism promises to add historical and conceptual depth to what is increasingly recognized as a common productive alternative to materialist and rationalist approaches. Similarly, there have been fruitful encounters between the English School and post-positivist approaches as evident, for instance, in the work by Rob Walker (1993) on sovereignty and Der Derian (1987) on diplomacy. Given its interpretive methodology and its intersubjective ontology, the English School was in a strong position when the post-positivist turn came to IR in the late 1980s. Der Derian’s (1995) International Theory: Critical Investigations – which is a collection of essays by classical English School and contemporary critical writers on IR theory with the rejection of realism as the common denominator – is the testimony of a fruitful encounter. Such encounters are part of Buzan’s ambitious English School programme as outlined in the 2001 symposium in the Review of International Studies, 27(3). Other aims include encounters with political economy and the development of theoretical categories such as world society, regional societies and the solidarist-pluralist framework (Buzan 2004). To this must be added further studies on traditional English School strongholds such as international ethics, international law, international intervention and war as well as studies on subjects where the English School should have more to offer, such as the European Union. The greatest ambition, however, is to create a ‘great conversation’ about IR theory and international politics around the English School (Buzan 2001: 481). In this view, the English School provides a platform and a framework for disciplinary integration, not necessarily as a source of a grand theory (a burning ambition behind several of Buzan’s major works), but more as a site for a

United Kingdom 165 meaningful dialogue between perspectives which might find it difficult to communicate outside the international society framework. This is a constructive point of view. However, as a distinct theory about international politics, the English School must at the same time be able to remain faithful to its key concepts of international society, international order and international justice, and possibly also to the central analytical and methodological elements of historical interpretation and institutional analysis, if it is going to continue to prosper as a distinct and original platform of analysis alongside realism, liberalism, constructivism and critical theory.

Conclusion In terms of major debates, British IR has acted both as a forceful and critical challenger of the American dominated mainstream and as a more conservative defender of the theoretical and political status quo. On the one hand, the largely home-grown international society perspective has for a long time served as a clear and potentially radical challenge to realism and neo-realism as well as to the realist–idealist dualism associated with the ‘first great debate’ in IR. Likewise, the general British preference for interpretive and reflectivist approaches has persistently offered an alternative to behaviouralism and positivism. Currently, this points to a natural alliance between the English School and ‘classical’ or critical constructivism as a counterweight to a possible cooptation of mainstream constructivism into the neo–neo programme. On the other hand, the pluralist part of the English School has at times been in opposition to solidarist and critical scholarship calling for and pointing to elements of progressive change. This pluralist conservatism may be explained partly by a long-lasting fear of being associated with the discredited liberal institutionalism of the inter-war period, and partly by a strong belief in the theoretically derived requirements of international order. However, with its solidarist and critical quarters and its special institutional background, which has led to a fruitful combination of international society theory, political theory, legal analysis and historical interpretation, British IR has a strong potential for critical analysis. This is evident from a number of recent contributions on humanitarian intervention and the war against terror following 9/11; analyses informed not by anti-great power feelings, but by a theory of the institutional and normative foundations of international society. Finally, it should be possible for British IR to come to terms with its difficult relationship with political science. The scientific ideals and standards of political science are perfectly attainable within an interpretive and multi-disciplinary approach, and in much British work such standards are also well reflected. Indeed, the most influential British contribution to the theory of international relations, the international society perspective, has been developed on the basis of the classical approach.

166 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen

Notes 1 With contributors from history, economics, law and sociology, Manning’s Peaceful Change (1937) is a case in point. 2 See Kennedy’s (1987: 873–8, 896–8) account of the clashes of (allegedly) utopian and pragmatic-realist thinking during the First World War and the inter-war period, his point being, however, that the there was a ‘continual historical relocation of the boundary between utopian aspiration and pragmatic realism’, p. (877). 3 Lauterpacht’s paper ‘On realism, especially in International Relations’ from 1953 was originally presented at a meeting in the prominent Carlyle Club, Cambridge, but it is representative of the scepticism towards realism that Lauterpacht also expressed elsewhere. For other counter-attacks on Carr and the realists see Wilson 1998. 4 For further discussion see Knudsen 2000: 197–8. On Carr’s relationship with the English School see also Dunne 1998: 23–46. 5 On Manning’s importance see James 1973; Northedge 1979; Stern 1995; Suganami 2001. 6 For a splendid account of the British Committee and its English School writers see Dunne 1998. 7 The main products of this work are Wight 1977, Bull and Watson 1984 and Watson 1992. 8 The international society approach was from an early point spread all over Britain (and the former empire) not only through publication, but also due to the mobility of first- and second-generation English School scholars. Former and current English School bastions include the LSE, Sussex, Oxford, Aberystwyth, Keele, Leicester, Cambridge and the Australian National University. 9 The primacy ascribed to the state over other actors in international politics varies from writer to writer. 10 Wight devoted a chapter to both the League of Nations and the UN in the second version of Power Politics (1978), and in Bull’s main work, The Anarchical Society (1977), there are numerous references to international organizations, especially as instruments for the working of fundamental institutions. 11 In his attack on the behaviouralists, Bull (1969: 20) pointed to Zimmern, Carr, Morgenthau, Schwarzenberger, Aron and Wight as examples of the classical approach. 12 According to Bull (1969: 22), the work of the American behaviouralists (also called the scientific school) had, with one or two exceptions, failed to command the respect or even the attention of British IR theorists. 13 Bull’s article was first presented at the Tenth Bailey Conference on the University Teaching of International Relations at the London School of Economics in January 1966. 14 Martin Indyk cited in Richardson 1990: 154. 15 Some scholars have recognized that integration is already a fact. Northedge (1976: 11–33) made his systematic case for the existence of an orderly international political system with references to classics of political science such as Laswell and Simmel, and Bull (1966b: 69–70) saw the pluralist–solidarist debate as ‘a matter of Political Science rather than International Law’. 16 On the traditional scepticism of the English School towards solidarism see Dunne 1998: 100–4, 106–7, 144–52, and Knudsen 1999, 2000. 17 Recently, the broader solidarist conception has also been supported by Buzan (2004: 139–60). 18 This raises the question whether solidarist and pluralist assumptions about

United Kingdom 167 humanitarian intervention can be reconciled into a consistent theory of humanitarian intervention (Knudsen 1999). 19 Interesting follow-ups include Gong 1984, 2002; Watson 1992; Wæver 1996; Donnelly 1998; Buzan and Little 2000. 20 The US policy following 9/11 has also been criticized by Andrew Hurrell (2002) and Nick Wheeler (2002) to mention two examples. 21 Buzan 2001. See also the associated website: http://www.ukc.ac.uk/politics/ englishschool/.

References Bain, W. (2003) Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Booth, K. (1994) ‘Duty and prudence’, in L. Freedman (ed.) Military Intervention in European Conflicts, Oxford: Blackwell. Brown, C. (2000) ‘International political theory – a British social science?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(1): 114–23. —— (2001) ‘Fog in the Channel: continental relations theory isolated (Or an essay on the paradoxes of diversity and parochialism in IR theory)’, in M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Science? Towards Diversity in International Thought, New York: SUNY Press. Bull, H. (1966a) ‘Society and anarchy in International Relations’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen & Unwin. —— (1966b) ‘The Grotian conception of international society’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen & Unwin. —— (1969) ‘International theory: the case for a classical approach’, in K. Knorr and J.N. Rosenau (eds) Contending Approaches to International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (also in World Politics, April 1966). —— (1972) ‘The theory of international politics 1919–1969’, in B. Porter (ed.) The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919–1969, London: Oxford University Press. —— (1976) ‘Martin Wight and the theory of international relations: The Second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture’, British Journal of International Studies 2: 101–16. —— (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London: Macmillan. —— (1980) ‘The great irresponsibles? The United States, the Soviet Union, and world order’, International Journal 35(3): 437–47. —— (1983) ‘The Hagey Lectures’, Waterloo: The University of Waterloo. —— (ed.) (1984) Intervention in World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds) (1984) The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bull, H., Kingsbury, B. and Roberts, A. (eds) (1990) Hugo Grotius and International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burchill, S. and Linklater, A. (eds) (1996) Theories of International Relations, London: Macmillan. Butterfield, H. (1949) Christianity and History, London: G. Bell & Sons. —— (1951) History and Human Relations, London: Collins.

168 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen Butterfield, H. and Wight, M. (eds) (1966) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen & Unwin. Buzan, B. (2001) ‘The English School: an underexploited resource in IR’, Review of International Studies 27(3): 471–88. —— (2004) From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buzan, B. and Little, R. (2000) International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Carr, E.H. (1964) The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939, New York and Evanston: Harper Torchbooks. Der Derian, J. (1987) On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement, Oxford: Blackwell. —— (eds) (1995) International Theory: Critical Investigations, London: Macmillan. Donnelly, J. (1998) ‘Human rights: a new standard of civilization?’, International Affairs 74(1): 1–24. Dunne, T. (1995) ‘The social construction of international society’, European Journal of International Relations 1(3): 367–89. —— (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School, London and Oxford: Macmillan. —— (2003) ‘Society and hierarchy in International Relations’, International Relations 17(3): 303–20. Frost, M. (1991) ‘What ought to be done about the condition of states?’, in C. Navari (ed.) The Condition of States, Buckingham: Open University Press. Gong, G.W. (1984) The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press. —— (2002) ‘Standards of civilization today’, in M. Mozaffari (ed.) Globalization and Civilizations, London: Routledge. Grader, S. (1988) ‘The English School of International Relations: evidence and evaluation’, Review of International Studies 14 (January): 29–44. Halliday, F. (1994) Rethinking International Relations, London: Macmillan. Hill, C. (1989) ‘The study of International Relations in the United Kingdom’, in H.C. Dyer and L. Mangasarian (eds) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, London: Macmillan. Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American social science: International Relations’. Daedalus 106: 41–60. Holden, G. (2002) ‘Who contextualizes the contextualizers? Disciplinary history and the discourse about IR discourse’, Review of International Studies 28(2): 253–70. Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (1990) Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hurrell, A. (2002) ‘There are no rules (George W. Bush): international order after September 11’, International Relations 16(2): 185–202. Jackson, R. (2000) The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G. (2003) Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press. James, A. (1973) The Bases of International Order: Essays in the Honour of C.A.W. Manning, London: Oxford University Press. Jones, R.E. (1981) ‘The English School of International Relations: a case for closure’, Review of International Studies 7(1): 1–13.

United Kingdom 169 Kaplan, M. (1969) ‘The new great debate: traditionalism vs. science in International Relations’, in K. Knorr and J.N. Rosenau (eds) Contending Approaches to International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kennedy, D. (1987) ‘The move to institutions’, Cardozo Law Review 8: 841–988. Keohane, R.O. (1988) ‘International institutions: two approaches’, International Studies Quarterly 32(4): 379–96. —— (1989) International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Knudsen, T.B. (1997) ‘European approaches to humanitarian intervention: from just war to assistance – and back again?’, in K.E. Jørgensen (ed.) European Approaches to Crisis Management, The Hague: Kluwer Law International. —— (1999) Humanitarian Intervention and International Society: Contemporary Manifestations of an Explosive Doctrine, Aarhus: Department of Political Science. —— (2000) ‘Theory of society or society of theorists? With Tim Dunne in the English School’, Cooperation and Conflict 35(2): 193–203. —— (2004) ‘Denmark and the war against Iraq: losing sight of internationalism?, in Danish Foreign Policy Yearbook 2004, Copenhagen: Danish Institute for International Studies. Lauterpacht, H. (1937) ‘The legal aspect’, in C.A.W. Manning (ed.) Peaceful Change: An International Problem, London: Macmillan. —— (1946) ‘The Grotian tradition in international law’, British Year Book of International Law 23: 1–53. —— (1975) ‘On Realism, especially in International Relations’, in E. Lauterpacht (ed.) International Law Being the Collected Papers of Hersch Lauterpacht (Vol. 2), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paper presented to the Carlyle Club, Cambridge, 10 October 1953. Linklater, A. (1998) The Transformation of Political Community, Cambridge: Polity Press. Lyon, P. (1993) ‘The rise and fall and possible revival of international trusteeship’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics 31(1): 96–110. Manning, C.A.W. (1937) ‘Some suggested conclusions’, in C.A.W. Manning (ed.) Peaceful Change: An International Problem, London: Macmillan. —— (1962) The Nature of International Society, London: The London School of Economics and G. Bell. Northedge, F.S. (1976) The International Political System, London: Faber and Faber. —— (1979) ‘In memoriam: Charles Manning 1894–1978’, British Journal of International Studies 5: 1–5. Olson, W.C. (1972) ‘The growth of a discipline’, in B. Porter (ed.) The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919–1969, London: Oxford University Press. Olson, W.C. and Groom, A.J.R. (1991) International Relations Then and Now, London: HarperCollins. Reus-Smit, C. (2005) ‘The constructivist challenge of September 11’, in A.J. Bellamy (ed.) International Society and its Critics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Richardson, J.L. (1990) ‘The academic study of International Relations’, in J.D.B. Miller and R.J. Vincent (eds) Order and Violence: Hedley Bull and International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roberts, A. (1993) ‘Humanitarian war: military intervention and human rights’, International Affairs 69(3): 429–49. —— (1999) ‘NATO’s “Humanitarian War” over Kosovo’, Survival 41(3): 102–23.

170 K.E. Jørgensen and T.B. Knudsen —— (2003) ‘Law and the use of force after Iraq’, Survival 45(2): 31–56. Schmidt, B.C. (1998) The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations, New York: SUNY Press. Shaw, M. (1994) Global Society and International Relations, Cambridge: Polity Press. Smith, S. (1985) International Relations: British and American Perspectives, Oxford: Blackwell. —— (2000) ‘The discipline of International Relations: still an American social science?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(3): 374–402. Sterling-Folker, J. (ed.) (2005) Making Sense of International Relations, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Stern, G. (1995) The Structure of International Society: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, London: Pinter. Suganami, H. (1983) ‘The structure of institutionalism: an anatomy of British mainstream International Relations’, International Relations 7: 2363–81. —— (2001) ‘C.A.W. Manning and the study of International Relations’, Review of International Studies 27(1): 91–107. Vincent, R.J. (1986) Human Rights and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vital, D. (1969) ‘Back to Machiavelli’, in K. Knorr and J.N. Rosenau (eds) Contending Approaches to International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wæver, O. (1996) ‘Europe’s three empires: a Watsonian interpretation of post-wall European security’, in R. Fawn and J. Larkins (eds) International Society after the Cold War: Anarchy and Order Reconsidered, London: Macmillan. —— (1998a) ‘The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52(4) 687–727. —— (1998b) ‘Four meanings of international society: a trans-Atlantic dialogue’, in B.A. Roberson (ed.) International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, London: Pinter. Walker, R.B.J. (1993) Inside/Outside International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watson, A. (1992) The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis, London: Routledge. Webster, C.K. (1937) ‘What is the problem of peaceful change?’, in C.A.W. Manning (ed.) Peaceful Change: An International Problem, London: Macmillan. Weller, M. (2002)’Undoing the global constitution: UN Security Council action on the International Criminal Court’, International Affairs 78(4): 693–712. Wendt, A. and Duvall, R. (1989) ‘Institutions and international order’, in E.O. Czempiel and J.N. Rosenau (eds) Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for 1990’s, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Wheeler, N. (1996) ‘Guardian angel or global gangster: a review of the ethical claims of international society’, Political Studies 44: 123–35. —— (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press. —— (2002) ‘Dying for “enduring freedom”: accepting responsibility for civilian casualties in the war against terrorism’, International Relations 16(2): 202–25. Wheeler, N. and Dunne, T. (1995) ‘The society of states: protector of human

United Kingdom 171 rights or tolerator of human wrongs’, Paper for the Second European Conference in IR, Paris. Wight, M. (1966a) ‘Why is there no international theory?’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen & Unwin. —— (1966b) ‘Western values in International Relations’, in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds) Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, London: Allen & Unwin. —— (1977) Systems of States, Leicester: Leicester University Press. —— (1978) (1946) Power Politics, Leicester: Leicester University Press. —— (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions, Leicester: Leicester University Press. Wilson, P. (1989) ‘The English School of International Relations: a reply to Sheila Grader’, Review of International Studies 15: 49–58. —— (1998) ‘The myth of the “First great debate” ’, Review of International Studies 24 (December): 1–15. Zimmern, A. (1939) L’Ensignement Universitaire des Relations Internationales, Paris: Institut International de Cooperation Intellectuelle.

7

The Czech Republic Petr Drulák and Radka Druláková

Introduction Stanley Hoffmann (1995/1977) once called the discipline of International Relations (IR) ‘an American Social Science’. He argued that the fully fledged discipline of IR is a recent phenomenon which came into being only in the USA after the Second World War and nowhere else. He explained the American disciplinary dominance by ‘the political preeminence of the United States’ due to which American IR research can make a difference in world politics, and by the fact that the USA was a democratic country. In contrast, pre-eminent totalitarian states did not develop free social science at all (Hoffmann 1995/1977: 224). Hence, while in some countries scholars were prevented from undertaking IR scholarship by their totalitarian masters, in other countries scholars were not interested in IR scholarship because their country was lacking power and it could not put their advice into effect in any event. Czechoslovakia managed to suffer both obstacles to the development of IR which Hoffmann mentioned. It was a small country with negligible power resources which could never aspire to leadership in international politics and, at the same time, it was a totalitarian state where any social science scholarship was placed under stifling constraints. Nevertheless, there is one factor, omitted by Hoffmann, which makes IR studies a worthwhile project in smaller countries. Generally, small countries are much more sensitive to the international environment than great powers. They have to count on external resources both in the economy and for security. This calls for academic inquiry into the diplomatic, military and political conditions for the survival and prosperity of small powers, and thus for the cultivation of an academic discipline of IR. Today as before, the lack of resources may constrain scholars working in small post-communist countries: shortages of books, journals and qualified researchers, and the totalitarian legacy still burden the discipline. In spite of this, these countries have developed their own IR studies which, besides the pursuit of pure knowledge, also try to provide foreign policy advice to their governments.

The Czech Republic 173 There are several ways of conceptualizing the IR discipline. The explanatory model suggested by Wæver (1998: 695) is especially worth mentioning. He distinguishes between three layers of different aspects of the discipline. The first layer of ‘society and polity’ includes intellectual styles, traditions of political thought, state–society relations and foreign policy, the second layer of ‘social sciences’ concerns the general conditions of social science and disciplinary divisions, while the third one of ‘intellectual activities in IR’ is about the social and intellectual structure of IR. However, this elaborate scheme presupposes well-established traditions of IR thinking and of social sciences as well as a well-developed institutional infrastructure. In our case, we tread on much shakier ground and we have to put up with a somewhat cruder model. We will conceptualize the discipline distinguishing three levels – institutions, outputs and people. There is an umbilical cord between the institutions and the discipline (i.e. the disciplines have to have institutions within which they are cultivated). Thus the question about the state of the discipline translates into a question about the state of institutions. This dimension seems to be significant in the case of IR studies. After all, the beginning of the discipline of IR is marked by the foundation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at Aberystwyth in 1919 (Smith 1995: 14). Yet the institutions, important as they are, provide only a framework for the courses, books and articles through which ideas are transmitted within the discipline and which give content to the discipline. These transmitters of ideas which create the very essence of the discipline will be analysed in the second step. However, neither the institutions nor the outputs would be possible without the people who teach and publish. Hence, in the third step we take a closer look at the practitioners of IR. This synchronic analysis, focusing on current Czech IR, will be completed by a diachronic reflection on the evolution of IR in Czechoslovakia (i.e. since the creation of the independent state in 1918). The diachronic reflection is necessary as it shows several discontinuities in the evolution of the discipline providing context for understanding the current situation. Moreover, it also hints at important continuities. We identify two recurrent features which are relevant to the whole period of the twentieth century. First, at the institutional level, the discipline has always been decisively shaped by the political interests of ruling elites. Therefore, political commitments played a more important role than methodological or theoretical ones. Second, at the research level, German foreign policy, its domestic policies and Czech–German relations has been the most researched topic. However, before going into the analysis, an important caveat is in order. Both authors consider themselves as members of the youngest generation of the Czech IR and they have strong opinions about some of the issues discussed. However, they try to be as impartial as possible, acknowledging that their perspective is just one among several.

174 P. Drulák and R. Druláková

Evolution of the discipline The evolution of the international/American discipline of IR in the twentieth century is usually captured by the metaphor of the three, by some counts four, great debates. Czech(oslovak) IR grew in different conditions, and its stages are to a far greater extent defined by external political factors rather than by intradisciplinary dynamics. Therefore we follow our own periodization dividing the evolution of Czech(oslovak) IR research into six periods: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Pre-disciplinary stage: the 1920s and 1930s Stalinist stage: late 1940s and 1950s Foundations of the discipline: 1960s Neo-Stalinist destruction of the foundations: 1970s and 1980s Re-foundation: the 1990s Take-off?: the 2000s

Instead of introducing each stage we focus on the Foundations, Re-foundation and Take-off which were especially important for the development of the discipline. The remaining stages are addressed as introductions to and bridges between these three periods. This section concentrates on the Foundations in the 1960s while the rest of the chapter deals with the Refoundation and with the Take-off. There were no specialized institutions teaching or researching IR in the Pre-disciplinary stage. The only periodical dealing with these issues was a bulletin published by the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs. IR issues were addressed by historians, international lawyers, ethnologists and geographers (Czech geopolitics), and most of their works followed a political goal, namely defending Czechoslovakia’s right to exist as an independent state within its borders (Drulák 2002; Sˇnejdárek 1966). During the Stalinist stage there seemed to be no need for IR research as the foreign policy was made in Moscow. Several attempts to build IR departments which would train Czechoslovak diplomats were short-lived. Eventually, it was decided that the diplomats would be trained in Moscow. Détente and de-Stalinization of the Soviet block changed the situation in the late 1950s, and IR institutions and IR literature started to appear, even though they were under the strict control of the Communist Party all the time. During the 1960s foundations of the discipline were laid and there was even a short period of blossom in 1968 witnessing independently minded research published in a scholarly journal. The foundations of the Czechoslovak IR were probably laid with the foundation of the Institute for International Policy and Economy in 1957. The institute was supposed to serve as an analytical centre of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs having been inspired by a similar institute in Moscow – IMEMO (Soják and Hru˚za 1987: 4).1 It turned into one of the centres of

The Czech Republic 175 reformist communism in the 1960s. The institute focused on three research areas: communist countries, developed capitalist countries2 and developing countries. Later on it added Czechoslovak foreign policy, and peace research and European security. The background of most researchers was in modern history or, in the terminology of the time, ‘the history of international proletarian movement’. The first big international event organized by the institute was a conference on the Munich Agreement which reflects both the background of researchers and political topics of the day (the fight against ‘German revisionism’). The institute developed its most important activities in the second half of the 1960s. In 1966 it started publishing a quarterly journal Mezinárodní vztahy, the first Czechoslovak scholarly IR journal. The journal, edited by Jaroslav Sˇediv´y,3 provided space for results of IR research and for fledgling discussions between 1966 and 1969. The two most important discussions concerned the discipline of IR itself and Czechoslovak foreign policy. The disciplinary debate had two dimensions. First, researchers argued that the discipline of IR is able to provide scientific knowledge which can be beneficial to policy-makers, but to do that it had to be independent of the political tutelage (Drulák 2002; Kotyk 1967; Sˇnejdárek 1966), even though some of them also stressed that it should be partisan serving revolutionary fight (Placˇek 1966) and warned against mere speculation and what they viewed as an obsession with methodology (Ort 1969). Second, they argued about the contents of the discipline. Alexandr Ort (1966) understood IR as a multi-disciplinary project without its own disciplinary core, while Vladimír Soják (1966) claimed that IR is interdisciplinary, being focused on the questions of war and peace. Some argued for the use of a historical method when dealing with current issues (Kotyk 1967) and most researchers were quite sceptical about the use of mathematics, criticizing it on either ideological or epistemological grounds (Ort 1969; Redakce 1967). The debate shows that Czechoslovak IR was founded as an empirical discipline in which the most radical thinkers were able to get rid of the dogmatic Marxist-Leninist framework, though without embracing any alternative theoretical framework which would be seen as outright treachery. The debate on Czechoslovak foreign policy focused on the criticism of the economic dimension of foreign policy (Kotyk 1968; Lenert 1968; Sˇediv´y 1967). Researchers criticized the inefficient working of COMECON and argued for more active economic cooperation with capitalist countries. Some were also quite sceptical about non-capitalist ways of development in post-colonial countries. Even though some called for updating the Warsaw Treaty (Kotyk 1968), none of them put into doubt the Czechoslovak belonging to the Soviet bloc. Nevertheless, it was exactly this sin of which the researchers were accused after the Soviet invasion (Soják and Hru˚ za 1987). Most of the staff of the institute were sacked in 1969, being persecuted during the

176 P. Drulák and R. Druláková following twenty years. The institute itself was abolished and re-founded as the Institute of International Relations, a dull organization with no scholarly standards and staffed mostly with retired diplomats. The journal turned into a monthly bulletin of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The structures of the discipline which were laid down in the 1960s were kept after the Soviet invasion in August 1968, but the discipline was deprived of any independent thinking and condemned to function as a mere propaganda tool. After 1989, the people who represented the discipline in the 1960s started its renewal. Old structures were re-founded and new ones came into being. In some respects, the 1990s represented the return to the 1960s, which was definitely a kind of disciplinary progress in comparison with the situation in the 1970s and 1980s. The fact that current Czech IR went beyond the models of the 1960s is due to a massive arrival of young, often Western educated, teachers and researchers who started their professional careers in the late 1990s and whose IR practice follows American and West European models. Significantly, the transition from Re-foundation to Take-off is the first transition between the two periods in the disciplinary history which cannot be directly attributed to political factors and which is constituted by intra-disciplinary dynamics. To sum up, a limited space for independent thinking opened up in the late 1960s. This opening up brought about several debates concerning both specific issues of international politics (Germany, COMECON, economic diplomacy), and questions of research methods and the status of the discipline. However, political control of the discipline has been present all the time. Hence Marxist-Leninism prevailed as a dominant framework which could be avoided only by doing purely empirical work, in the shape of what was called ‘historical method’, without any acknowledged theoretical framework. Even though there was some discussion about peace research and formal models, these approaches were never really applied. This orientation had significant consequences during the re-foundation as it contributed to the establishment of the Czech IR as an atheoretical discipline.

Re-foundation and Take-off: IR after 1989 A constant stifling of social sciences during the neo-Stalinist period put a heavy burden on the re-foundation of the discipline after 1989. Neither political science nor IR existed before 1989. Related fields such as international economics, international history, international law, area studies or sociology, which were even then all being offered by the Czech universities, were practised only within the rigid framework of Marxist-Leninism. Together with the intellectual achievements of the 1960s, these fields, after having been stripped of their dogmatic ideological baggage, provided a platform on which the foundation of IR studies could be laid in the early 1990s.

The Czech Republic 177 Given that in both the 1960s and the early 1990s a purely empirical approach was deemed a sufficient remedy against Marxist-Leninist dogmatism, IR has been re-founded as an empirical discipline which produces rather descriptive outputs based on unacknowledged intuitive conceptual frameworks. This kind of research dominated the discipline for most of the 1990s. However, growing interactions with the IR communities in Western Europe and in the USA brought about a reconsideration of methods applied. The atheoretical approach practised by the generation of ‘re-founders’ was challenged by a young generation exposed to Western IR. Given the absence of a dominant theory inherited from the 1980s there was no need to struggle with Marxist-Leninist dogmatism in IR and the discipline is open to all kinds of theoretical approaches. However, the historical method which dominated the research provides more fertile ground for interpretive approaches rather than for formal approaches. The Take-off period may be understood as a kind of ‘Westernization’ of Czech IR. Its distinguishing features, as compared to the Re-foundation, are all connected with the interactions with the IR communities in Western Europe and in the USA. These features are: •

• •

A higher theoretical awareness of the published articles. Czech IR is still very much an empirical-descriptive discipline but the number of theoretically aware articles is growing. A generational change. The pre-war generation which (re)-founded the discipline lost its dominance. Introduction of and growing respect for scholarly standards (e.g. use of references, peer review).

To a varying extent, this transition may be observed on the three levels of analysis which were suggested above – institutions, outputs and people. Whereas the institutional set-up is rather stable, there are significant changes in the output of scholarly publications as well as generational shifts in the community of scholars. All three levels will be addressed below. Institutions Today there is a variety of institutions which deal with some elements of IR studies in the Czech Republic. Our review focuses only on those which concentrate explicitly on IR as such. While being aware that the demarcation of IR studies is far from clear-cut and that it is contested even in countries with well-established IR traditions (Guzzini 1998), our understanding of the discipline, as it is practised at Czech universities, is based on the idea that studies of international politics form a disciplinary solid core around which the multi-disciplinary IR studies exist. All the institutions were (re)-founded during the Re-foundation period when their basic

178 P. Drulák and R. Druláková features were set – features which have not gone through any fundamental change until today. The institutions we looked into may be divided into two sorts – educational institutes belonging to the universities, and research institutes. When dealing with the former we looked into their curricula. We focused on two subjects, IR history and IR theory, to draw comparisons between the different ways these institutes approach IR studies. There are two reasons for concentrating on history and theory. First, a general argument may be made that each can claim to provide a framework or an interpretive backbone for IR studies as a whole.4 This is valid both in Czech IR and Western IR. The distinction between history and theory is vital for the whole Western discipline, since it has justified the existence of the new discipline of IR as being something different to well-established history. Hence even as historically oriented a scholar as Bull (1995/1972: 182) argued that any theoretical approach to IR is bound to start ‘with rejection of the view that the subject can be or need be studied in historical terms alone’. Second, Czech IR started as a basically atheoretical discipline in the early 1990s. Therefore it is useful to look into the position of theory as compared to history in particular curricula in the late 1990s. We reviewed four Prague-based teaching institutes: the Jan Masaryk Centre of International Studies, the Institute of Political Studies, the Institute of International Studies and the Department of Political Science at the Charles University. However, this is not a complete list of the educational institutions dealing with IR. Courses in IR form part of the political science or European integration programmes which are taught at most Czech universities. Outside Prague, several well-prepared IR courses are also taught (e.g. at Palack´y University in Olomouc, at Masaryk University in Brno or the West Bohemian University in Pilsen), but there are no complete IR programmes there. The four institutes were selected because they offer complete IR programmes and not just IR courses within broader programmes. The Jan Masaryk Centre of International Studies (JM CIS) was founded in 1991 within the Faculty of International Relations, University of Economics, Prague. The Faculty of International Relations was itself founded in 1991 to succeed the Faculty of Foreign Trade and to cultivate both economic and non-economic approaches to IR. There are two obligatory historical courses in the Master’s curriculum, namely on the history of international politics (two semesters) and Czechoslovak foreign policy (one semester), both dealing with the period 1918 to 1989. Furthermore, there are two obligatory theoretical courses in the Master’s curriculum as well – IR theory and cultural anthropology. IR theory addresses the history of international systems, main approaches (realism, liberalism, scientism, radicalism), current debates (neo-realism/neo-liberalism, positivism/ post-positivism), and issues (the international system, international change, European integration, Cold War) (Drulák 2003).

The Czech Republic 179 The Faculty of Social Sciences at the Charles University in Prague was founded in 1990 to develop those disciplines neglected and suppressed by the communist regime. Its original political science department split up into two institutes in 1994 – the Institute of Political Studies (IPS) and the Institute of International Studies (IIS). The IPS consists of two departments – the Department of Political Science and the Department of International Relations – which provide two alternative types of specialization for graduate students who can choose between political science and International Relations. Theoretical courses make up a significant part of the curriculum. Undergraduates are obliged to take the history of political philosophy course, which overviews essential political thinkers starting with the political thinking of Ancient Greece and finishing with the French Revolution. Then there is an obligatory two-semester course in which the basic texts in political philosophy are read. The graduate students are obliged to take the two-semester course on the theory of international relations, which is organized around the analysis of the following topics: the international system, international actors, international conflicts, foreign policy, interdependence and international security. Less emphasis is placed on the study of history: there is just one obligatory two-semester course on the History of International Relations, which deals with the period from the French Revolution to the end of the Cold War (Drulák and Druláková 2000). The IIS was founded in 1994 as the Centre for German and Austrian Studies. The Centre was set up to cultivate the new discipline studying German-speaking countries which, according to its founder, would reflect the needs and geopolitical realities of the Czech Republic (Krˇen 1993). Soon it broadened its focus into other areas, too. Nowadays, it is the most important breeding ground for Czech area experts; it includes American studies, Russian and Eastern European studies, Western European studies, and European studies. IR theory plays a marginal role in the curriculum. Except for a one-semester course in political philosophy taught by the teachers from the IPS, there is no IR theory subject at the IIS. On the other hand, the study of history features prominently there. Besides the three-semester course on world history, which starts with 1648 and finishes with 1989, the students are obliged to take a one-semester course in modern Czechoslovak history (1918 to 1992) and three two-semester courses in the histories of German-speaking countries, Eastern European countries and the USA, respectively. The majority of optional courses are in history as well. The Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Charles University was founded in 1990. Its students take their political science courses as part of an MA programme in combination with other disciplines taught at the Faculty, mostly with history or with foreign languages. The curriculum has elements of both political science and IR studies. Most courses have a strong leaning towards political philosophy.

180 P. Drulák and R. Druláková Besides the extensive introductory courses in the history of political philosophy (four semesters of lectures, four semesters of seminars) and an advanced course in contemporary political philosophy (two semesters of lectures, two semesters of seminars), students are obliged to take a onesemester course in IR theory as well. This course reviews the main theoretical approaches and the ‘great debates’ as well as specific topics (power, war, collective security and integration) that are analysed from various theoretical perspectives. Students are also obliged to take a two-semester course in the history of IR, which deals with the political development in the nineteenth and particularly the twentieth centuries. The course focuses on topics which are presented with their own histories one after the other, rather than in a chronological flow of events (Programme of Studies for the School Year 1998/1999a). Unlike the previous institutions, the Institute of International Relations does not have any teaching activities. It existed prior to 1989 (see above) but it was re-founded in 1990. The institute is still funded mostly by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It has a prominent place among Czech IR institutions: employing the highest number of IR researchers (about twenty), publishing the only Czech IR periodicals and having one of the best IR libraries in the country. Hence it often takes a position as a trendsetter in the Czech IR community. The most important areas of research undertaken in the IIR in the 1990s concerned the following topics (ranked by the number of projects and their duration): • • • • • •

Czech security policy and international security; European integration (Czech Republic and the EU, internal development of the EU); international development; Germany (domestic issues, Czech-German issues, Germany in Europe); Russia and the former Soviet Union; Czech–Slovak relations and Slovakia.

As for the dynamic of the topics, international security and European integration are the clear leaders. There has recently been renewed interest in international development, as the Czech Republic is expected to pursue the OECD goals for development aid. To sum up, several observations may be made about the Czech IR institutions. First, the teaching institutes produce graduates who are either area experts (IIS) or who combine their IR with other disciplines: economics (JM CIS), political science (IPS), and linguistics or history (Department of Political Science). However, there is no strong connection between, for example, IR and legal studies. Second, whereas history has a stronger position in the curricula, most of the institutes teach theory

The Czech Republic 181 as well. The teaching relies almost exclusively on Anglo-American literature. Third, the discipline is still sensitive to political influence. The biggest IR library and the only IR periodicals are funded by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, there is no political tutelage and the influence tends to be exercised in a rather subtle way. Fourth, Germany is the single most investigated country. Output Scholarly output provides the most visible face of the discipline. We will analyse the Czech IR output in three steps. First, we look into what books are published in the discipline. Second, journals are addressed focusing on the scholarly quarterly Mezinárodní vztahy. Finally, some academic debates of the 1990s are reviewed. Books IR books in general and IR books by Czech authors in particular are still quite rare. However, this is not the case with books on the history of international politics and Czech foreign policy, on which a plethora of books and study materials has been published (Drulák and Druláková 2000). The general public is usually interested in historical works offering alternative interpretations of recent history to the communist works taught in the schools for many decades, and publishers can expect a book on history to pay off, unlike other non-fiction titles. Moreover, many founders and practitioners of the discipline are historians by training and thus a sufficient supply is guaranteed as well. Publications on the EU are another prospering industry. They provide much needed information (e.g. Had 1997; Jaksˇ 1997, 1998); however, they are usually of a descriptive and informative nature and are not based on genuine research. In contrast, textbooks and scholarly literature barely existed in the 1990s. From translations, ‘folk theoretical’ books by Zbygniew Brzezinski, Paul Kennedy and Henry Kissinger (Brzezinski 1993, 1999; Kennedy 1996a, 1996b; Kissinger 1996)5 were published during the Re-foundation period. For a long time, the most significant IR book by a domestic author was Mezinárodní politika (International Politics: Krejcˇí 1997) by Oskar Krejcˇí, a monumental compilation of American IR theories published in the mid1990s but reflecting the state of the discipline in the early 1980s. It served as the only Czech IR textbook in the late 1990s. Its author also published several books on geopolitics where he developed geopolitical analyses of and recommendations for Czech and Slovak foreign policy (Krejcˇí 1993, 2000). The Take-off period brought some improvements. Several translations of some basic and some advanced IR books were published (Booth and Smith 1995; Elshtain 1999; Guzzini 1998; Hollis and Smith 2000/1990) while the first modern textbook on IR theory appeared as well (Drulák 2003).

182 P. Drulák and R. Druláková This textbook provides an introduction to the theoretical traditions and contemporary debates in Anglo-American IR theory. The first part starts with an outline of different historical models of international society, then it outlines principal currents of theoretical thinking (realism, liberalism, scientism, critical theories) as well as recent and ongoing discussions (neoliberalism vs. neo-realism, positivism vs. post-positivism, moderate constructivism vs. radical post-positivism). The second part reviews four issue areas (international order, international change, Cold War and European integration), which were chosen as especially relevant in the Czech case. In the light of contending theories, each issue area is presented by several readings representing different theories. The book concludes with suggestions for classification and evaluation of IR theories. Hence domestic IR book production leaves much to be desired both in terms of translations and original contributions. It is constrained both by the small size of the market and a shortage of qualified scholars. However, there was an increase in book production during the Take-off period. Most of the translated books are Anglo-American, and the Anglo-American literature also provides the prevailing reference for original contributions. Periodicals The only periodicals dedicated fully to IR are three periodicals published by the IIR – a monthly journal Mezinárodní politika, a quarterly journal Mezinárodní vztahy and a biannual journal in English Perspectives. While Mezinárodní vztahy, on which we focus below, is the only scholarly IR journal published in the Czech language, Mezinárodní politika targets a broader audience (it has been published monthly since its relaunch in 1990, drawing on the eponymous journal published in 1957 to 1969). It is both topical and analytical, and tries to approach the public interested in IR, not just a limited circle of IR experts. Because it also provides space for a qualified debate of controversial topical issues, it has already hosted several discussions of this nature. The third journal Perspectives was set up in the Re-foundation period to provide translations of selected articles from both Czech language periodicals. Nowadays it is a peer-reviewed journal relying mostly on original contributions by both Czech and foreign authors. Besides these periodicals, IR-related topics emerge regularly in political science and economic journals as well as in the Czech military review Vojenské rozhledy, a quarterly journal of the armed forces. However, it is the quarterly Mezinárodní vztahy (International Relations) which will be addressed in a greater detail. The journal is the only scholarly forum for presentation of research results in the Czech IR community. We start by looking into external changes in the face of the journal. We then address its contents. The journal has been published since the mid-1960s and, due to this continuity, it became an eloquent witness to the radical changes in Czech

The Czech Republic 183 IR studies and in the whole of society. To document the evolution, we compared four issues of IR from the years 1989 to 1992, each issue being the first one of the respective year. The journal of January 1989 starts with a lead article written by the then chairman of the Board of Editors Vladimír Cˇebisˇ entitled ‘Developments in New Thinking of Socialist Foreign Policy’ (Cˇebisˇ 1989). The article consists of comments on quotations from speeches by Czech communist leaders mixed with a pinch of perestroika thinking from Soviet sources. The author mentions an anticommunist demonstration from the previous year which he denounces as a meeting of a few hooligans incited by ‘some negative forces in the West’ and misused by Western media. The first issue of 1990 tries to strike a different tone. The journal got a new cover and the leading article, entitled ‘The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Helsinki Process’, was written by a new member of the board Jirˇí Oprsˇal. It deals with the CSCE as the principal security organization in post-communist Europe while criticizing the communist regime and speaking about the necessity of the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Czechoslovak territory among others. However, the Board of Editors remained unchanged with the exception of Oprsˇal. In the first issue of 1991 the members of the Board of Editors are not stated at all, which probably reflected the turmoil within the Board. The lead article, entitled ‘The Orientation of the Foreign Policy of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic after the November Revolution’, was written by the new Director of the IIR Václav Kotyk. It offers a review of the major foreign policy problems of the country, concluding with the unresolved question of whether the CSCE or NATO will turn into the principal guarantor of European security. The journal was relaunched in 1992 by the new Director of the IIR. It got a new cover again, the Board of Editors was sacked as a whole and the new Chairman of the board, Otto Pick, created a new Board composed of the Institute’s research fellows, IR teachers, journalists and civil servants. The very conception of the journal was overhauled as well. The journal became a quarterly which was supposed to follow a stronger theoretical leaning, providing space for research papers among other things. These efforts were only partly successful. The journal provided a forum for a variety of contributions dealing with IR topics. However, few contributions would qualify by usual academic standards, the articles were not subject to the review process and almost all submissions were published in their first versions. The Re-foundation period of the journal ended in 2000 with an obligatory change of cover yet again. Since then, all articles have been subject to double-blind peer review, and authors are expected to refer to a theoretical framework or at least to have a clear conceptual framework. The quantitative content analysis based on the period 1992 to 2002 suggests certain conclusions (see Table 7.1). There is a group of areas, addressed by domestic authors, whose shares exceed 9 per cent of all

184 P. Drulák and R. Druláková domestic articles – Czech foreign policy, international security, IR theory, and Central and Eastern Europe and European integration. The authors with an IR background dominate most areas with the exception of international security, where almost half of the authors have a military background, European integration which is dominated by economists, and international law which is mostly addressed by lawyers. If we were to rank foreign countries by the attention given to them, we discern the following order – Germany, Russia, the USA. About one-fifth of all published articles were contributions of authors affiliated to foreign institutions with a radical decline in the share of foreign authors since the introduction of peer review. The articles from abroad provide an even more concentrated picture. European integration, Central and Eastern Europe, International security and Germany generate almost three-fifths of articles from abroad (Table 7.2). Scholars from Germany are the most common, accounting for 25 per cent of the contributions and writing mostly on their own country or the EU. Similarly, Western European scholars addressed the EU and their own countries. On the other hand, American contributions concerned international security and IR theory. To sum up, the introduction of the double-blind peer review may be seen as a start of the Take-off period. The topics which are addressed reflect priorities of Czech foreign policy. However, there is also a significant share of topics which come from inside the discipline such as IR theory. Discussions and controversies So far there have been no great debates in Czech IR which would be comparable to Anglo-American ones. All the same, a number of small debates took place in the pages of Mezinárodní vztahy and Mezinárodní politika. We focus on three scholarly discussions from Mezinárodní vztahy, about geopolitics, humanitarian intervention and globalization, and two policy-oriented discussions from Mezinárodní politika, about national interest and NATO membership. The debate on geopolitics took place between 1994 and 1995. The controversy between two members of the Editorial Board, Zdeneˇk Zborˇil (Department of Political Science) and Borˇek Hnízdo (IPS), started with Hnízdo’s claim (Hnízdo 1994) that the German geopolitical school of Haushoffer was abused by the Nazis but that there was no genuine connection between German geopolitics and Nazi ideology. He also argued that contemporary geopolitics has got rid of the prejudices originating in its abuse by the Nazis and that it has become part of political geography. On the other hand, Zborˇil (1995) tried to show that Haushoffer directly influenced some Nazi leaders and actively collaborated with Hitler’s regime himself. He further argued that geopolitics is not part of political geography as it is simply not a science at all. The discussion then ended

5 4 6 5 2 2 1 1 2 1 4

32

Czech Republic in IR Security IR theory CEE European integration Germany International development CIS Middle East International law Othersb

Totala 14

1 1 0 1 3 1 1 0 1 0 6

Economics

13

2 7 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Military

13

2 0 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

Political science

6

1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

Sociology

10

1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 2

Law

5

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

History

4

1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Area studies

3

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Journalism

100

13 15 12 9 9 6 5 4 4 4 19

Totala

Note a Discrepancies in the percentage figures are due to rounding. b Others include the following items whose share was less then 3%: Pacific Rim, Western Europe, USA, international political economy, history, minorities, international organizations, and miscellaneous.

IR

Background of the author, topic of the article

Table 7.1 Domestic articles in the Mezinárodní vztahy (%), 1992–2002 (a total of 247 articles is involved)

25

21

2 16

1

0

4

9 1 1 0 0 0

Western Europe

8

2

2

0

1 2 0 2 0 1

Czechs abroad

8

2

1

0

1 0 2 0 0 2

USA

8

2

0

0

0 0 2 2 0 2

Great Britain

7

1

0

0

0 2 1 0 3 0

CEE

5

1

0

1

0 0 1 0 0 1

France

2

2

0

0

0 1 0 0 0 0

Asia

1

1

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Africa

100

18

5

5

17 17 14 11 8 7

Average share a

Note a Discrepancies in the percentage figures are due to rounding. b Others include the following items whose share is less than 3%: minorities, USA, Middle East, Pacific Rim, international political economy, history and international development.

Average share

Others

4

0

2

a

0

1

b

0 11 4 1 3 1

6 1 3 6 2 1

EU CEE Security Germany CIS IR theory Western Europe Czech Republic in IR

Visegrad

Germany

Nationality topic

Table 7.2 Articles from abroad in the Mezinárodní vztahy (%), 1992–2002 (a total of 126 articles is involved)

The Czech Republic 187 up in a confirmation of arguments stated accompanied by an exchange of personal insults. The two later discussions took a more cultivated course. The discussion between two young scholars, Lucie Königová (2001b) and Daniel Sˇmihula (2001), started with Königová’s article on humanitarian intervention (Königová 2001a). The controversy focused on two clashing interpretations of sovereignty. Königová viewed sovereignty as a social construction being constantly renegotiated in the process of ‘politics of conversation’, while Sˇmihula referred to a traditional international legal understanding of the concept. The discussion on globalization was started by a polemical review in which Ondrˇej Slacˇálek (2002), a leader of Czech anarchists, reviewed the Czech monography on globalization by Martin Ehl (2001), a young journalist. Ehl dealt with globalization from a liberal perspective and Slacˇálek fiercely criticized his failure to address it from more critical perspectives, too. The discussion about national interest was the most extensive discussion so far. It was incited by a grand-scale research project of the IIR whose research results were published in a widely discussed book edited by Jirˇí Valenta (1992a). Valenta wanted to introduce the term ‘national interest’ as a framework for conceptual discussions about Czechoslovak foreign policy. Valenta starts his development of the concept of national interest with Morgenthau, but he then broadens it to include justice and morality as well. He draws on Arnold Wolfers whom he interprets as a sort of bridge-builder between Hobbesian realists and norm-oriented idealists (Valenta 1992b). His concept of national interest can also include democratic principles. On this basis, Valenta interprets the policy of American President Woodrow Wilson as a pursuit of democratic national interests. This connection between national interest and Wilsonianism is rather important to Valenta’s argument. He claims, for example, that the end of the Cold War brings vindication of Wilsonian principles. However, more importantly, he draws an analogy between the views of Wilson and those of the first Czechoslovak President Tomásˇ Garrigue Masaryk. This analogy is based on both convergence of views and friendly personal relations between the two men. Given that Masaryk is one of the most respected figures in the Czech political history, playing the role of modern pater patriae, any association with him could only strengthen Valenta’s argument. Valenta rightly expected some resistance to the notion within the then Czechoslovak IR community which was in the early 1990s dominated by reformist communists from the 1960s (see below) who heralded Masaryk as their new idol and who tended to reject realpolitical arguments. In sum, Valenta argues that Wolfers’ understanding of national interest is compatible with Wilsonianism which also makes it compatible with the best traditions of Czech political thinking and practice personified by Masaryk. He argues that, unlike Masaryk in 1918 (foundation of an independent state), both President Edvard Benesˇ in 1938

188 P. Drulák and R. Druláková (German invasion) and communist party leader Alexander Dubcˇek in 1968 (Soviet invasion) kept the idealist line, forgetting about the power dimension and, hence, about national interest which led to disasters. He tries to combine American IR theory with the Czech tradition of political philosophy which was being revived after 1989. He interprets Masaryk as somebody who was able to ‘harmonize interests and ideals’ both in word and deed (Valenta 1992b: 21). National interests were discussed from various points of view. Some have spoken about the connection between the Czech national interest and Czech national identity criticizing alleged self-flagellation (Rozehnal 1992), others call into doubt the very concept of ‘national’ in Czechoslovakia consisting of two nations and striving to find its base in the civic principle (Seifter 1992). The connection between ‘national’ and ‘European’ was also dealt with by arguing that the Czech national interest lay in European structures (Labudek 1992). In a similar vein, national interest in multilateral cooperation was stressed (Had 1993). Some criticized the very concept, reminding of, or inventing, the universalistic tradition in Czech political thinking personified by Comenius and Masaryk (Seifert 1992) while others took issue with the general confusion between nation and state, and between the goals and means permeating the whole discussion (Sˇediv´y 1997). The keenest supporters of the concept even embraced a Morgenthauan reading of the national interest (Lobkowicz 1992), only to be rebuked by the critics arguing that concepts of realpolitik, which were developed for policies of great powers, are inadequate for a smaller country like the Czech Republic and that Morgenthauan realism hardly acts as a reliable guide in the world at the end of the century (Sˇediv´y 1993). On the other hand, Oskar Krejcˇí (1992, 1993) endorsed the concept of national interest, drawing on both Morgenthau and the pre-war Czech geopolitical school. He argued about the primacy of power as opposed to law in international politics, claiming that Masaryk, again, understood it well. Krejcˇí defined the Czech national interest as a cultivated balance of power in Europe which he considered to be a guarantee against German domination of the Czech Republic. Krejcˇí (1995) also launched an extensive discussion concerning Czech membership of NATO, sharply criticizing the Czech NATO accession policy. He argued that the Czech territory is worthless to Western great powers and thus they would not be willing to defend it, irrespective of being in NATO or not. He also warned against NATO being a tool of American world hegemony which would in turn be supportive of German hegemony in Central Europe. He further pointed to the absence of any imminent threat to Czech security, claiming that NATO accession would only increase tension in Europe. He concluded that NATO membership was extremely costly and the suggested alternatives were either to build small, mobile, high-tech forces or to scrap the army altogether and to

The Czech Republic 189 replace it with a sort of national guard. Later on, he recommended free riding as the Czech security policy. Antonín Rasˇek rejected the argument that the country is completely safe and drew attention to the threats of economic dislocations in the neighbourhood, of fundamentalism and of drug trafficking (Rasˇek 1995). He suggested that the enlargement would stabilize European security while reminding readers that to fulfil this goal a thorough transformation of NATO would be essential. He also criticized Czech foreign policy for its failure to cultivate relations with the Visegrad countries. Václav Kotyk rejected the argument that Czech territory would be worthless, claiming that it formed part of the highly valued Central European space. He was even more explicit in his criticism of the official lack of interest in developing security co-operation with the Visegrad countries. Unlike Krejcˇí, he was not against NATO expansion outright but proposed a more cautious and friendlier approach towards Russia. The free-riding proposal was rebuked by Jirˇí Sˇteˇpanovsk´y who argued that assuming responsibility for European security would give more clout to the country (Sˇteˇpanovsk´y 1995). The discussion about the merits of Czech NATO membership also included contributions unrelated to the discussion around Oskar Krejcˇí, focusing on the OSCE instead of the NATO as suggested by Ort (1995), and insufficient preparations for joining NATO were criticized by Josef Fucˇík (1995) among others. To sum up, while the discussions on geopolitics and humanitarian intervention were each exchanges between two individuals, the national interest and NATO membership provoked a variety of contributions. The discussion on national interest was the first and the last great debate in Czech IR. To some extent, it reflected some points of the classical debate between realists and liberals. However, the small size of the country and the intellectual traditions gave it a specific twist which forced supporters of a realist position (Krejcˇí, Valenta) to pay more attention to international organizations than did classical realists and to try to attach realist arguments to Masaryk who would be safely on the liberal side in the first great debate. In the discussion on national interest, which was more a series of presentations of world views than a theoretical or conceptual debate, the criticism of the concept prevailed and most scholars tend to avoid it in their writing. The exchanges on humanitarian intervention and on globalization could be seen as clashes between, on the one hand, a liberal/realist perspective, and, on the other hand, the critical perspective. However, the contributions were too brief and too underdeveloped to be analysed in terms of what Yosif Lapid called ‘the third great debate’. This observation can somehow be extended to most outputs of Czech IR where ideas emerge without being developed in conceptually clear frameworks and where the borders between scholarly pieces and opinion articles were almost non-existent during the Re-foundation period, and sometimes remain fuzzy even today.

190 P. Drulák and R. Druláková People: three generations IR scholars can be assessed from various angles: their education, affiliation, area of interest and so on. In the Czech case, the criterion of age seems to be particularly interesting. Due to the discontinuities the country underwent in the twentieth century, each generation has had a very different life experience and has been exposed to different influences that are necessarily reflected in the work, and thus in the discipline. From this point of view, three generations of scholars may be distinguished. The first generation was born prior to the Second World War. The first turning point of their adult life was 1948 when the communists came to power. Some of them left the country but most stayed, either being too young or welcoming of communism or, simply, being unwilling to emigrate. Those who stayed studied in the 1950s and started to build their careers in the 1960s unless they ended up in communist gaols. Most were members of the Communist Party, either out of conviction or out of opportunism. In the late 1960s, the most successful of them collected sufficient knowledge and skills to achieve senior positions at the universities, in research or in the civil service. Most supported and contributed to the liberalization of the communist regime of the period and took part in the founding of the discipline. Then the second turning point came. The Soviet invasion in 1968 gave them three choices – to emigrate, to approve of the invasion (which meant for the majority to betray their own convictions) or to put up with a quasi-dissident existence. The latter played a key role in the establishment of the discipline in the 1990s, being relatively untainted following twenty years of disgrace and having the necessary knowledge and skills. This generation includes figures such as Václav Kotyk6 (the first Director of the IIR after 1990), Jan Krˇen7 (founding Director of the IIS), Dobroslav Mateˇjka8 (Chief Editor of all the IIR periodicals), Alexandr Ort9 (founding Head of JM CIS) and Theodor Syllaba10 (founding Head of the Department of Political Science) who, nearing or already having reached retirement age, set up and led the institutions immediately after 1989. This generation dominated the Re-foundation period, and were the founding fathers of the discipline controlling the institutions and periodicals. They had the highest share in publications in the two periodicals reviewed throughout the 1990s (Drulák and Druláková 2000) when 40 per cent of the authors contributing to Mezinárodní vztahy were of this generation. Nowadays, most of them have retired (some have died) and their role is rather marginal. The second generation is a post-war generation. It had already grown up under the communist regime. The year 1968 was for them what 1948 was for the first generation. Thus this generation has its emigrants as well. Those who stayed studied from the late 1960s to the early 1980s, most of this period being the communist ‘Counter-Reformation’ officially called

The Czech Republic 191 ‘normalization’. In their professional activities, they had to choose between either active collaboration with the system with the outlook of professional growth and a career, or withdraw into an inner exile, doing what was necessary to keep their jobs but nothing more, and putting up with staying in junior positions. Few chose the third option to stand up against the regime outright, and thus jeopardize their own futures and those of their families. Rudolf Kucˇera, founding Head of the IPS, chose this option. Normalization placed serious limits on any research in the social sciences both through formal rules and by the absence of spiritual freedom. This was reflected in the level of scholarship then undertaken. Moreover, many scholars left their disciplines to pursue more lucrative jobs in the private sector or in politics after 1989, while some left because of their collaboration with the communist regime. This is the case of Oskar Krejcˇí, an active participant in the discussions and author of several influential books, who is today barred from university teaching posts due to his close collaboration with the communist intelligence service. Representatives of this generation started to take over the leading positions at the institutions in the mid-1990s (e.g. Zuzana Lehmannová succeeding Alexandr Ort as head of the JM CIS, Milan Znoj succeeding Theodor Syllaba at the Department of Politology or Jirˇí Pesˇek succeeding Jan Krˇen at the IIS). This second generation of scholars was weakened both by the suppression of communism and by the opportunities of capitalism, which is also reflected by their share in published articles (Drulák and Druláková 2000). This generation was in the shadow of the founding fathers during the Re-foundation period. Being the biggest demographic group (the 35–60 age group) of the three and consisting of people who should be at the peak of their professional activity, its share in published contributions was lower than that of the pre-war generation. However, nowadays representatives of this generation control most of the institutions and they provide most published articles (Table 7.3). The third generation, born in the late 1960s and 1970s, witnessed and contributed to the fall of communism when still at high school or university. They had the opportunity to study in the West and to get in touch with the discipline. The very fact that they participated in the process of the buildup of the new IR discipline, sometimes having the expertise which other generations lack, gives them a position within the discipline that their generation counterparts in the West do not have, judging by their share of contributions to specialized journals (a quarter of the articles in the reviewed periodicals) or senior positions occupied by them (e.g. Jirˇí Sˇediv´y, former Director of the IIR),11 Petr Drulák (current Director of IIR) or Ladislav Cabada (Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy in Pilsen)). All the same, the opportunities of capitalism are even more relevant to this generation than to the previous one. Our research (Table 7.3) confirms a significant role of this generation in IR research.

192 P. Drulák and R. Druláková Table 7.3 Authors of articles published in the Mezinárodní vztahy and in the Mezinárodní politika (%), 1992–2002 Age/institute/country Governmenta IIR Charles University US and Western Europe CEE Journalists University of Economics Other Universities, Research Institutes Academy of Science NGOs Business Totalb

⬍35

35–60

⬍60

Total

3 6 7 3 3 1 4 3 0 0 1

6 15 3 5 4 3 1 3 2 1 1

5 6 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

13 27 12 12 7 6 7 8 3 3 2

30

42

28

100

Notes This table was prepared on the basis of materials provided by the publisher. The list of authors publishing articles in the period 1992–8 included 348 names, which is slightly less than the actual number of authors. The data were incomplete in eighty-eight cases (25%) which are not included in the table. The table thus represents 75% of all contributors. a About 60% of this item comprises authors working at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. b Discrepancies in the percentages figures are due to rounding.

Due to several waves of emigration there is a sizeable Czech community abroad including IR experts. Some of them returned, and they have been instrumental in the renewal of the discipline. Jirˇí Valenta, who emigrated after 1968 to settle at the University of Miamy, and Otto Pick, who emigrated after 1948 and spent his professional life at British universities, served as directors of the IIR throughout the Re-foundation period. The Faculty of Social Sciences invited two of the probably most prominent American IR scholars of Czech origin as guest teachers in the early 1990s, Jirˇí (George) Liska teaching IR theory and Vojteˇch Mastn´y teaching the history of the Cold War. To sum up, generational fault lines are seen as more important than the fault lines between institutions, schools or theories in Czech IR. This is partly due to the fact that each of the three generations was shaped by a different political and social system: the first generation by Stalinism and reform communism, the second generation by bureaucratic communism, and the third generation by a post-communist liberal democracy. While the Re-foundation period was dominated by the first generation, the second and third generations take over the wheel in the Take-off period.

Conclusions The constraints stemming from the position of the country, being small and post-communist, manifest themselves in the state of Czech IR. The

The Czech Republic 193 discipline is still in its nascent stage and suffers from all manner of shortages. It is a new discipline. Accordingly, the influence of those disciplines with which its roots lay is still considerable. Traditionally, IR draws on international history, political philosophy and international law. Out of these sources, history features in Czech IR in a dominant way while political philosophy and international law have only a marginal impact. That dominance may be seen in the composition of the IR curricula, with Czech history and IR history being the only subjects taught at all of the reviewed institutes, in the topics of MA theses, or in the topics of published books (Drulák and Druláková 2000). Its relative novelty and the weak theoretical background of the discipline can at least partly explain the poverty of the theoretical debate. Neither schools nor paradigms can be identified here as yet. The discussions do not usually go beyond the specific topics and a more abstract perspective is thus lacking. Exceptions have been relatively rare (see e.g. some contributions to the discussion on national interests). The theoretical concepts in use are unreflective, or slavish (to use Hoffmann’s terminology), being imports either from another space like Anglo-Saxon IR literature or from another time like Czech pre-communist thinkers. Attempts to synthesize both traditions (e.g. referring both to Wolfers/Morgenthau and Masaryk), and to apply the result in the analysis of current affairs failed. Neither were they accepted by most scholars, nor were they sufficiently developed to be applied. On the other hand, this transmission of ideas may create an environment in which genuine schools of thought will be bred. Even though the most powerful influences in terms of ideas come from the USA and the UK, the geographical proximity of Germany shapes the discipline in a significant way. There is no other country to which so much attention is paid whether we judge it by the number of articles (Tables 7.1, 7.2), the number of reviews of German books (Drulák and Druláková 2000) or if we take into account that the IIS, one of the leading educational institutes, is still dominated by German studies. The activity of German institutions sponsoring Czech IR research is also of vital importance, but the actor whose influence on Czech IR studies is increasing most dynamically is the EU. Its prominent position on the agenda is likely to grow further in the future. We are witnessing various centres of EU research being set up with both universities and non-state institutions, while generous EU funds and prospects of EU jobs are attracting significant brain capacity. The EU is turning into the single most important issue both at the political and the research agenda levels.

194 P. Drulák and R. Druláková

Acknowledgement This chapter is based on redrafted and updated versions of Drulák and Druláková 2000.

Notes 1 Its first director was the leading Czech Marxist–Leninist IR theorist Vladimír Soják (Soják and Hru˚za 1987: 3). 2 The first head of the Department of Capitalist Countries was Alexandr Ort. 3 Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs 1997 to 1998. 4 For the history/theory discussion, see articles in e.g. International Security 22 (summer 1997). 5 In particular, Kissinger’s Diplomacy enjoys high popularity, having been republished twice since the first edition in 1996. 6 Deputy Director of the Institute in 1968. 7 Head of the Department of History at the School of Politics in the 1960s. 8 Editor-in-chief of InP in the 1960s. 9 Like Kotyk, Deputy Director of the Institute in 1968. 10 The head of the first Department of Political Science in Czechoslovakia in the 1960s. 11 By age alone, Sˇediv´y belongs to the second generation but he started his studies after 1989, since he was not allowed to study in the 1980s because his father Jaroslav Sˇediv´y was a reformist communist in the 1960s. His IR experience is therefore closer to people from the third generation.

References Annual Report of the Institute of International Relations (1993–8) Prague: Institute of International Relations (in Czech). Booth, K. and Smith, S. (eds) (1995) International Political Theory Today, London: Polity Press. Brzezinski, Z. (1993) Bez kontroly: Chaos v prˇedvecˇer 21. století, Prague: Victoria Publishing. —— (1999) Velká ˇs achovnice, Prague: Mladá fronta. Bull, H. (1995/1972) ‘The Theory of International Politics, 1919–1969’, in J. Der Derian (ed.) International Theory: Critical Investigations, New York: New York University Press, pp. 181–211. Cˇebisˇ, V. (1989) ‘Rozvíjení nového mysˇlení v socialistické zahranicˇní politice’, Mezinárodní vztahy 24(1): 2–14. Drulák, P. (2002) ‘Záblesk v totalitní temnoteˇ: pokus o v´yzkum mezinárodních vztahu˚o v období reformního komunismu’, Mezinárodní vztahy 37(1): 40–57. —— (2003) Teorie mezinárodních vztahu ˚ , Praha: Portál. Drulák, P. and Druláková, R. (2000) ‘International Relations in the Czech Republic: A Review of the Discipline’, Journal of International Relations and Development 3(3): 256–82. Ehl, M. (2001) Globalizace: pro a proti, Prague: Academia. Elshtain, J.B. (1999) Verˇejn´y muzˇv, soukromá ˇzena, Praha: Institut pro strˇedoevropskou kulturu a politiku. Fucˇík, J. (1995) ‘Prˇílisˇ jednoduchá rovnice obrany’, Mezinárodní politika 19(8): 27–9.

The Czech Republic 195 Guzzini, S. (1998) Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, New York and London: Routledge. Had, M. (1993) ‘Cˇeské národní zájmy’, Mezinárodní politika 17(3): 18. —— (ed.) (1997) Evropská spolecˇenství: První pilírˇ Evropské unie, Prague: Institute of International Relations. Hnízdo, B. (1994) ‘Základní geopolitické teorie’, Mezinárodní vztahy 4: 72–9. Hoffmann, S. (1995/1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, in J. Der Derian (ed.) International Theory: Critical Investigations, New York: New York University Press, pp. 212–41. Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (2000/1990) Mezinárodní vztahy: v´yklad a porozumeˇní, Brno: CDK. Jaksˇ, J. (1997) Co je to, kdyzˇ se rˇekne Evropská unie, Prague: Centrum pro demokracii a svobodné podnikání. —— (1998) Quo vadis Evropská unie, Prague: ETC Publishing. Kennedy, P. (1996a) Sveˇt v 21. století, Prague: Lidové noviny. —— (1996b) Vzestup a pád velmocí, Prague: Lidové noviny. Kissinger, H. (1996) Umeˇní diplomacie, Prague: Prostor. Königová, L. (2001a) ‘Teorie státní suverenity a praxe intervence’, Mezinárodní vztahy 36(3): 41–58. —— (2001b) ‘Odpoveˇd’ na polemiku’, Mezinárodní vztahy 36(4): 89–92. Kotyk, V. (1967) ‘Historiografie a mezinárodní vztahy’, Mezinárodní vztahy 2(2): 49–53. —— (1968) ‘Demokratizace a cˇeskoslovenská zahranicˇní politika’, Mezinárodní vztahy 3(2): 3–11. Krejcˇi, Oskar (1992) ‘Máme národní zájmy!’ Mezinárodní politika (10): 22–3. —— (1993) Cˇesk´y národní zájem a geopolitika, Praha: Universe. —— (1995) ‘Na co NATO?’, Mezinárodní politika (1): 21–3. —— (1997) Mezinárodní politika, Prague: Victoria. —— (2000) Geopolitika strˇedoevropského prostoru: Horizonty zahranicˇvní politiky Cˇeské republiky a Slovenské republiky, Prague: Ekopress. Krˇen, J. (1993) ‘Cˇesk´y projekt neˇmeck´ych a rakousk´ych studií’, Mezinárodní politika 17(9): 25–8. Labudek, V. (1992) ‘Zájmy vzbudily zájem: nejen národní’, Mezinárodní politika 16(8): 30. Lenert, J. (1968) ‘O soucˇasn´ych problémech cˇeskoslovenské zahranicˇní politiky a v´yzkumu mezinárodních vztahu˚’, Mezinárodní vztahy 3(4): 50–5. Lobkowicz, M. (1992) ‘Zahranicˇní politika CˇR jako v´yslednice národních zájmu˚ a síly státu’, Mezinárodní politika 16(11–12): 33. Ort, A. (1966) ‘Mezinárodní vztahy a politická veˇda’, Mezinárodní vztahy 1(1): 62–7. —— (1969) ‘Meze a mozˇnosti v´yzkumu míru’, Mezinárodní vztahy 4(4): 33–57. —— (1995) ‘NATO – anebo?’, Mezinárodní politika (10): 24–6. Placˇek, Sˇ. (1966) ‘K problematice studia politiky a mezinárodních vztahu˚’, Mezinárodní vztahy 2(1): 49–54. Programme of Studies for the School Year (1998/1999a) Prague: Department of Political Science at the Faculty of Philosophy of the Charles University (in Czech). Rasˇek, A. (1995) ‘V´yvoj nasˇich vztahu˚ k NATO’, Mezinárodní politika 19(4): 30–2. Redakce, A. (1967) ‘Redakcˇní diskuse o v´yzkumu mezinárodních vztahu˚’, Mezinárodní vztahy 2(1): 48–58. Rozehnal, D. (1992) Nové zájmy v nové Evropeˇv, Mezinárodní politika 16(1): 20.

196 P. Drulák and R. Druláková Sˇediv´y, J. (1967) ‘Ke studiu cˇeskoslovenské zahranicˇní politiky’, Mezinárodní vztahy 2(4): 54–8. —— (1993) Zahranicˇní politika CˇR pouze jako v´yslednice národních zájmu˚ a síly státu?, Mezinárodní politika 17(8): 17. —— (1997) ‘Národní zájem: ohlédnutí za jednou debatou’, Mezinárodní politika 21(1): 26–8. Seifert, A. (1992) ‘Zájmy vzbudily zájem: máme a meˇli jsme’, Mezinárodní politika 16(8): 29. Seifter, P. (1992) ‘O nesamozrˇejmosti cˇvs. národních zájmu˚’, Mezinárodní politika 16(4): 3. Slacˇálek, O. (2002) ‘Globalizace pro a proti’, Mezinárodní vztahy 37(4): 87–92. Sˇmihula, D. (2001) ‘Sˇtátna suverenita dnes a v minulosti’, Mezinárodní vztahy 36(4): 81–8. Smith, S. (1995) ‘The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1–37. Sˇnejdárek, A. (1966) ‘K v´yvoji v´yzkumu mezinárodních vztahu˚ v Cˇeskoslovensku’, Mezinárodní vztahy 1(1): 4–16. Soják, V. (1966) ‘Problémy v´yzkumu soudob´ych mezinárodních vztahu˚’, Mezinárodní vztahy 1(1): 68–77. Soják, V. and Hru˚za, M. (1987) ‘K 30. v´yrocˇí v´yzkumu mezinárodních vztahu˚’, Mezinárodní vztahy 22(7): 3–9. Sˇteˇpanovsk´y, J. (1995) ‘NATO na nic?’, Mezinárodní politika (10): 26–8. Valenta, J. (ed.) (1992a) Máme národní zájmy?, Prague: Institute of International Relations. —— (1992b) ‘Národní zájmy demokratické principy a postkomunistické Cˇeskoslovensko’, in J. Valenta et al. (eds) Máme národní zájmy?, Prague: Institute of International Relations, pp. 12–24. Wæver, O. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52(4): 687–727. Zborˇil, Z. (1995) ‘O politické geografii, geopolitice a neˇkter´ych nectnostech’, Mezinárodní vztahy (2): 112–17.

Part II

Cross-cutting perspectives

8

Blank, blind or blinded? Cultural investigations in International Relations Morten Valbjørn

If we perceive culture in its differential form, which directs our attention to diversity and difference and to something dividing people from each other,1 we would expect International Relations (IR) to be one of the disciplines within the social sciences to have had the most intensive discussions of cultural diversity and the related epistemological question of the representation of Otherness. Nevertheless, as Walker (1993: 180) observes, ‘for a discipline preoccupied with the diversity of peoples there has been very little concern with processes usually grasped under the category of culture’. None of the ‘Great Debates’ were cultural debates; the question of cultural diversity has not been an integral feature of any of the three paradigms in the ‘inter-paradigm debate’, nor in Smith’s (1995) allegedly more inclusive ‘ten self-images of International Theory’; and the encounter of different cultures and its relevance to international relations has for long been the unwritten chapter in IR textbooks. While partly ignored in the recent ‘cultural turn’ (Halliday 2000: 68, n. 9), exceptions to this neglect of cultural diversity have always existed, as is pointed out in the final part of this chapter. Nevertheless, IR has, in general, paid far less attention to cultural diversity than one would expect. Consequently, this chapter discusses (1) why cultural diversity has held such a marginal position in IR, (2) whether the recent ‘cultural turn’ mainly pioneered by Anglophone scholars is really making IR on better terms, and if not, (3) whether a sensitivity to cultural diversity can be recaptured by means of some of the classic and more recent European contributions to this problematique. In the first of the three main sections of the chapter, the negligence of cultural questions is attributed to the prevalence within IR’s mainstream of a universalist perception of international relations. However, at closer inspection, neither IR nor international relations seem as culture-blank as supposed, and the discipline, it is argued, appears most of all to be culture-blind – blind to the diversity of international relations and blind to its own cultural particularity. While the recent ‘cultural turn’ has contributed to a growing awareness of this fact, it has, however, also demonstrated how an essentially contested concept like ‘culture’ is fraught with pitfalls. Thus the two cultural

200 Morten Valbjørn approaches examined in the second main section of the chapter appear to be better at asking important and critical long-neglected questions than at offering attractive answers. Instead of being blind to culture, they appear to be blinded by culture. However, instead of succumbing to the temptation of expelling cultural questions from IR once and for all, the final main section makes explorations into European IR where it is possible to identify a number of (partly intersecting) avenues worth considering, if we want to escape the ‘culture-blind’ and ‘culture-blinded’ pitfalls. This does not necessarily imply the squaring of the circle of an essentially contested concept like culture. It may, on the contrary, be wise even to forget this concept for a while, if we want to continue along the road towards a better understanding of what sensitivity to cultural diversity might mean.

Culture and IR The fact that cultural diversity has not been considered relevant to the study of international relations within large segments of IR does not imply a consensus on why this is supposed to be so. When the marginalization of culture is explicitly substantiated and not just ignored and left unexplained, this is done by arguments that, except for the rejection of culture, at first glance seem to have little in common. Not cultures, but Culture One line of argumentation follows the classic Enlightenment response to the Romantic Movement. On the basis of a belief in progress and humanism, cultural diversity is regarded as superficial or decreasing, although it can be reified. Questions regarding cultural diversity are therefore not only considered unimportant but also potentially dangerous, since attention risks being diverted from those commonalities supposedly constituting the foundation for a more peaceful and just world order. One strand of this argument is represented by the Internationalist ideas of early Liberal thinking with its interest in identifying a common human nature as a basis of peaceful coexistence, and by normative IR theory’s cosmopolitan fraction where the individual human being, or humanity as a whole, constitutes the object of interest. Another strand emphasizes various homogenizing modernization and globalization processes, producing a merge of the societies of the world either into a world society or an international society where different societies are tied together by a set of common values and rules. Thus it is only in its generic, and not in its differential, sense that culture is considered important to IR; that is as a cosmopolitan Culture, a global Culture, a world Culture, an international political Culture, or a diplomatic Culture.

Cultural investigations in IR

201

Power trumps everything, also culture Another line of argumentation flatly refuses to accept the idea that we are all (becoming) more or less alike. As a result of insurmountable differences between the world’s various societies, the creation of a single political authority or an imposition of rules and norms with global reach is considered futile and international relations are, as a consequence, regarded as left to the logic of anarchy. In order to ensure their own security, everybody must, regardless of ideal objectives, therefore act according to the same self-help-orientated form of behaviour. In a paradoxical way, cultural diversity thus makes it possible to ‘abstract from every attribute of states except their capabilities’ (Waltz 1979: 99) and concentrate solely on power (Morgenthau 1967). This view is present within IR’s Realist tradition which, as Avruch (1998: 42) summarizes, ‘holds that whatever the status of culture – structurally deep or superficial, generic or local – it doesn’t matter, because culture is inevitably trumped by power’. Culture as a mask A third line of argumentation is neither based on a notion of homogenizing globalization nor global heterogeneity, but rather on what might be termed ‘heterogenizing’ globalization. While acknowledging substantial differences between various parts of the world, these are regarded as different expressions of the same structural phenomenon: the globalization of capitalism. This perception of cultural diversity as nothing but an epiphenomenon is present within IR’s globalist tradition such as the early versions of Wallerstein’s World System Theory (1974, 1979) where the capitalist world system is described as consisting of ‘a single division of labour but multiple polities and cultures’ (1979: 6). This cultural diversity is, however, only regarded as a reflection of the specific functions with different groups and areas perform in the capitalist world economy (1979: 53), and moreover serves ‘as a mechanism to protect disparities that have arisen within the world-system, and as an ideological mask and justification for the maintenance of these disparities’ (Wallerstein 1974: 349). Hence, IR should concentrate on those general dynamics that govern international relations, rather than on various cultural epiphenomena. The non-scientific culture Finally, a more epistemologically founded argumentation is also discernible, since culture represents, as Rennger (1992: 85) notes, ‘everything that good, positivistically trained international relations specialists should hate’. Thus, according to a positivist ideal of science, cultural diversity is something IR neither can (its essentially contested nature defies unambiguous definitions), ought (culture and subjective values are

202 Morten Valbjørn too closely related), or needs (‘covering social laws’ imply attention to commonalities and regularities rather than to idiosyncrasies or particularities) with which to concern itself. How to substantialize the same thing – something universal Although the rejection of cultural diversity from the IR agenda is justified in various ways, these, in other respects, unlike explanations, are also marked by similarities. Cultural diversity is in one way or the other put aside with reference to a claim that international relations are marked by some kind of universal logic. The surprising consensus about the irrelevance of culture among usually disagreeing sections within IR’s mainstream can thus be attributed to an implicit consensus about what it is meaningful to disagree about. Rather than debating whether international relations actually work in accordance with some basic logic everywhere, major disagreements relate to the question of how to substantialize ‘the same thing – something globally encompassing something universal’, as Chan remarks (1993: 425; see also O’Hagan 2002: 193). While it is a matter of dispute whether this logic takes the form of a Hobbesian strive for power, some sort of a Smithian international division of labour or a homogenizing globalization process, it is agreed that international relations are basically working in accordance with a universal logic, and accordingly IR’s major task is to adopt an attitude towards this logic, rather than towards secondary phenomena such as cultural diversity. When (some) constructivists introduce culture to the rationalism/constructivism controversy, which basically turns on whether an assumed universal international structure must be regarded as a social phenomenon rather than as an objective fact, it is therefore often in its generic rather than its differential form, since it is supposed to account for commonalities rather than differences among international actors (Jetschke and Liese 1998: 153). If international relations are marked by a universal logic, the related epistemological question regarding the representation of Otherness also appears straightforward. Since international actors are regarded as basically ‘like units’ – either because they are actually perceived as (becoming) alike or because different actors are subject to a uniform systemic pressure – the same culturally unspecified concepts and theoretical approaches must also be applicable everywhere. It appears, moreover, less puzzling why a nomothetic and positivist idea of science has gained such a firm footing in a discipline concerned with the global interaction with Others and developed out of ideographic and interpretive diplomatic and international history. Blank or blind? Large parts of IR mainstream are, thus, subscribing to the same basic universalistic conception of international relations, and this may explain the

Cultural investigations in IR

203

prevalent negligence of questions of cultural diversity. By addressing two sets of questions pertaining to what will below be termed as blindness to the Self and blindness to the Other, it emerges, however, that neither international relations nor the discipline itself appear as culture-blank as is usually claimed. The first problem, blindness to the Self, relates to IR and its selfperception as culture-blank. Considering that divisions within IR are rarely based on national or regional criteria and theoretical ‘schools’ seldom carry geographic markings, this may at first glance appear plausible. However, while IR may be a discipline ‘grasping at a global or universal phenomenon, it does so’, as Walker notes, ‘almost entirely within one culturally and intellectually circumscribed perspective’ (1984: 182). As an academic discipline, IR is founded in the United Kingdom; it has its current centre in the USA and it rests largely upon Western intellectual traditions and historical experiences. Thus its philosophical underpinning comes from figures of the Western intellectual tradition such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Rousseau and Kant. Core assumptions, such as the notion of ‘a state of nature’ (Jahn 2000, 2004), are deeply embedded in a Western – and sometimes even more narrowly Anglo-American (Brown 2001) – intellectual tradition, just as the evolution and meaning of key concepts and institutions such as the state or sovereignty are closely connected to specific challenges at particular times in European history. The models of behaviour underpinning IR theories are, moreover, usually drawn from experiences of European or American engagements in the nineteenth- and twentieth-century great power theatre (O’Hagen 2002: 195). This does not by definition undermine the prevalent self-perception of IR, as one may follow Bull and Watson’s argument that ‘it is not our perspective but the historical record itself that can be called Eurocentric’ (1984: 2). If what was once a European-wide system has become global, one could argue that just as IR may be born out of Western history and experiences, so are the current international relations, and knowledge produced within this culturally specific context therefore carries universal validity today. This presupposes, however, that a specific Western way not only of ‘doing’ but also of ‘studying’ international relations has gained global reach. As for the latter, there may be a global IR discipline, in the sense that most national IR communities are influenced by debates and approaches from the American centre of the discipline. On the other hand, it is also clear that ‘IR is quite different in different places’ (Wæver 1998: 723; see also Friedrichs 2004: 22). Thus, theories from the ‘academic world market’ (Giesen 1995), usually of American or at least Anglophone origin, travel with varying success (Wæver 1998: 723), approaches prompt different reactions (Holden 2001), and debates take various forms within different academic communities depending on the ‘culturalinstitutional’ context (Jørgensen 2000). As Tickner (2003) shows, some Third World scholars are, moreover, engaged in completely different sorts

204 Morten Valbjørn of questions and debates and are informed by other intellectual traditions than the prevailing Western one constituting what Mandaville (2003) describes as ‘post-Western IR’. Moreover, the prospects of a coming globalization in terms of homogenization (in the form of an Americanization) of the way of studying international relations seem dim. Distinct approaches combining the IR tradition as defined by the American centre with unique cultural and political conditions are emerging in an increasing number of places, and this may, Wæver (1998: 726) anticipates, result in ‘a relative American abdication’ in favour of the forming of larger academic communities around their own independent cores. Similarly, Holden (2001: 50) envisages that a further differentiation between IR communities is the likely result of the recent ‘cultural turn’. However, not only does the way of ‘studying’ international relations seem less culture-blank and uniform than is usually claimed. By addressing the second problem, Blindness to the Other, this also applies to the question of ‘doing’ international relations. Thus, a growing number of scholars writing from different perspectives challenge the notion that the globalization of the Westphalian state system necessarily implies a homogenization of international relations or a universalization of the European state model. Partly due to a lack of other respectable models for establishing new political units, this model may have been ‘compulsory’ for the new states that for the most part have not only become important and real actors in today’s international relations but also ‘modern states in terms of forms of organization, administration and rule’ (Zubaida 1993: 121). As Zubaida (1993: 145) points out, this does, however, not imply that they are also identical to ‘modern Western states’ or that their future development can be predicted in terms of the European experiences. The global conditions of state-building are very different for ‘late-comers’ (Lustick 1997) and the European ‘states made war-war made states’ path to state consolidation seems neutralized or at least qualified (Gongora 1997). It is therefore necessary to differentiate between several types of states. In addition to the ‘modern’ state (corresponding to the ‘classic’ European state model), Sørensen (2001, 2003), for instance, distinguishes between a ‘post-colonial’ and a ‘postmodern’ type of state. Where lack of successful state-building has obstructed nation-building and weak states have not supplied any benefits of citizenship, it is moreover possible to identify a popular retreat into ethnic community and a rise of non-state actors (Sørensen 2001: 185). Moreover, this plurality of states and other forms of sub- and supranational polities, leading Ferguson and Mansbach (1996: 21) to suggest that international relations ought to be considered ‘as involving a world of “polities” rather than states’, seem to produce a diversity of forms of international behaviour and rationalities. Sørensen (2001, 2003), for instance, points at how different types of states condition international structures in dissimilar ways, producing different security dilemmas and sovereignty

Cultural investigations in IR

205

games. Besides the fact that it is sometimes contested whether security should be understood in terms of sovereign states at all (Niva 1999), several authors also point out that contrary to the orthodox externally oriented and state-centric conception of security, large-scale violent conflict between ‘postmodern’ states is highly unlikely, whereas the major security threat to people in ‘post-colonial’ states most often comes from their own rulers, who are in turn often engaged in ‘omnibalancing’ challenges of internal as well as external origin (David 1991; Krause 1996; Sørensen 2001: 103ff.). The (de)stabilizing impact of the arrival of the state-sovereignty institution has, moreover, differed in various parts of the post-colonial world (Barnett 1993: 290) and even though the juridical core of the sovereignty game in the form of constitutional independence remains the globally dominant principle of political organization, the regulative rules it is played by vary (Sørensen 2001: 145ff., 2003: 103ff.). Finally, various modernization and globalization processes are not necessarily eliminating this diversity as the Liberal tradition forecasts. Modernization may, as Korany et al. (1993: 12) note, ‘heighten ethnic conflict by encouraging mobility, and hence awareness of differences among various communities put in closer contact’. Furthermore, following Tibi (2002), it is possible to envisage globalization with cultural fragmentation encompassing only the spread of structures and institutions but not norms and values. Even a successful diffusion of norms may preserve diversity rather than produce homogeneity. For instance, due to the weakening of the ‘Darwinian’ selection, the international norm delegitimizing conquest by war has eased the competitive pressure for emulating the successful states and created more space for variation (Sørensen 2001: 33). Thus, upon closer inspection international relations appear far less uniform than is often proposed, and mainstream IR seems, in an ethnocentric way, to have mistaken its own particular standpoint with something universal appearing as ‘a discipline which speaks partially, but which has assumed and declared universally’ (Chan 2001: 77). Due to this blindness to the Other as well as blindness to the Self, the discipline seems ‘culture-blind’ rather than ‘culture-blank’. This poses the question of how an awareness of cultural diversity may be brought into the study of international relations.

Culture in IR After a long and remarkable absence, in the 1990s the ‘Ship of Culture’ (Lapid and Kratochwil 1996) at last called at the port of IR. The hitherto few and rather marginal voices calling for more attention to cultural diversity multiplied and culture’s position on the global IR agenda soared. Culture and related concepts were appearing in the very title of volumes and articles; they were devoted attention in IR textbooks (e.g. Gregg 1998; Smith and Baylis 2001; Weber 2001), and among the many contending

206 Morten Valbjørn images of post-Cold War world politics the ‘clash of civilizations’ became one of the most influential and contested (O’Hagan 2000). This ‘cultural turn’ has contributed to a growing awareness of how IR has been more ‘culture-blind’ than ‘culture-blank’. That cultural diversity seems to matter does, however, not imply much agreement on how this is so. This depends upon the way we conceptualize culture and, owing to this concept’s truly essentially contested nature, suggestions for a definition are countless. Thus the biggest challenge facing those employing cultural variables to international relations may, as Duffield (1999: 774) notes, ‘not be that of defending culture against its critics but that of choosing from among the many cultural approaches available’. In this second main section two different attempts to ‘cultivate’ the study of international relations, subscribing to an essentialist and a relational conception of culture respectively, are therefore examined and their (de)merits discussed. Culture as a partial totality The first approach is based on an essentialist conception of culture as a ‘partial totality’. As in Tylor’s classic definition of culture as ‘the complex whole’, a society is assumed to constitute a totality ordered according to a specific logic or principle. In line with Boas, another kingpin of early anthropology, and the Romantic Movement’s key figure Herder, it is at the same time maintained that this logic is only partial, since a plurality of disparate cultures are assumed to exist. Cultural diversity is therefore regarded as a diversity of cultures, each marked by a unique logic. This notion of culture is, for instance, present in the writings of Bozeman (1971, 1984, 1992, 1994), charging IR with being culture-blind already decades before the current ‘cultural turn’, and in Huntington’s (1993, 1997) more recent but very influential ‘clash of civilizations’ argument. Both see the world as split into different ‘culture zones’ (Bozeman 1994: 5) or ‘civilizations’ (Huntington 1997: 26–7, map 1.3), and maintain that the (Western) Westphalian state system’s formal globalization has not brought any real homogenization. At a more fundamental level international relations are still operating in conformity with the essential logics of specific cultures: Indian statesmanship is based on a Hinduistic Mandala concept; foreign policy in China reflects Confucianism and Taoism, and in Japan it is influenced by Shintoism and Buddhism, just as all wars implicating Muslim states are supposedly ‘fought on Islamic jihad terms’ based on a dualistic perception of the world as divided into a Muslim and a non-Muslim area (Bozeman 1994: xxvi, 362, 1992: 63; Huntington 1997: 29ff.; 254ff.). Hence it is only possible to talk about ‘a plurality of diverse political systems, each an outgrowth of culture-specific concepts’ (Bozeman 1984: 404) and that is why ‘present day international relations are . . . by definition intercultural relations’ (Bozeman 1994: 6).

Cultural investigations in IR

207

If ‘cultural commonalities and differences shape the interests, antagonisms, and associations of states’ (Huntington 1997: 29), and if the moods and dispositions in play in the non-Western world are ‘fundamentally alien and therefore not readily intelligible’ (Bozeman 1984: 401), understanding Others on their own terms becomes vital (Bozeman 1994: xii). This is only possible, Bozeman asserts, when the cultural infrastructure of an international actor ‘is recognized in its intrinsic substance’ (1994: 11; emphasis added). Thus any real comprehension of the various culturally specific dynamics of international relations presupposes the uncovering of those basic logics or essences to which the unique character of a specific culture is supposed to be attributed. Hence Huntington calls upon the development of a ‘more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical assumptions underlying other civilizations’ (1993: 49), and Bozeman (1994: 6) suggests examinations of mental and moral persuasions and time-transcendent perceptions of the outer world in doctrinal sources from various cultures. Since Islam is supposed to constitute the essence of a distinct Middle Eastern cultural system (Bozeman 1994: xx; Huntington 1997: 45), any effort to understand this section of international relations must, for instance, begin with the Koran and an ‘analytical scrutiny of the early records of the Dar al-Islam’ (Bozeman 1994: 362). Positioning rather than uncovering Owing to this approach’s emphasis on the existence of a plurality of disparate cultural logics, the problem concerning Blindness to the Other does, at first sight, not seem to be of much concern. However, as Keyman (1997: 169) emphasizes, awareness in principle of cultural diversity does not necessarily ensure a better understanding of the specific Other. On closer inspection, it is thus less evident that doctrinal sources from various cultures necessarily constitute some key to a particular timeless logic or essence to which the nature of international relations within a certain area may be referred. What does the Koran and accounts of the deeds of the Prophet Muhammed, for instance, tell us about today’s conflict-ridden Middle Eastern international relations? As both Bozeman and Huntington show, these sources hold principles for an aggressive mode of international relations completely at odds with the fundamentals of the Westphalian state system. However, such a textual approach tends not only to ‘give a harsher view of the clash of cultures in world politics than is justified by the reality of their mutual recognition’, as Vincent (1980: 259) noticed with explicit reference to Bozeman; the ambiguity of the texts themselves is also ignored. As Piscatori shows in his discussion of Islam in a world of nation states, it is, for instance, not only the historical record of intra- and inter-Muslim relations that is much more complex than what the present approach allows for. This also applies to the Islamic sources, since they also support a ‘tolerant non-violent Islam that accommodates

208 Morten Valbjørn itself to the reality of political pluralism and non-Muslim centres of power’ (Piscatori 1992: 317; cf. 1986). Instead of using this latter reading to advance a general claim about the inherent peaceful nature of Islam, as is sometimes the case, the point for the present discussion is rather to show that the Koran and similar sources are so ambiguous that they offer too many (contradictory) lessons on international relations to provide any real insight into various parts of today’s world (Halliday 2002; Valbjørn 2004a). Following Hall (1996: 11), such readings appear to be about ‘positioning’ rather than ‘uncovering’, and in order to understand why one kind of reading is chosen at the expense of others, it is necessary to consider how the representer’s own standpoints and basic assumptions may influence the approach to Otherness. While a narrow focus on similarities among various actors may follow from a universalistic standpoint as discussed above, a conceptualization of cultural diversity as a diversity of distinct and separated cultures may, in turn, tend to produce a likewise narrow focus on how the Other is fundamentally different from (the perception of) oneself. Besides pointing at how, for this reason, the subscribers of this approach may end up using empirical knowledge primarily to substantiate a pre-given assumption on the absolute alien nature of the Other, it also suggests that the representer is far less detached from its own representations than is acknowledged by the present approach. Considering Bozeman and Huntington’s explicit allegiance to a ‘Western culture’, their reading of Islamic sources becomes very emblematic. Attention is paid primarily to what supports a perception of an alien conflict-prone Islamic Middle East, whereas alternative readings are ignored. Despite its many differences from IR’s ‘culture-blind’ strands, this approach seems also to be blind to the Self, since it suffers from a similar lack of attention to the representer’s own place in the representation of different cultural Others. Thus, by adopting an essentialist conception of culture, it may be possible to avoid the prevalent ‘culture-blindness’ of much IR. It is, however, doubtful whether this approach offers better tools for acknowledging those forms of diversity supposedly neglected by mainstream IR. On the contrary, antagonisms between different parts of the world risk becoming reified, as inter-cultural similarities and intra-cultural differences are ignored. Combined with a cultural determinism, judging actors according to who they are rather than what they do, the clash of civilizations as a selffulfilling prophecy is imminent. Culture as a relational site for the politics of identity and difference Another perception of culture has, however, also gained prominence within the ‘cultural turn’. Influenced by various ‘post-movements’ – i.e. post-positivism, post-structuralism and partly post-colonial studies, espe-

Cultural investigations in IR

209

cially Said’s (1995) critique of orientalism – the so-called Dissident Thoughts subscribe to a relational conception of culture. Culture is not conceptualized as a partial totality but as a relational site for the politics of identity related to a signifying and boundary-producing practice through which meaning is socially constructed. The role of cultural diversity in the study of international relations is accordingly addressed in a very different manner. Rather than asserting that the world ‘in reality’ consists of a plurality of distinct cultures, they argue that there are neither given cultural entities nor state actors as such. Based on a radical social constructivist ontology, it is asserted that what subjects and objects are depends upon their representation in language (Doty 1996b: 333). In line with the post-structuralist notion of meaning being established in relations of differences, it is, moreover, maintained that identities are constituted through a delimiting practice of describing oneself as different from something else (Campbell 1998: 9; cf. Said 1995: 332). The post-structuralist twist to this equation is, however, that it is contingent upon which kinds of differences – ethnicity, gender, nationality, language, race – are chosen to make a difference in a particular context. Apparently homogenous and different cultural entities may be constructed only through a signifying and boundary-producing practice accentuating some sorts of differences (those between ‘them’ and ‘us’), while neglecting others (those within ‘them’ and ‘us’). This also applies to international relations and their actors, as these are (re)constructed through global processes of cultural dichotomizing, where identity is designated in distinction from others. The conventional conception of foreign policy as the external orientation of pre-established states with secure identities is therefore abandoned in favour of a conceptualization of foreign policy as an example of a signifying boundary-producing practice representing certain events and actors as ‘foreign’ and ‘culturally different’, and by this ‘constitut[ing] at one and the same time, the state and the international system, the domestic and the external, and the sovereign and the anarchic’ (Campbell 1990: 266). The question of how to approach and represent cultural Others is therefore also addressed differently. Instead of asking what characterizes Others, focus is turned towards how they are created through representations within specific discourses (e.g. how was a culturally distinct ‘Orient’ constructed within an ‘orientalist’ discourse (Said 1995; McAlister 2001)?); how these representations are part and parcel of the construction of the representer’s own identity (e.g. how does US Foreign Policy constitute the USA (Campbell 1990, 1998)?); and how representations of otherness are part of an exercise of power (e.g. how does the North’s representations of ‘reality’ enable practices of domination and brutality in the ‘South’ (Doty 1993, 1996a)?). To answer such questions, it is necessary to rethink IR’s key concepts such as power. Rather than seeing the primacy of power as a reason to ignore culture, as argued by the Realist,

210 Morten Valbjørn the determination of what kinds of difference make a cultural difference appears as a subtle way of exercising power. IR needs, moreover, to broaden its field of inquiry, since representations of otherness happen at various places. Thus the ‘cultural turn’ should also prompt consideration of the relevance of popular culture in analyses of how otherness is represented, identities constructed, power exercised and consent produced on what is (il)legitimate or (im)possible within international relations (Weldes 1999: 118; cf. 2003). Self-centred rather than self-conscious This strong focus upon the representer’s place in the representations provides a welcome critical dimension to the understanding of cultural diversity in international relations. At the same time, it also constitutes the main weakness of this approach, since it, paradoxically, may produce blindness to the Other and a kind of blind(ed)ness to the Self. Focus is almost confined to the representations of cultural Others and how these are related to the construction of identities or power plays. The specific Others are, on the other hand, approached in a way analogous to Said, who after having acknowledged that ‘there were – and are – cultures and nations whose location is in the East’, admits that ‘about that fact this study of Orientalism has very little to contribute, except to acknowledge it tacitly’ (1995: 5; see also Doty 1993: 315). Very little if anything at all is said about the actual Others and their own perceptions; thus, despite an emphasis on cultural diversity, this approach also appears blind to the Other. Keyman argues that Said has so little to say about the Oriental Other in its own cultural and historical specificity because of his ‘overpreoccupation with the discursive construction of the orient as an object of knowledge’ (1997: 162; emphasis added). This also seems to be the case for the proponents of this approach in more general terms: a naive representer/represented separation is replaced by an almost solipsistic position, where the representer appears virtually omnipotent. Moreover, owing to the emphasis on how representations are related to identity constructions and power plays, this easily translates into a crisis of epistemological (‘am I merely mirroring myself?’) and moral (‘am I unwittingly taking part in an ontological imperialism reifying some voices while silencing others?’) dimensions (Hastrup 1992: 54; Mulhern 2000: 149). This latent crisis is countered by limiting the analyses to representations and the representer’s place in these analyses. However, as shown above, this implies the abandonment of an understanding of the Other as more than just a product of the representer’s own fantasies and projections. Besides being problematic, because of its blindness to Otherness, this ‘solution’ may, moreover, be unnecessary, as it reflects an overreaction to the problems of essentialist and universalist approaches: must representations produced as part of the exercise of power, for instance, necessarily be regarded as unreliable and without

Cultural investigations in IR

211

validity? To subjugate a country, as Halliday (1995: 213) reminds us, would, for example, to some degree involve producing a fairly accurate picture of it. Following Bhabha (1997), it may, furthermore, be more accurate to describe representations of Otherness as hybrid dialogues instead of those hegemonic monologues which the present approach brings to one’s mind. Such dialogue may not be equal or without power plays, but its impact can, nevertheless, be very ambiguous. In his discussion of ‘Orientalism in reverse’, al-Azm (2000), for instance, shows how forms of representation previously employed to legitimize Western imperialism were later on reversed and used by local groups calling for an end of Western interference by reference to an allegedly unique culture. Too much emphasis is placed on the representer’s role in representations, making this approach blinded by the Self. At the same time, its proponents also appear to be blind to their own specific cultural perspective. Much is written from this perspective about the need to counter hegemonic gatekeeping in favour of giving silenced subjects a voice, but far less attention is paid to divergences between different intellectual communities (Holden 2001: 29). As Holden (2002: 266) shows, the Dissident Thoughts should be contextualized in terms of the history of American academic and political radicalism during recent decades, when strands of continental European philosophy entered the American academy, in particular within the humanities. These thoughts, however, have appeared more attractive in an American context than both within Third World scholarship (Tickner 2003: 324), and (parts of) European IR (Jørgensen 2000: 19; Holden 2001: 42). While mainstream IR may be an ‘American Social Science’ (Hoffmann 1977), this cultural alternative most of all appears as a branch of that part of ‘American humanities’, where ‘a distinctively American political agenda is universalized by a movement for which universalism is anathema’ (Eagleton 2000: 43). While this second proposition for a less ‘culture-blind’ approach holds a number of welcome critical qualities, it is thus not without problems either. Self-consciousness ends up in self-centredness, and sensitivity towards the Other becomes over-sensitivity towards saying anything substantial about actual Others. Due to this overreaction, this approach’s proponents not only follow Said’s statement that the most important task of all would be to examine ‘how one can study other cultures and peoples from a libertarian, or non-repressive and non-manipulative perspective’. Most are, unfortunately, also in line with him when he goes on admitting that this task is ‘left embarrassingly incomplete’ (Said 1995: 24).

Recapturing the study of cultural diversity: European contributions Besides their obvious differences as regards ways of cultivating the study of international relations, the two examined cultural alternatives are also

212 Morten Valbjørn marked by similarities. A ‘culture-blind’ universalism is replaced with approaches appearing most of all as ‘culture-blinded’. Thus, both cultural alternatives appear better at asking important and critical long-neglected questions than offering attractive answers. This dilemma, anticipated by Walker (1984: 7–8) long before the ‘cultural turn’, makes it tempting to conclude that IR was right in denying culture a prominent position and should continue doing so, as part of the German critique of Huntington concludes. While saving IR from becoming blinded by culture, this is, however, not going to make international relations more culture-blank and will, moreover, preclude an appreciation of the potential richness of cultural analysis different from those examined above (O’Hagan 2000: 149; Holden 2001: 39). Instead of abandoning the cultural questions altogether, focus is therefore switched to the European arena. Although the ‘cultural turn’ within IR to a large extent has been pioneered by Anglophone scholars (Holden 2001: 29), questions pertaining to cultural diversity have also been addressed by European IR scholars, albeit in various ways depending among other things upon the local ‘culturalinstitutional’ context. In the following, some of these contributions are grouped into five (partly intersecting) avenues to be considered if we want to continue along the road towards an understanding of what sensitivity to cultural diversity may mean. An up-to-date conception of culture The first of these avenues continues more or less along that ‘meta-cultural’ – following Mulhern (2000) – route, which (parts of) IR has turned into during the past decade. Rather than reproaching culture as such for the problems associated with the recent ‘cultural turn’, blame is put on the prevailing conceptions of culture. Besides a time lag, there is always a danger, when concepts from one discipline are used in the theory-making process of another, of slipping into some of the standard pitfalls (Avruch 1998: 11). In the case of IR, this is reflected in an import of concepts of culture abandoned elsewhere due to the kinds of inadequacies also found in the examined cultural approaches.2 However, a multitude of definitions of culture exists, so instead of rejecting culture as such, a more up-to-date conception of culture is aimed at through engagements with fields such as anthropology and cultural studies. This ambition of ‘bringing culture back in – but carefully’3 – is reflected in Lehmannová’s (2003) attempt at providing a theoretical and methodological foundation to the hitherto poorly substantiated concept of culture; Mozaffari’s (2002) critical interrogations into the concept of civilization; and Senghaas’(2001) advocacy of an inter-cultural philosophy based on more realistic and self-reflective images of the internal differences of one’s own culture and others. It is likewise recognizable in Jahn’s (1995), and Jetschke and Liese’s (1998, 1999) examination of various conceptions of culture and their place in

Cultural investigations in IR

213

international thought. Owing to a profound scepticism to both the essentialist and the relational approach, considered as being, respectively, too close to Herder’s sense of culture and a Nietzschean relativism (Jørgensen 2000: 19; Holden 2001: 39, 42), the German ‘cultural turn’ has been more influenced by anthropological definitions of culture indebted to a phenomenological tradition (Holden 2001; Depkat 2004: 186), and to the more popular alternative (at least within anthropology) provided by Geertz (1993: 5) who defines culture as ‘webs of significance’. Besides providing an update on conceptions of culture currently in fashion, an engagement with anthropology and cultural studies will, however, also show an increasing uneasiness with the long-standing darling of these studies. At the time of the ‘ship of culture’s’ call at IR, anthropologists were debating if the concept of culture had served its time, and some even called on their colleagues to go ‘beyond the culture turn’ by simply ‘forgetting culture’ once and for all (Brightman 1995). Rather than engaging in never-ending debates on how to define an essentially contested concept, the remaining avenues follow this course as they forget the concept of culture in order to imagine other ways of avoiding the culture-blind and culture-blinded pitfalls. Reconstructing a less provincial universalism The first of these alternative avenues rejects the ‘easy’ and often provincial type of universalism prevalent in mainstream IR. It stays, however, basically on a universalistic course as it is heading for the development of more demanding but still general models and concepts in the study of different forms of international relations. Considering that some contexts may be more conducive to certain types of theorizing than others, Europe may be an interesting place to look for more ‘diversity-sensitive’ approaches. As reflected in the very general debates by American scholars on whether the post-Cold War global order is to be conceived of as a ‘clash of civilizations’, ‘end of History’ or ‘unipolarity’, global-level actors will often be prone to see unified global interpretations of the world and think in universalistic categories (Wæver 2004: 20). By contrast, the main policy challenges for most other types of actors will be of a regional or inter-regional nature, encouraging more attention to how international relations in different places unfold in different ways. While this, of course, applies not only to Europe, European theorizing is in a disciplinary sense, however, situated in-between the American core and the periphery, giving rise to an increasingly professional but distinct European IR tradition, contrary to most Third World scholarship, which is either completely isolated from developments within the (American) discipline, or an American franchise (Wæver 1998: 726; Jørgensen 2000). If a European context stimulates thinking in terms of more diversity-sensitive general theories in this way, what is then on offer? One place to look is in earlier European theorizing

214 Morten Valbjørn where it is possible to identify a few attempts to address questions related to cultural diversity prior to the ‘cultural turn’. For instance, besides examining the generic dimension of culture (e.g. a universal diplomatic culture), the English School has also addressed cultural diversity in crosstemporal and spatial comparisons of systems of states and in studies of the evolution and expansion of the (European) international society in a multicultural world (e.g. Wight 1977, 1991; Vincent 1980; Bull and Watson 1984; Gong 1984; Watson 1992; Buzan 1993). Therefore, the English School may be said to represent a middle-ground position in the cultureblind/blinded schism (O’Hagan 2002: 203; Thomas 2004). Another place to look is France, where the Annales School’s key figure Braudel (1995 [1963]: 166–7) almost four decades before Huntington, but at the same time as the British Middle East historian Lewis (1965: 165), coined the term ‘clash of civilizations’. Although only recently acknowledged, Aron (1966: 402) also touched upon this issue, arguing that ‘the heterogeneity of civilizations . . . may in the long run have greater consequences than the opposition of two regimes or two doctrines’. Current European theorizing also offers more attempts to advance general theories addressing the diversity of forms of international relations without advancing an explicit definition of culture. Buzan and Wæver’s (2003) ‘Regional Security Complex Theory’, which Wæver (2004: 20) labels as ‘clearly a non-American theory’, is, for instance, based on an argument that even though security increasingly unfolds in different and not parallel forms within different regional security complexes, it is nevertheless possible to apply ‘the same theory across time and space’ (Buzan and Wæver 2003: 468). Another example is Sørensen’s (2001, 2003) theorizing on changes in statehood which aims to provide a middle ground between approaches focusing one-sidedly on either a culture-blind ‘logic of homogeneity’ or a culture-blinded ‘logic of heterogeneity’. At the same time, Sørensen stresses that he has no ambition to contribute to the current meta-theoretical debates (2001: 23), and it is in particular this focusing on ‘first-order’ theorizing that distinguishes this avenue from the next. A new and better meta-theoretical foundation The third avenue is basically heading in the same direction as the previous one, but turns ‘upwards’ towards a ‘second-order’ level. Following Lapid’s (Lapid and Kratochwil 1996: 9) warning that neglect of meta-theoretical questions in debates on culture will ‘virtually secure deep ontological and epistemological misunderstandings’, the aim is to provide a better foundation for studying international relations through means of detours into philosophy and other strands of social thought, where the challenge of cultural diversity has been discussed (and solutions suggested) for so long. As Smith argues, when explaining why he engaged in a discussion on the

Cultural investigations in IR

215

issue of ‘explaining vs. understanding’ with the philosopher Hollis, many of the central questions concerning the study of international relations ‘belong to wider debates in the theory and philosophy of the social sciences’, and IR can ‘gain from setting them in this wider context’ (Hollis and Smith 1991: v). Obviously, not only European traditions of social thought deserve attention, but so far most European bids for a metatheoretical escape from the ‘culture-blind’ and ‘culture-blinded’ pitfalls have nevertheless drawn on various strands of European philosophy and social thought. While the earlier mentioned profound German scepticism towards the essentialist and the relational approaches’ connection to discredited traditions within German intellectual history has led to a flat rejection of culture in some instances, others propose less radical alternatives, drawing on, for instance, the critical theory tradition of the Frankfurter School. Thus, in his discussion of Die Zusammenleben der Kulturen, Müller (1998) presents Habermas’ theory of communicative action as a viable alternative (for a more sceptical assessment see Holden 2001). From another part of Europe, Halliday (2000) also expresses reservations about the ‘cultural turn’ in its present form, suggesting as an alternative an agenda of ‘Comparative Contingency’ drawing on a combination of Gramsci’s work on culture and its implications for politics and similar ‘work already done in many other parts of the social sciences’ (2000: 66). Still others have been on what Neumann (1999) in his tracing of Western thinking about the ‘self/other’ nexus labels an ‘Eastern Excursion’, bringing figures such as Bakhtin and Todorov into empirical studies of European identity formations and theoretical discussions on ways of constructing knowledge that recognizes the Other without absorbing it into the same or the different (e.g. Brown 1994; Neumann 1999; Guillaume 2002). IR and/as area studies The fourth avenue also makes detours outside IR, but instead of going ‘upwards’ it turns, so to say, downwards for the more ‘context sensitive’ area studies. Jahn, for instance, observes that both the traditional cultureblank strands of IR and some of the more recent attempts to theorize the role of culture in international relations are prone to an endless production of abstractions. While these strands of IR are thereby allowing for generalizations, they are ‘at the same time, by definition, precluding the concrete, the particular – culture’ (Jahn 2004: 36). Consequently, Jahn calls for more empirical studies that are ‘specific rather than general, concrete rather than abstract’ (ibid.). A substantial cross-fertilization between IR and area studies appears, from this perspective, attractive. Owing to their traditionally greater interest in the more idiosyncratic aspects of various regions, their fieldwork experiences and their mastery in ‘a regions literature and languages’ rather than ‘the literature of a discipline’, area

216 Morten Valbjørn studies have, contrary to IR, not only a long but also a very concrete experience in dealing with the challenges of cultural diversity (Valbjørn 2004b). Besides general statements such as Booth’s (1997: 114; see also 1979) remark that ‘[t]heory and method, without area studies, encourage thinking in a vacuum and are likely to produce dangerous policies’, for which reason all students ‘should become area specialists’, it is possible to locate various versions of such cross-fertilization with different reach and implications. Buzan and Wæver’s earlier mentioned ‘Regional Security Complex Theory’, which they describe as ‘a matrix for area studies’ (2003: 51), illustrates a more limited version. Even when credit is given to area specialists on whose work Buzan and Wæver ‘have drawn heavily’ (2003: 468), such specialists mostly appear as owners of local empirical data to be purchased and appropriated in the application of a general theoretical framework for regional security. Thus, most of all, area studies appear as assistant ‘junior partners’ in a hierarchical relationship with a substantially unaltered IR. In another version, the exchange takes more the form of a ‘two-way street’. Area studies not only provide empirical data but are considered to be an important reservoir for theorizing and for contributing to broader debates on international relations, and may in this way, at least potentially, also cause IR to rethink some of its basic categories and concepts. To the examples of this kind of cross-fertilization belong, for instance, works by Tibi (1993, 2002), Halliday (1995, 2002), Luciani (1990) and Hinnebusch (2003). In the most far-reaching version, the very ambition of applying and building large ‘diversity-sensitive’ theoretical models with general validity is abandoned in favour of what appears to be a collapsing of IR into area studies. This position may be represented by parts of French international thought, where IR has traditionally been without a separate disciplinary identity and more closely related to sociology, philosophy and anthropology than the global IR discipline’s debates (Wæver 1998: 709; Holden 2001: 31). An example would be the group of scholars (e.g. Badie, Smouts, Laïdi and Bigo) associated with the journal Culture et Conflits. Often through commitment to detailed empirical investigations, anthropologists, sociologists, and political scientists with special knowledge of ‘cultural areas’ are here focusing on the various forms of states embedded in different political cultures, and the historical and societal specificity of conflicts detached from great power relations (Holden 2001: 32, 43; Wæver 2004: 10). Making IR more parochial Similarly to the last and most far-reaching way of combining IR and Area Studies, the fifth and final avenue also abandons any universalist ambition of providing a view from nowhere or everywhere, either at a first- or a second-order level. It stays, however, within an IR framework, which, in turn, is supposed to be more parochial. Following Brown (2001), the

Cultural investigations in IR

217

problem of IR as an ‘American social science’ is not that it is American but that it is not American enough. ‘To achieve diversity in international thought,’ he argues, ‘it may be necessary to make mainstream American IR more open to the parochial, less wedded in the universal – perhaps even more explicitly “American” ’ (Brown 2001: 204). In other words, the ambition is not to replace one kind of universalism (an ethnocentric American) with another more ‘sound’ version based on continental social thought, Chinese philosophy or the like. On the contrary, the aim is to acknowledge that there are various ‘ways of seeing’, thereby transforming IR into a more genuinely global ‘multi-polar’ discipline constituted by a multitude of perspectives, epistemologies and approaches embedded in various historical experiences and intellectual traditions. In a European context, this is reflected in an interest in the plurality of forms of studying international relations elsewhere: the study of international relations in Japan, China, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh and India is compared (Chan 1993, 1994, 2001; Callahan 2001) and scholars from all over the world are brought together to discuss ‘Geo-Cultural Epistemologies in IR’.4 It is also reflected in the rise to a kind of provincialization of European IR including a number of interesting directions of inquiry: (1) A continental IR tradition following its own path of theory-building different from the Anglophone debates is revealed (Jørgensen 2000; Friedrichs 2004); (2) Differences in German and French reactions to Huntington’s ‘clash-ofcivilizations’ argument are related to its domestic contexts (Holden 2001); (3) The merger between international history and cultural studies in the USA and Europe is examined (Depkat 2004; Gienow-Hecht 2004); (4) New ‘schools’ in European security studies are compared with American ones (Wæver 2004); (5) Positivist, encyclopaedic and comparative historical-sociologic approaches in French international thought are discerned (Giesen 1995). An excursion into European IR not only reveals how European scholars are also grappling with questions pertaining to cultural diversity and in some instances also prior to the global ‘cultural turn’. It is also possible to outline various ways of relating to the challenge of cultural diversity different from those examined in the previous section. These ‘avenues’ vary from each other as regards the specific ‘route’ suggested. Some are turning upwards, others downwards, and some make detours outside the disciplinary realms, while others stay within. They are, moreover, at variance as regards destinations. Some aim at squaring the circle of the concept of culture, which is ‘forgotten’ by others; some strive for building more diversity-sensitive general theories, a futile project to others; and whereas some address problems primarily associated with blindness to the Other, others are more concerned with the pitfalls of blindness of the Self. It may be possible to combine some of those avenues, but others appear almost incommensurable. In any case, the European IR scene does not offer a comprehensive and neat alternative to the culture-blind/blinded

218 Morten Valbjørn dilemma identified above. Still, the various avenues are of interest to the present context. They all represent (different) attempts to set a course inbetween the culture-blind Scylla and the culture-blinded Charybdis and indicate in that way that it would be premature to let the problems associated with an essentialist and relational approach lead to an expulsion of questions relating to cultural diversity from the IR agenda.

Conclusion This chapter, which has basically been an enquiry into the current debate within IR on the (ir)relevance of culture, has revealed how neither the discipline nor international relations as such are as ‘culture-blank’ as is often claimed. While the recent ‘cultural turn’ has contributed to a growing awareness of how it would be more accurate to describe IR as ‘culture-blind’, the chapter has, however, also demonstrated how an essentially contested concept like ‘culture’ is fraught with pitfalls. Thus the two alternative ‘cultural’ approaches examined appear to be better at asking important and critical long-neglected questions than at offering attractive answers. Instead of being ‘blind to culture’, these new approaches appear to be ‘blinded by culture’. In this light, it may be tempting to conclude that IR was always right in denying the concept of culture a prominent position and that it should continue to do so. However, such a conclusion appears not only unsatisfactory – since it will not make IR more ‘cultureblank’ and less ‘culture-blinded’ – but also unwarranted. Within, for instance, European IR, it is possible to identify a number of (partly intersecting) avenues worth considering if we want to escape the ‘cultureblind/blinded’ pitfalls, and this does not necessarily imply squaring the circle of an essentially contested concept like culture. It may, on the contrary, be wise even to forget this concept for a while if we want to continue along the road towards a better understanding of what sensitivity to cultural diversity might mean.

Acknowledgements I wish to thank Knud Erik Jørgensen, Tonny Brems Knudsen, Georg Sørensen, Lars Erslev Andersen, André Bank, Jeppe Strandsbjerg, Kenneth Waltz and Birthe Valbjørn for their helpful comments and criticisms on various ideas expressed in this chapter.

Notes 1 It has almost become a convention that any discussion of culture must include Raymond Williams’ famous remark in Keywords (1976) that culture belongs to ‘one of the two or three most complicated words in the English language’ (1976: 76). The concept of culture acquires different meanings in diverse contexts and must, as Geertz (1993: 29) notes, indeed be reckoned among the so-

Cultural investigations in IR

219

called essentially contested concepts. Sometimes the term is associated with what is ‘superstructural’ as opposed to ‘base’ when referring to specific aesthetic qualities – either in the Arnoldian sense of ‘high culture’ or in the sense of ‘popular culture’, as in cultural studies. While culture here appears in close lineage to ‘art’ (another highly contested concept), the term refers at other times in a very broad sense to the social organization of communities or to ‘the complex whole’, as E.B. Tylor, one of the founding fathers of anthropology, famously put it. This can be in a generic version, where the term appears in the singular with a capital ‘C’, Culture, since it is used to summarize those qualities that unite humanity as a whole and places it apart from Nature, or in a differential form where it refers to something dividing social groups from each other and therefore always comes in the plural as cultures. This discussion focuses only on the latter meaning (i.e. the differential conception of culture). For a discussion of the various conceptions of culture, see e.g. Williams (1976); Geertz (1993); Avruch (1998); Eagleton (2000); Mulhern (2000). 2 This applies in particular to the essentialist conceptions that draw upon the classic but long ago rejected notions of culture by founding figures such as Boas, Tyler and Benedict. As appears in the following, it is, however, also possible to identify a certain uneasiness within (parts of) cultural studies as regards the relational conception (Mulhern 2000). 3 I am here paraphrasing Hudson’s (1995: 62) recommendation in a related discussion on culture and democratization. 4 This discussion was organized by Wæver together with Tickner, and took place at the 2004 ISA Convention in Montreal.

References al-Azm, S. (2000) ‘Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse’ in A.L. Macfie (ed.) Orientalism – A Reader, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Aron, R. (1966) Peace and War, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Avruch, K. (1998) Culture and Conflict Resolution, United States Institute of Peace. Barnett, M. (1993) ‘Institutions, Roles, and Disorder: The Case of the Arab States System’, International Studies Quarterly 37 (September): 271–96. Bhabha, H. (1997) ‘The Other Question’ in P. Mongia (ed.) Contemporary Post-Colonial Theory, London: Arnold. Booth, K. (1979) Strategy and Ethnocentrism, London: Croom Helm. —— (1997) ‘Security and Self: Reflections of a Fallen Realist’ in K.R. Krause and M.C. Williams (eds) Critical Security Studies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 83–119. Bozeman, A.B. (1971) The Future of Law in a Multicultural World, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. —— (1984) ‘The International Order in a Multicultural World’ in H. Bull and A. Watson (eds) The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press. —— (1992) Strategic Intelligence and Statecraft, Washington, DC: Brassey Inc. —— (1994) Politics and Culture in International History – From the Ancient Near East to the Opening of the Modern Age (With a new introduction by the author), London: Transaction Publishers. First published 1960. Braudel, F. (1995) A History of Civilizations, London: Penguin Books. First published 1963. Brightman, R. (1995) ‘Forget Culture: Replacement, Transcendence, Relexification’, Cultural Anthropology 10(4): 509–46.

220 Morten Valbjørn Brown, C. (1994) ‘ “Turtles All the Way Down”: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies 23(2): 213–36. —— (2001) ‘Fog in Channel: Continental IR Theory Isolated (Or: An Essay on the Paradoxes of Diversity and Parochialism in IR Theory)’ in R. Crawford and D. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Towards diversity in International Thought, Albany, NY: State University Press, pp. 203–19. Bull, H. and Watson, A. (eds) (1984) The Expansion of International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Buzan, B. (1993) ‘From International System to International Society: Structural Realism and Regime Theory Meet the English School’, International Organization 4(3): 327–52. Buzan, B. and Wæver, O. (eds) (2003) Regions and Powers – The Structure of International Security, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Callahan, W.A. (2001) ‘China and the Globalisation of IR Theory’, Journal of Contemporary China 10(26): 75–88. Campbell, D. (1990) ‘Global Inscription: How Foreign Policy Constitutes the United States’, Alternatives 15(3): 263–86. —— (1998) Writing Security, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Chan, S. (1993) ‘Cultural and Linguistic Reductionism and a New Historical Sociology for IR’, Millennium 22(3): 423–42. —— (1994) ‘Beyond the North-West: Africa and the East’ in A.J.R. Groom and M. Light (eds) Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London: Pinter. —— (2001) ‘Seven Types of Ambiguity in Western International Relations Theory and Painful steps towards Right Ethics’ in S. Chan, P. Mandaville and R. Bleiker (eds) The Zen of International Relations – IR Theory from East to West, New York: Palgrave, pp. 69–78. David, S. (1991) ‘Explaining Third World Alignment’, World Politics 43(2): 233–56. Depkat, V. (2004) ‘Cultural Approaches to International Relations – A Challenge?’ in J.C.E. Gienow-Hecht and F. Schumacher (eds) Culture and International History, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 175–97. Doty, R.L. (1993) ‘Foreign Policy as Social Construction: A Post-positivist Analysis of U.S. Counter-Insurgency Policy in the Philippines’, International Studies Quarterly 37(September): 297–320. —— (1996a) Imperial Encounters, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. —— (1996b) ‘The Logic of Différance in International Relations – U.S. Colonization of the Philippines’ in F.A. Beer and R. Hariman (eds) Post-Realism – The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations, East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, pp. 331–45. Duffield, J.S. (1999) ‘Political Culture and State Behaviour: Why Germany Confounds Neo-realism’, International Organization 53(4): 765–803. Eagleton, T. (2000) The Idea of Culture, Oxford: Blackwell. Ferguson, Y. and Mansbach, R. (1996) ‘The Past as Prelude to the Future? Identities and Loyalties in Global Politics’ in Y. Lapid and F. Kratochwil (eds) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Friedrichs, J. (2004) European Approaches to International Relations Theory – A House with Many Mansions, London: Routledge. Geertz, C. (1993) The Interpretation of Cultures, London: Fontana Press.

Cultural investigations in IR

221

Gienow-Hecht, J.C.E. (2004) ‘On the Division of Knowledge and the Community of Thought: Culture and International History’ in J.C.E. Gienow-Hecht and F. Schumacher (eds) Culture and International History, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 3–26. Giesen, K.-G. (1995) ‘French Cancan zwischen Positivismus, Enzyklopädismus und Historismus – Zur Struktur und Geschichte der vorherrschenden französischsprachigen Ansatzforschung’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 141–70. Gong, G. (1984) The Standard of ‘Civilization’ in International Society, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gongora, T. (1997) ‘War Making and State Power in the Contemporary Middle East’, International Journal of Middle East Studies 29(3): 323–40. Gregg, R.W. (1998) International Relations on Film, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Guillaume, X. (2002) ‘Foreign Policy and the Politics of Alterity: A Dialogical Understanding of International Relations’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies 31(1): 1–26. Hall, S. (1996) ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’ in P. Mongia (ed.) Contemporary Post-colonial Theory, London: Arnold. Halliday, F. (1995) Islam and the Myth of Confrontation, New York: I.B. Tauris. —— (2000) ‘Culture and International Relations: A New Reductionism?’ in M. Ebata and B. Neufeld (eds) Confronting the Political in International Relations, London: Macmillan Press, pp. 47–71. —— (2002) ‘ “Islam” and the “West”: Cultural Conflict and International Relations’ in F. Halliday Two Hours that Shook the World, London: Saqi Books, pp. 193–211. Hastrup, K. (1992) Det antropologiske projekt – om forbløffelse, Copenhagen: Gyldendal. Hinnebusch, R. (2003) The International Politics of the Middle East, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106(3): 41–60. Holden, G. (2001) ‘The Politer Kingdoms of the Globe: Context and Comparison on the Intellectual History of IR’, Global Society 15(1): 27–51. —— (2002) ‘Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History and the Discourse about IR Discourse’, Review of International Studies 28: 253–70. Hollis, M. and Smith, S. (1991) Explaining and Understanding International Relations, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hudson, M. (1995) ‘The Political Culture Approach to Arab Democratization – The Case for Bringing It Back In, Carefully’ in R. Brynen, B. Korany and P. Noble (eds) Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World – Theoretical Perspectives, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Huntington, S.P. (1993) ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’, Foreign Affairs 72(3): 222–49. —— (1997) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York: Touchstone. Jahn, B. (1995) ‘Globale Kulturkämpfe order einheitliche Weltkultur’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 213–36. —— (2000) The Cultural Construction of International Relations, New York: Palgrave. —— (2004) ‘The Power of Culture in International Relations’ in J.C.E. GienowHecht and F. Schumacher (eds) Culture and International History, New York: Berghahn Books, pp. 27–41.

222 Morten Valbjørn Jetschke, A. and Liese, A. (1998) ‘Kultur im Aufwind’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 5(1): 149–79. —— (1999) ‘Die kulturelle Prägnung staatlicher Interessen und Handlungen – Anmerkungen zur socialkonstruktivistischen Analyse von “kultur” in den Internationalen Beziehungen’, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 28(3): 269–84. Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 9–42. Keyman, F.E. (1997) Globalization, State, Identity/Difference, New Jersey: Humanities Press International. Korany, B., Noble, P. and Brynen, R. (1993) ‘The Analysis of National Security in the Arab Context: Restating the State of the Art’ in B. Korany et al. (eds) The Many Faces of National Security in the Arab World, New York: St Martin’s Press, pp. 1–23. Krause, K. (1996) ‘Insecurity and State Formation in the Global Military Order: The Middle Eastern Case’, European Journal of International Relations 2(3): 319–54. Lapid, Y. and Kratochwil, F. (eds) (1996) The Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Lehmannová, Z. (2003) ‘Globalisation and Culture’, Journal of International Relations and Development 6(3): 241–51. Lewis, B. (1965) The Middle East and the West, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Luciani, G. (1990) ‘Allocation vs. Production States: A Theoretical Framework’ in G. Luciani (ed.) The Arab State, London: Routledge, pp. 63–82. Lustick, I. (1997) ‘The Absence of Middle Eastern Great Powers: Political “Backwardness” in Historical Perspective’, International Organization 51(4): 653–83. McAlister, M. (2001) Epic Encounters – Culture, Media and U.S. Interests in the Middle East, 1945–2000, Berkeley: University of California Press. Mandaville, P. (2003) ‘Toward a Different Cosmopolitanism – or, the “I” Dislocated’, Global Society 17(2): 209–21. Morgenthau, H.J. (1967) Politics among Nations – The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Mozaffari, M. (ed.) (2002) Globalization and Civilizations, London: Routledge. Mulhern, F. (2000) Culture/Metaculture, London: Routledge. Müller, H. (1998) Die Zusammenleben der Kulturen, Frankfurt: Fischer. Neumann, I. (1999) Uses of the Other – ‘The East’ in European Identity Formation, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Niva, S. (1999) ‘Contested Sovereignties and Postcolonial Insecurities in the Middle East’ in J. Weldes et al. (eds) The Culture of Insecurity – States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 147–72. O’Hagan, J. (2000) ‘A “Clash of Civilizations”?’ in J. O’Hagan and G. Fry (eds) Contending Images of World Politics, London: Macmillan, pp. 135–49. —— (2002) ‘Conflict, Convergence, or Coexistence? The Relevance of Culture in Reframing World Order’ in R. Falk et al. Reframing the International – Law, Culture, Politics, New York: Routledge, pp. 187–217. Piscatori, J. (1986) Islam in a World of Nation-states, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cultural investigations in IR

223

—— (1992) ‘Islam and World Politics’ in J. Baylis and N.J. Rengger (eds) Dilemmas of World Politics – International Issues in a Changing World, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rengger, N.J. (1992) ‘Culture, Society and Order in World Politics’ in J. Baylis and N.J. Rengger (eds) Dilemmas of World Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Said, E. (1995, [1978]) Orientalism – Western Conceptions of the Orient (with a new Afterword), London: Penguin. Senghaas, D. (2001) The Clash within Civilizations – Coming to Terms with Cultural Conflicts, London: Routledge. Smith, S. (1995) ‘The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of IR Theory’ in S. Smith and K. Booth (eds) International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press. Smith, S. and Baylis, J. (eds) (2001) The Globalization of World Politics – An Introduction to International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sørensen, G. (2001) Changes in Statehood: The Transformation of International Relations, Basingstoke: Palgrave. —— (2003) The Transformation of the State, New York: Palgrave. Thomas, S. (2004) ‘Taking Religious and Cultural Pluralism Seriously: The Global Resurgence of Religion and the Transformation of International Society’ in F. Petito and P. Hatzopoulos (eds) Religion in International Relations – The Return from Exile, New York: Palgrave, pp. 21–54. Tibi, B. (1993) Conflict and War in the Middle East – From Interstate War to New Security, London: Macmillan . —— (2002) The Challenge of Fundamentalism – Political Islam and the New World Disorder, Berkeley: University of California Press. Tickner, A. (2003) ‘Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World’, Millennium 32(2): 295–324. Valbjørn, M. (2004a) ‘Culture-blind and culture-blinded: Images of Middle Eastern Conflicts in International Relations’ in D. Jung (ed.) The Middle East and Palestine: Global Politics and Regional Conflicts, New York: Palgrave, pp. 39–78. —— (2004b) ‘Toward a “Mesopotamian Turn”: Disciplinarity and the Study of the International Relations of the Middle East’, Journal of Mediterranean Studies 14: 1–2. Vincent, R.J. (1980) ‘The Factor of Culture in the Global International Order’, The Year Book of World Affairs, London: Stevens & Sons. Wæver, O. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in IR’, International Organization 52(4): 687–727. —— (2004) ‘Aberystwyth, Paris, Copenhagen – New “Schools” in Security Theory and their Origins between Core and Periphery’, paper presented at the annual ISA Meeting, Montreal, 17–20 March. Walker, R.B.J. (ed.) (1984) Culture, Ideology and World Order, Boulder, CO: Westview. —— (1993) Inside/Outside International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wallerstein, E. (1974) The Modern World-system, London: Academic Press. —— (1979) The Capitalist World-Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: Random House. Watson, A. (1992) The Evolution of International Society: A Comparative Historical Analysis, London: Routledge.

224 Morten Valbjørn Weber, C. (2001) International Relations Theory – A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge. Weldes, J. (1999) ‘Going Cultural: Star Trek, State Action, and Popular Culture’, Millennium 28(1): 117–34. —— (2003) (ed.) To Seek Out New Worlds – Exploring Links between Science Fiction and World Politics, New York: Palgrave. Wight, M. (1977) ‘De systematibus civitatum’ in M. Wight Systems of States, Leicester: Leicester University Press. —— (1991) International Theory: The Three Traditions, Leicester: Leicester University Press. Williams, R. (1976) Keywords, London: Fontana. Zubaida, S. (1993) Islam, the People and the State, London: I.B. Tauris.

9

Approaches to IR The relationship between AngloSaxon historiography and crosscommunity comparison Gerard Holden

Introduction This chapter begins by taking stock of the state of our knowledge about IR, some five years after the appearance of two publications which revived interest in the field and have done much to shape the debate that subsequently developed: Brian C. Schmidt’s The Political Discourse of Anarchy (1998) and Ole Wæver’s International Organization article, ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline’ (1998). Schmidt’s contribution has been to challenge some important elements of the story IR has traditionally narrated about itself, in particular the belief that there was a founding debate between idealists and realists in the inter-war period of the twentieth century. Wæver looked at the state of the discipline at the end of that century, and found that IR fell some way short of the ideal of a truly international field: IR was pursued differently in different places, and although ‘great debates’ conducted in the USA structured the discipline as a whole, there were signs that European and American IR were drifting apart due to differing attitudes to the role of rational choice approaches in political science. This chapter argues that rather different things are at stake in these debates. In the historiographical literature on IR in Anglophone countries, there is both disagreement on the best method to be used and a degree of uncertainty about the consequences of the resolution of these questions. The literature on non-Anglophone IR communities has so far generated less controversy, because the argument about the significance of inter-community differences has not been challenged. Assessing the debates, I argue that although the historiographical literature is of considerable pedagogical significance, it is not quite as important for the conduct of the present-day discipline as has sometimes been suggested. The fact that IR is conducted differently in different places, on the other hand, is of greater significance because it can lead to distortions and misunderstandings as social-scientific concepts are taken up within academic communities removed from the intellectual context in which they were originally developed. This does not mean that concepts are always

226 Gerard Holden misunderstood when transferred to different contexts, but it does mean that the sociology of IR should pay close attention to what happens in such cases. History remains important, because a reliable historiographical method is also required for the investigation of individual IR communities. I argue that a contextualist method is appropriate. This chapter contributes to the literature on different communities by presenting an outline of the ways in which one particular tradition of thought, the work of the Frankfurt School and of Jürgen Habermas, has been taken up and applied to international relations by British and German scholars. I note differences between the debates conducted in these contexts, in particular a more radical approach in the UK and a more pragmatic approach in Germany. There is a good argument for carrying out further case studies along similar lines, but because few studies of this type have been carried out it is difficult to say what we would learn from them about the development of the discipline as a whole. I also suggest in conclusion that further work on sociological methods for use in cross-community comparisons is needed, because there is some doubt as to whether the appropriate tools are readily available. The structure of the chapter follows this argument. In the following section, I examine the sub-field of disciplinary history and historiography, after which I look at the literature on IR communities. I then outline my comparative case study of British and German IR, and consider the arguments for and against the use of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociology of education as an investigative tool; in conclusion, I offer some suggestions for further cross-community comparisons.

Anglo-Saxon IR, context, and ‘presentism’ If more evidence were needed to convince sceptics of the presence of intradisciplinary meta-reflection on IR’s agenda, we need look no further than the recent publication of Sage’s Handbook of International Relations (Carlsnaes et al. 2002). This volume begins with a chapter by Schmidt entitled ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’ (Schmidt 2002a). In this chapter, Schmidt restates his challenge to the orthodox narrative of Anglophone IR’s ‘great debates’ and to the practice of what he calls ‘presentism’, and goes on to suggest that his own preference for an internalist historiography may also be the key to an analysis of different national IR communities: ‘An internal as compared to an external focus may well help to account for the distinct national differences in how the field has developed’ (Schmidt 2002a: 16). The question of what is meant by ‘internal’ historiography needs to be looked at in detail, but this comment is important both because Anglo-Saxon historiography and investigations of non-Anglophone communities have up until now been pursued largely in isolation from one another, and because rather different issues appear to be involved in the two sub-fields.

Anglo-Saxon historiography 227 Returning for a moment to 1998, it is worth recalling that Schmidt’s The Political Discourse of Anarchy was widely welcomed on its publication, but there was questioning of certain of the book’s substantive findings and also of its self-characterization as a ‘critical internal discursive’ history. One should also remember that few of Schmidt’s readers or even his reviewers have been well equipped to challenge him, for the simple reason that much of the material he discusses is unfamiliar to most of us – I include myself here. We should, therefore, recognize the importance of Schmidt’s achievement in making these debates possible. Schmidt has received support from the publication of further contributions challenging the idea that an inter-war idealism versus realism debate functioned as the founding moment of the discipline (Wilson 1998; Ashworth 2002; Thies 2002), and has himself (2002b) gone on to argue that inter-war pluralism, which has been largely neglected, contains resources that could be useful for the contemporary discipline. Substantive historical challenges have not been entirely absent from the commentaries. I am aware of four of these: Richard Little’s argument that Schmidt neglects the importance of ideology in the history of American IR and in foreign policy-making (Little 1999); Robert Vitalis’ argument that questions of racism and imperialism are ignored both in contemporary American IR and in its historiography, and also that racism is implicitly present in some of the texts which Schmidt discusses (Vitalis 2000); Christine Sylvester’s criticism of disciplinary historians (Schmidt, Vitalis and Tim Dunne) for saying nothing about the possible involvement of women in the early days of IR or the neglect of gender issues as the field coalesced (Sylvester 2002: 14); and Chris Brown’s comment that Schmidt overstates his case because his account does show an intensification in the study of international relations after the First World War, which represents a concession to the orthodox account of the field’s history (Brown 2000: 118). There may have been other criticisms I have missed, but I mention them here not in order to try to adjudicate on them but to make the point that it is quite easy to see how, in principle, one would go about testing these authors’ counter-claims: one would look again at Schmidt’s original material and arguments, perhaps incorporate new literature suggested by these authors, and come to a judgement about neglected issues or possible misinterpretations. All fairly straightforward. Slightly less straightforward is the question of method. The second criticism voiced in early discussions of the book was that Schmidt’s declared method, ‘critical internal discursive’ historiography, was at odds with his references throughout the book to ‘real world’ events and to the context these provided for academic debates, though most reviewers thought this weakness did not undermine Schmidt’s substantive findings. I think this criticism was justified, and have myself argued that the reason for Schmidt’s methodological confusion is to be found in his misunderstanding of the idea of contextual intellectual history (Holden 2002). Although

228 Gerard Holden I cannot repeat all the details of this argument here, its essential elements can be restated. Schmidt calls his own account ‘internal’ in order to distinguish it from Quentin Skinner’s contextual approach which, he says, assumes that external political events determine the development of thought. Skinner does not say this, and in fact Schmidt’s own treatment of the relationship between academic debates and the world of international politics is inconsistent neither with Skinner’s theory nor with his practice. One can add that this problem seems to be fundamental to the kind of intellectual history written by John G. Gunnell, from whom Schmidt took the approach.1 This is not a trivial dispute, since it is desirable both that one’s declared method should be in conformity with what one actually does and that we should try to be as clear as possible about the best method(s) for the pursuit of intellectual history. It is noticeable that Schmidt’s recent extension of his argument (2002b) fails to address the criticisms of the lack of fit between his declared and his actual method. The Handbook chapter also leaves the general problem unresolved. Here, Schmidt says that his own critical internal discursive history is not the only approach that might be employed, since there is also room for Stefano Guzzini’s historical sociology, Wæver’s sociology of science, and Steve Smith’s genealogy (Schmidt 2002a: 17; the additional references are to Guzzini 1998 and Smith 1995). This is a surprising position for Schmidt to take, as the whole of his book and of this chapter presuppose a decision in favour of his own approach, and it is by no means clear whether this is compatible with the other approaches mentioned. At least, the question needs to be addressed. Schmidt and Guzzini do not, on the surface at least, appear to believe that their approaches are compatible. We have seen that Schmidt rejects contextualism, and Guzzini’s historical sociology is designed to relate academic debates to their political context by treating social scientists as a community of researchers responding to their political and scientific environment. The matter is complicated, however, by the fact that Guzzini sometimes does follow his own declared method (Guzzini 2000a, 2000b), and sometimes fails to do so (Guzzini 1998). I also doubt whether Schmidt’s approach and Smith’s genealogy are compatible with one another. Smith’s genealogy reconstructs international theorists’ own characterizations of their field in terms of simplified oppositions or shorthand summaries (e.g. ‘communitarian versus cosmopolitan thought’, ‘three great debates’), and does indeed exclude references to external context. However, in a recent contribution Smith has praised Schmidt’s work highly, at the cost of making it sound more genealogical than it actually is (Smith 2000: 377–9). Smith certainly departs here from the tone of most of the initial reviewers of the book by not criticizing Schmidt for his references to external context. There appears to be more room for Schmidt’s and Wæver’s approaches to coexist, because Wæver’s sociology of science starts from the nineteenth-century histories of the state in the USA, France, Germany and the UK, and locates the factors influencing discipli-

Anglo-Saxon historiography 229 nary developments in the societies surrounding the respective university systems. This is not far removed from what Gunnell and Schmidt do, especially in relation to German and American political science before 1914. I would characterize this compatibility or area of overlap by saying that disciplinary history à la Schmidt includes or should include some sociology of science, and sociology of science à la Wæver includes or should include some intellectual history. (Since I consider my own work in this area to fall within the category of intellectual history, I shall continue to use that term for the general field with which we are concerned.) In order to get to grips more satisfactorily with questions relating to declared methods, actual methods, and competition or coexistence between different approaches, it is helpful to look more closely at the question of ‘presentism’. What Schmidt means by ‘presentism’ is the practice of writing the history of a discipline in such a way as to create certain categories retrospectively and illegitimately, and in so doing selectively to legitimize a particular view of the discipline’s current condition and practices. Two aspects of this argument need to be distinguished from one another. On the one hand, opposition to the retrospective attribution to past thinkers of categories they would not have recognized lies at the heart of Quentin Skinner’s work, so this part of the ‘presentism’ argument is not in competition with a contextualist history of ideas (for his reworked and updated account of his method, see Skinner 2002). On the other hand, the ‘presentism’ argument does not mean that the thought of the past is no longer accessible to us, since Schmidt too seeks to make use of it (by reviving inter-war pluralism), and all intellectual-historical work would seem to require that we recognize some chain of argument linking our immediate concerns with the historical questions we are interested in. Once again, this is a broadly Skinnerian argument, though debate continues over the extent to which Skinner is able both to account for the historical context of utterances and to make them available for contemporary purposes (Hampsher-Monk 2001; Runciman 2001). The potential difficulties involved in this second aspect of the ‘presentism’ argument have been captured by Cameron G. Thies in an article pursuing the history of the idealist–realist debate, which points out both that there can be no neutral stance for the writing of intellectual history and also that he, Thies, has written his article with his own presentist purposes in mind (Thies 2002: 149, 155). However, this does not mean that we are all hopelessly trapped within our own ‘presentist’ agendas, as Thies’ argument seems to imply. All it means is that ‘presentism’ in this second sense is a necessary component of the intellectual-historical enterprise as such, and that accurate and informative disciplinary history is to be preferred to inaccurate and misleading history. (It also means that there is no need to speak of ‘critical’ history; the term is redundant.) And as long as we remain aware of our own historical (and geographical, and social) contingency as scholars, there does not seem to be any reason why

230 Gerard Holden we should not be able to distinguish more accurate from less accurate intellectual history.2 In sum: to the extent that presentism is a problem in disciplinary historiography, it can be identified and to a large extent satisfactorily dealt with within a contextualist understanding of the history of ideas. It seems to me, in fact, that one of Schmidt’s most recent contributions revises his position on contextualism. In the introduction to a new collection of essays on the history of the ideas of imperialism and internationalism, co-written with David Long, Schmidt and Long stress the need to avoid creating categories retrospectively and conclude: ‘we should read more closely and devote more attention to the historical context in which an author was writing’ (Long and Schmidt 2004: 25).3 Given this basis for the pursuit of intellectual history, we can carry on debating the substantive challenges to Schmidt’s account mentioned at the beginning of this section. If a problem remains, it is that of identifying the boundary between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ context in relation to intellectual work pursued within modern universities. While Skinner’s contextualism was originally designed to redirect intellectual historians’ attention away from what were thought to be timeless ideas ‘inside’ texts, the more contemporary historian of ideas has to deal with professionalized, institutionalized, mass university systems, sometimes publicly funded, existing within national social and political contexts as well as – in the case of IR – an international political environment. (In terms of the concepts employed by the sociologist of science Richard Whitley, Machiavelli and Hobbes were engaged in ‘pre-professional’ science.) One could try to treat the university environment as the ‘internal’ context and everything else as ‘external’, which I take to be Schmidt’s original position, but the assumption that the two spheres can be examined in isolation from one another strikes me as unsatisfactory. The mistake that really needs to be avoided is the belief that contextualism involves attributing to political events a power to cause ideas. It does not involve this. As long as this mistake is not made, it may not matter much whether we conventionally label certain parts of the context ‘internal’ and others ‘external’. It may be better to avoid both terms, but even if this is not possible it seems likely that the intellectual historiography of IR needs to refer to and relate to developments within (national) university systems, within (national) political cultures, and within the (international) sphere of world-political ‘events’. Of course, one can also treat these distinctions as to a greater or lesser extent arbitrary constructions – but in that case, there is all the more reason to avoid an internal/external dichotomy. In concluding this section, it is worth asking what might follow from the resolution of the historically substantive controversies mentioned so far. There is, I think, a sense in which not much follows at all. This is not intended to belittle Schmidt’s achievement, but one only has to look at the range of scholars who have welcomed his work to see that appreciation of his contributions is compatible with a variety of contemporary

Anglo-Saxon historiography 231 approaches and theories. Even if there was no inter-war debate between idealism and realism, this does not mean that we could not have such a debate today if we wanted to – though there may be other reasons why we might not wish to do so. By the same token, let us assume that Vitalis and Sylvester are right in their claims that Schmidt has failed to spot certain (racist) presences and (gendered) omissions in disciplinary history. These mistakes could be corrected, but the contemporary discipline would remain approximately where it was; it was, after all, the legitimate presentist preoccupations of these authors that led them to formulate their criticisms in the first place. Or, to put it the other way round: these authors would be unlikely to abandon their present positions if someone else managed to show that they too had oversimplified in some way, and historiographical arguments alone could not oblige them to do so. An interesting dilemma arises, though, when one considers the question of how students should be taught about this. If one treats disciplinary historiography as a/the basic question all students of IR should know about, one would have to present undergraduates in their first term/semester with arguments to the effect that there was no inter-war idealism versus realism debate even before anyone has suggested there was one. At the moment, I suspect that only advanced students are likely to be confronted with these matters, but that does not seem a satisfactory way of proceeding either. Even though the Handbook is not an introductory text, there is an undeniable logic to the placing of Schmidt’s chapter at the beginning; however, the argument can only be properly appreciated in association with the narrative it is challenging. The historiographical literature is therefore very important indeed in pedagogical terms, and the fact that Schmidt’s work has been welcomed by such a diverse group of scholars may give it integrative potential in this sense. This does not mean that the value of disciplinary historiography is ‘merely’ pedagogical. Pedagogy matters a great deal, and it is certainly desirable that future diplomats, politicians and journalists (to say nothing of academics) should be taught accurate rather than inaccurate accounts of IR’s history. I also think good intellectual history has an intrinsic value that does not depend on its immediate utility. And yet: the paradox of the argument put forward by Schmidt and others is that they leave themselves open to a ‘So what?’ objection, because they are unable to show why corrections to the conventional historical narrative matter in any major way for contemporary practices. In a curious sense, therefore, Schmidt’s argument is not quite ‘presentist’ enough.

Around the world in eighty discourses The amount of material published in the sub-field of cross-community comparisons is growing quite fast, but it is more difficult to identify the issues at stake here than in the historiographical sub-field. We need to

232 Gerard Holden return to Wæver’s article on ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline’ as a starting point. As I have already suggested, there do not seem to be any obstacles to coexistence between Wæver’s sociology of science approach and a contextual approach to intellectual history, as long as the latter is carefully enough specified. In his article, Wæver argued that US and European IR were drifting apart, and even within Europe there were some significant differences reflecting persistent national academic traits. American IR would continue to function as the global leader, but its predominantly liberal ontology and use of rational choice methods would not be copied in Europe. The trend would therefore be towards de-Americanization of the global field, with a more nationally coherent American discipline and more solid national/ linguistic academic communities elsewhere. Let us now move on to mention some of the material that has amplified these findings in the past few years, and then to a consideration of the curious fact that no one has yet made a sustained attempt to challenge the view that differences between IR communities are real, significant and potentially increasing – even though the consequences for the present-day conduct of the discipline would appear to be considerable. Here, in no particular order, are some of the items published since Wæver conducted his research, a number of which refer directly to his article (mostly in English, and once again with the proviso that there may be things I have missed): •

•

•

•

Several contributions which either endorse the view that there is a significant gulf between US and British IR (Smith 2000; Crawford 2001), or seek to promote a less American-oriented discipline by using and developing the ideas of the English School (Buzan 20014). The increasing attention being paid to Chinese conceptions of international politics (Geeraerts and Men Jing 1998; Chan 1999; Zhang 2003), plus material on or reflecting aspects of IR in other ‘nonWestern’ or non-core countries (Puchala 1997; Aydinli and Mathews 2000), in Israel (Cohen 2001), in Japan (Inoguchi and Bacon 2001), and in Latin America (Tickner 2003); the term ‘post-Western IR’ has also been used (Chan et al. 2001). Material on IR in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia (Tsygankov and Tsygankov 1999; Drulák and Druláková 2000; Sergounin 2000; Drulák and Königová 2002). Further explorations of aspects of Western European IR (Jørgensen 2000; Friedrichs 2001; Groom and Mandaville 2001; Holden 2001; Lucarelli and Menotti 2002), including a comprehensive overview of the state of IR in Germany (Hellmann et al. 2003).

It is noticeable that there is no challenge to Wæver here. Why should this be? After the appearance of Stanley Hoffmann’s (1977) ‘American Social

Anglo-Saxon historiography 233 Science’ article, a response by Norman D. Palmer appeared in International Studies Quarterly (Palmer 1980). Palmer’s counter-argument did not leave such profound traces in the collective disciplinary memory as Hoffmann’s contribution, but it did appear. This time around there has, to the best of my knowledge, been nothing comparable. One explanation for this may be that everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with Wæver, though it is hard to tell if this is the case. Another possibility may be that those who have doubts about Wæver’s argument either think the issue is not really very important (and so not worth challenging) or do not feel confident about taking him on on the sociology of science. Either way, the absence of counter-arguments is curious and in a way regrettable; it might be character-building for those of us who do think this issue is significant to be confronted with a different view. What might such a position look like? One can draw on some published comments providing the bare bones of a sceptical view (Porter 2001), and add to these further considerations related to the phenomenon of academic cosmopolitanism. Tony Porter’s rejection of the idea of national perspectives on international relations argues that such factors as the ethical imperative of cross-boundary communication, the need for a set of shared understandings if academic disciplinarity is to function at all, the effects of technological innovation and the strengthening of scholarly communities across countries (e.g. feminists, Gramscians) make it unlikely that significant national differences will emerge. Porter follows this up with a case study of Canada which suggests that Canadian IR scholars do not see their community as having any coherent or distinctive approach or clearly national scholarly identity. This survey is, however, partially contradicted by the thoughts of two other Canadians writing in the same volume who see Canadian IR as more ‘critical’ (Neufeld and Healy 2001). Nor does it represent a general challenge to Wæver, whom Porter does not cite. Aydinli and Mathews (2000) make some adjustments to Wæver’s approach; they include Australia, Canada, Israel and Japan in the same group as Europe, in order to focus attention on ‘the true periphery that lies outside of Europe and North America’ (p. 291). This results in a finding of even greater US dominance over ‘the rest’. Aydinli and Mathews concentrate on English-language publications, but suggest (reasonably enough, though probably quixotically) that core journals might consider accepting submissions in languages other than English. Some of the points made by Porter could be subsumed under the general rubric of academic cosmopolitanism, and amplified with additional empirical (or at least anecdotal) evidence. If I read Wæver correctly, his data do not register as a separate category scholars working in countries other than those they were trained in, or passing through elite institutions such as the European University Institute or the Central European University. His findings may therefore underestimate the growth of these forms of cosmopolitanism during the 1990s (for an instructive

234 Gerard Holden perspective on ‘nomadism’ among natural scientists and engineers, see Meyer et al. 2001). One should note, however, that for practical purposes within ‘Western’ IR, both ‘elite’ and ‘cosmopolitan’ are pretty much synonymous with ‘English-speaking’, and something similar seems to be happening in Central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, some IR communities are more cosmopolitan than others. British IR is spectacularly so, at most levels from the Millennium Editorial Board up to the BISA Executive Committee, even if the upper (professorial) reaches of the disciplinary food chain remain largely ‘native’. If one assumes that this kind of cosmopolitanism dilutes national communities, this may represent a counter-tendency. There is room for debate about how desirable this is. Fred Halliday has pointed out that there is a downside to the internationalization of British universities (Halliday 1999), since financial pressures have led to a decline in the numbers of British students who can afford to take postgraduate courses. Halliday speculates that this could lead to a dilution of some distinctive features of British higher education, which may in turn make it less attractive to foreign students. It would certainly be worth looking more closely at the way these processes are affecting British IR. Smith describes a UK IR community poised between Anglo-American traditions and the desire to contribute to the development of European IR, but perhaps underestimates the extent to which junior-level appointments and the make-up of the British postgraduate community may already be tilting the balance.5 However, there is no evidence to suggest that Anglo-Saxons as a body are becoming more competent linguists (this is about as likely as world government), so the outcome will be a kind of Anglophone hybrid. Elsewhere – in French and German IR, for example – levels of cosmopolitanism are much lower. For example, German scholars have a strong global presence in the Sage Handbook, but there are very few nonGermans in German IR. While some of these differences undoubtedly have to do with language (most communication between French and German IR has to use English as lingua franca), it is unlikely that language is the sole explanation. Some communities seem to assume that someone trained elsewhere is likely to have something valuable to offer, and others do not. On the other hand, Karin Fierke and Knud Erik Jørgensen have pointed out that recent years have seen a number of North American constructivists moving to European universities (Fierke and Jørgensen 2001: 9; but the category of ‘constructivists’ seems rather broad here). Although it is obviously risky to speculate about the motivations of individuals, it looks as though some people have been tempted to leave the USA by the prospect of more congenial intellectual environments elsewhere. In other words, this development may strengthen Wæver’s case because it appears that a degree of nomadism in IR could contribute to the consolidation of academic communities with distinctive profiles. On the other hand, some kinds of internationalization may reduce that distinctiveness.

Anglo-Saxon historiography 235 It may therefore be a good idea to think harder, and where necessary be more explicit, about the value we wish to place on academic cosmopolitanism or national distinctiveness (when forced to choose, Halliday comes down in favour of the latter). Nevertheless, the point to emphasize is that no real sceptical case has been presented to challenge Wæver’s findings. No one has shown, or even tried to show, that he has looked at the wrong indicators, or misinterpreted the data, or made any other serious mistakes. We may therefore proceed on the assumption that he has got the essentials right. What follows? Surely, quite a lot. Even if one does not want to go as far as Robert Crawford, who suggests that American and British IR are distinct disciplines, or to argue that different languages make crosscommunity understanding impossible, the implications would seem to be serious. At the very least, it appears that we need to be on our guard against quite fundamental misunderstandings based on contrasting assumptions about how to pursue IR as a discipline or field (which is it?), about what constitutes a theory of international relations or politics, about whether we should even be trying to formulate and/or test such theories, about whether people are competing with each other within the same intellectual project or simply doing different things, and so on. Any given argument put forward within IR may be received differently by different audiences. (This would be the answer to any ‘So what?’ question in connection with the study of different academic communities.) Certainly, a substantial proportion of communication within IR does take place within individual communities, and such misunderstandings may take place within communities as well. However, they may be more likely and potentially confusing in cross-community situations, and if one takes the view that the international exchange of ideas is desirable in principle, there is no way of evading these questions. On the other hand, they are pedagogically less urgent than the historiographical questions. Students, wherever they may be, probably do not need to be taught about differences between American, German and Japanese IR in their first term. At this point, though, we need to pause and note that Wæver’s own work has moved on since 1998, in such a way that he has managed to keep ahead both of his (apparently non-existent) critics and those who have been inspired by his earlier article. In this latest development, Wæver proposes refocusing attention on the structure of IR in relation to other disciplines and on the US discipline as the core of global IR (Wæver 2003; since this is clearly work in progress for Wæver, I summarize it fairly briefly). He advocates this move not because he has come to believe that other national IR communities are unimportant, but because the American discipline is simultaneously national and global. ‘US IR’ is also a ‘global network centred on US journals, debates and job market’ (Wæver 2003: 4), and other national communities are like fish swimming in the US/global sea. Using sociological ideas taken in part from Pierre Bourdieu and more extensively from Richard Whitley’s The Intellectual and

236 Gerard Holden Social Organization of the Sciences (Whitley 2000), Wæver goes on to argue that US/global IR is, in Whitley’s terms, something of a hybrid – either a ‘polycentric oligarchy’ or perhaps a ‘partitioned bureaucracy’. These structural features of the discipline, he argues, explain why American scholars are able to compete for the right to define the whole field by engaging in ‘great debates’, while Europeans can sustain certain local peculiarities while aspiring (some of them) to participate in the grander US/global debates. We can undoubtedly expect further stimulation as Wæver develops this analysis. For the time being, I would like to make some brief comments based on an initial reading of Whitley. 1

2

3

The question of internal/external context does not seem to have been resolved by Whitley. In spite of his structuralism, he acknowledges the significance of the end of the Cold War as a context for shifting priorities in the funding of (natural) scientific research, in particular a shift away from physics and towards the biomedical sciences. In this respect, the debate about what is to count as ‘internal’ and what as ‘external’ context remains more or less where it was (see above). Whitley seems in general to be more at home when talking about the natural sciences, and – as Wæver himself notes – it is not clear how this approach would deal with IR’s (growing?) aspirations to interdisciplinarity. If different social sciences are to be compared, it looks as though the question of subject matter (ideally something to be excluded from a structural account) may raise its head. Even if structure is not determined by subject matter, it is at least part of the conventional selfunderstanding of different disciplines that they are responsible for different chunks of the world. One could even speculate that beliefs about the boundaries of IR’s subject matter may themselves differ in different communities.

The new turn in Wæver’s work may have the potential to minimize conflicts between scholars looking at national differences and others who are sceptical about their significance. In concluding this section, I would like to offer some further thoughts which may have similar implications. In some respects, we should perhaps be on our guard against being too much on our guard. One undesirable consequence of a preoccupation with national differences may be a dramatic growth in the number of authors explaining at length where they come from, where they are coming from, where they have been recently and where they are thinking of going next, after which they may get around to saying something about whatever they were originally supposed to be writing about. There is quite enough of this sort of thing already. We should also remind ourselves that

Anglo-Saxon historiography 237 an intellectual-historical approach to IR is not intended to take over the entire discipline or to make specific contributions to it redundant, and those of us with an interest in the issue should not make unjustified hegemonic claims. Intellectual history and the sociology of science are interesting and important, but they are not the only things we should be interested in. Wæver puts it well: ‘the theories of all eras should in like manner be submitted to sociological explanation at the same time as we conduct our usual discussions within the discipline to establish what theories we find most convincing, valid, or truthful’ (Wæver 1998: 680).

The movement of ideas As a contribution to the advancement of the general field, I would now like to advocate more detailed investigations of particular cases where specific traditions or concepts, or the work of individual thinkers, have been taken up and developed in different communities or contexts. These are the sorts of questions we should be looking at in order to put more flesh on the bones of the intellectual history of IR, and their existence also provides a further argument against the sceptical position outlined above. In other words: if the sceptics are right, these cases are uninteresting. I claim that they are interesting. I am sure that there are a large number of potential case studies; Tsygankov and Tsygankov’s (1999) study of Russian readings of Huntington and Yongjin Zhang’s (2003) examination of the reception of the English School in China show that other people are thinking along similar lines. This section presents one case involving the British and German contexts, and then goes on to discuss the availability of suitable investigatory tools. My case relates to the use made by different communities of the heritage of the Frankfurt School and the work of Jürgen Habermas. The main contrast here is between Anglo-Saxon (in fact, predominantly British) uses of Frankfurt School critical theory, which have sought to sustain the emancipatory aspirations of the tradition, and the work of Germanspeaking scholars who have applied Habermas’ theory of communicative action to the specific problem of international negotiations, agreements and regimes. There are numerous examples of the first tendency; among the best known are Mark Hoffman, Mark Neufeld, Andrew Linklater and Richard Wyn Jones (Hoffman 1989; Neufeld 1995, 2001; Linklater 1998, 2001; Wyn Jones 1999, 2001). Other authors who draw on this tradition include Kenneth Baynes and Deiniol Lloyd Jones (Baynes 2001; Jones 2001). The common goal of these authors is to use the resources of the critical theory tradition to contribute to a ‘critical IR’ project incorporating the perspective, however defined, of human emancipation. They are also interested, to different degrees, in social movements with the potential to advance this emancipatory agenda. Neufeld (1995) argues for the

238 Gerard Holden reconstitution of IR as a form of critical theory, and presents what he describes as a ‘critical review of critical IR theory that draws on some of the insights of critical social and political theory more generally’ (Neufeld 2001: 128; I think this is the record number of ‘criticals’ in a single sentence). Linklater is usually thought of as the leading Anglo-Saxon Habermasian, but although he relies quite heavily on Habermas’ discourse ethics Linklater is very eclectic. In a recent contribution he argues that Benhabib, Foucault, Lyotard, Gadamer, Rorty and Bakhtin all have a ‘broadly similar conception’ of the dialogic ideal (Linklater 2001: 29). Linklater advocates the reconstruction of the critical project in the ‘postWestphalian’ era of globalization and fragmentation, using a universalistic analysis to strengthen the cosmopolitan critique of the sovereign state system while widening the moral boundaries of political communities. He also advocates ‘dialogic communities’ able to conduct a universalizable dialogue while respecting difference, resulting in what he calls a ‘thin conception of cosmopolitanism’ (Linklater 1998: 48–9) which retains the potential for radical critique. The result will be a ‘universal communication community’ (Linklater 1998: 79), although authentic dialogue is only an ideal to be aimed for. The problem with this is that even though there may be some broad similarities between related approaches, Linklater implicitly rules out any closer investigation of the contexts in which, say, Bakhtin and Habermas developed their ideas. Wyn Jones’ project is a search for ways in which critical security studies can contribute to the emancipation of those to whom Edward Said refers as ‘the voiceless, the unrepresented, the powerless’ (Wyn Jones 1999: 159). His book Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory is perhaps the most fully developed attempt to treat the Frankfurt School tradition as a tool for dealing with contemporary concerns, but it is a baffling work. Wyn Jones rather scathingly puts forward objections to almost all the central positions taken by Frankfurt authors from Horkheimer to Honneth, maintains in spite of these objections that the critical theory project is a ‘formidable resource’ for IR (Wyn Jones 1999: 119), and ends up opting for Gramsci instead. In effect, Wyn Jones batters critical theory to death, gives the corpse a prod in the hope that it will get to its feet and take him in the direction he wants to go (‘emancipation’), and finds – unsurprisingly – that it is in no condition to do so. Nevertheless, the point to emphasize is that Anglo-Saxon admirers of this intellectual tradition see it as continuing to have a degree of forward-looking, speculative, and above all emancipatory potential as a corrective to the mainstream IR traditions they wish to challenge. By way of contrast, German-speaking scholars have been engaged since 1994 in an attempt to use Habermas’ theory of communicative action to explain how international agreements are reached (for the basic arguments for and against see Müller 1994; Keck 1995, and for the latest round in the ensuing controversy Holzinger 2001; Hitzel-Cassagnes 2002).

Anglo-Saxon historiography 239 It is impossible to summarize this debate here, and the pro-Habermas side of it has in any case been presented to an Anglo-Saxon audience with great clarity by Thomas Risse in his International Organization article (Risse 2000). But it is not difficult to contrast it with the work of the Anglo-Saxon Habermasians: there is no general concern with ‘emancipation’, no retrospective appeal to the founding fathers of the Frankfurt School, and none of the discussion familiar from Anglo-Saxon IR about the compatibility or incompatibility of these ideas with poststructuralist approaches.6 As argued also by Christoph Humrich (Chapter 3, this volume), the German speakers are more interested in whether Habermas’ theory can fill in gaps left by mainstream, rational choice accounts of international (i.e. interstate) agreements. This application of Habermas is thus much less selfconsciously oppositional than the work of the Anglo-Saxons. Risse presents it as the specifically German contribution to the general constructivist turn (on this point, see also Risse 2003), and in this respect it has already been successful. Jeffrey T. Checkel and Marc Lynch, writing in International Organization and the European Journal of International Relations respectively, have referred to the work of the German Habermasians in their own contributions to the constructivist literature (Checkel 2001; Lynch 2002; Checkel is less enthusiastic about Habermas than Lynch). Thus inter-community communication may be advanced as long as nonAnglo-Saxons are able to make their work available in English, though one should not forget that untranslated contributions – in this case, those of Germans who disagree with Risse and Harald Müller – are less likely to enter the Anglo-Saxon consciousness. The German debate, then, is about the retrospective application of the theory to concrete cases. It is extremely detailed, highly complex, and appeared for a while in the late 1990s to be absolutely interminable. Perhaps the most forthright challenge to the position set out by Müller and Risse is Katharina Holzinger’s argument to the effect that Habermas never intended his theory to be applied empirically as a way of distinguishing strategic from communicative action. My own view is that Müller and Risse’s position is largely circular. It accounts for the conclusion of an agreement in terms of the success of the ‘better argument’, and identifies the ‘better argument’ on the basis of the agreement reached in a particular case. Where the chain of reasoning is not simply circular, as in Risse’s International Organization article, it relies on intuitions about the ‘better argument’ that seem so obvious as to render the argument superfluous; there cannot, after all, be many readers of IO who would challenge the idea that the actual outcome of the Cold War was better than a third world war, or that respecting human rights is better than not respecting them. It could be argued that there is nothing to worry about if we understand this argument in a pragmatist sense, accepting the inevitability of circularity and simply using the term ‘the better argument’ for whatever gets the job done. But the German Habermasians certainly seem to

240 Gerard Holden believe that they are saying something more than this when they use this term, so the difficulty remains. I am not enough of an authority on Habermas to hazard a view about whether the problem lies in the theory or, as Holzinger’s argument would suggest, in an inappropriate attempt to use it empirically.7 It is, however, surprising that Müller and Risse should have trapped themselves in this circularity. Both of these authors have emerged from the peace research tradition, which has usually been prepared to criticize what it regards as unsatisfactory international agreements. Interestingly enough, the Anglo (strictly speaking, Welsh) ‘critical’ literature contains a contribution with the potential to correct this weakness. Deiniol Lloyd Jones’ (2001) chapter on international mediation in Wyn Jones’ collection looks at a case treated by the German Habermasians as an instance of successful negotiation, namely the Oslo talks between Israel and the PLO in 1993, and argues that the absence of a genuine dialogic community in these negotiations explains why the Oslo accords subsequently failed. This requires Jones to put forward his own (partly Habermas-inspired) criteria for true dialogue, but his argument on this point is not implausible (open democratic debate rather than exchanges in a restricted circle) and, most importantly, he is not obliged to assume that just because an agreement has been reached the better argument must have won. In this case, though, there is no cross-community communication, as Jones is evidently unaware of the German Habermasians’ work. The purpose of identifying these differences is not to clear the way for an authoritative statement that one of the groups is being genuinely Habermasian and the other is not. Nor do I suppose that readers who are closer to an author in the sense of reading his work in the original language (one or two of the Anglo-Saxons are able to do this, but most of them are Teutonically challenged) must have a privileged understanding of it. In this particular case, the differences between German-speaking authors would make it difficult to construct such an argument. But when all these caveats have been entered and the interaction between German Habermasians and American constructivists noted, a difference remains. Anglo-Saxon-Celtic critical theorists in IR see themselves as continuing some kind of radical, long-term emancipatory project, and German-speaking Habermasians have no such aspirations. One may also assume that even if most of the Anglo-Saxon-Celts are not aware of what gets published in the Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, the Germans are more likely to know of the existence of Linklater’s and Wyn Jones’ work, which suggests that they do not consider it particularly important; Risse mentions Linklater briefly. How are these differences to be accounted for? An initial suggestion would be that Habermas’ status in the Anglo-Saxon world differs, or has come to differ, from the role he now plays for German academics. In this respect the inability of (most) Anglo-Saxon authors to read material in

Anglo-Saxon historiography 241 German does matter, because it means they are insufficiently aware of the broader domestic context of Habermas’ work. In Germany, there is no assumption that the critical theory tradition in general, and Habermas in particular, must continue to serve as a source of radical opposition to existing conditions. There was a period in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the tradition made itself felt quite strongly on the ‘critical’ wing of Scandinavian–German peace research, but even though this tendency continued to exist in parts of peace research, for example in feminist work, it was never more than one strand of German peace research – itself only one strand within German IR. There are certainly some (‘kritische’) scholars in contemporary German academic life who would criticize Habermas for what they see as his abandonment of the Frankfurt School’s original radicalism, a view shared by Wyn Jones.8 By contrast, other recent intellectual-historical studies have traced and debated the contributions made by Adorno and Horkheimer in the 1950s and 1960s to the construction of democratic institutions in the FRG, and in Adorno’s case to the rehabilitation of aesthetic modernism in these years. What emerges is a picture of these originally nonconformist intellectuals acting as an integrating force, helping to consolidate the new society and avert any danger of a relapse into Nazism (though it appears that Horkheimer continued to fear this possibility).9 Accusing them of betraying their earlier radicalism is, given this context, unhistorical. Habermas, however far he may have moved from the early thought of Horkheimer and Adorno, may be seen as continuing this latter tradition. This is certainly how he is regarded by a number of commentators on the public intellectual life of post-unification Germany. In October 2001 Habermas was awarded the Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, and more than one commentator marked the occasion by paying tribute to his contribution throughout his career to a combination of democratic patriotism and intellectual universalism. Die Zeit’s Jan Ross called him respectfully the ‘Hegel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’ (‘the Hegel of the Federal Republic’). The Frankfurter Rundschau’s Christian Schlüter took up the characterization of Habermas by Jan Philip Reemtsma, who delivered the Laudatio at the award ceremony, as a practitioner of ‘intellektuelle Westbindung’, or intellectual commitment to the West (Ross in Die Zeit, 11 October 2001, and Schlüter and Reemtsma in Frankfurter Rundschau, 15 October 2001).10 Writing at about the same time on Habermas’ role as a political intellectual, Axel Honneth (the current Director of the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt) argued: the framework of [Habermas’] own theory always involved universalist intentions, but it was also designed from the start to address the particular problems that had arisen out of Germany’s National Socialist past; as a theorist, [Habermas] could not become estranged from his own political culture because the basic idea of his work in social

242 Gerard Holden philosophy, the idea of using reason in such a way that it could be publicly institutionalized, was so deeply rooted in the political perception of the fate of his own country. (Honneth 2001: 4–5) What does this mean for my comparative case study of IR communities? It suggests that Linklater does Habermas something of a disservice by removing his thought from its German context and presenting it as a disembodied advocacy of dialogue, and that when Wyn Jones chides Habermas for his liberalism he is demanding that the latter remain loyal to a radicalism to which he never, or only briefly, subscribed. Anglophone IR scholars have tended to import critical theory while neglecting important aspects of its German context, though one could argue in their defence that they should not be constrained by that context if they are able to make a convincing case for reviving neglected parts of the tradition. It is interesting to note that there are signs under Honneth of the institute turning back towards some classical Frankfurt School topics, with the launching of an attempt to address the ‘paradoxes of contemporary capitalism’ (Honneth 2002).11 The importance of the political and historical context also explains why liberal German social scientists have taken up Habermas’ work, a tool they found available in their own intellectual culture, without agonizing about whether it was sufficiently ‘critical’. Nor is it entirely fanciful to see communication between German and American IR constructivists as an aspect of continuing intellektuelle Westbindung. German speakers seek both to employ Habermas-inspired IR and to export it. This does not mean, of course, that the German Habermasians’ appropriation of the theory of communicative action is convincing (see the above objections). One could also object, as Wyn Jones does, that Habermas’s own interventions on specifically international issues are only loosely related to his social theory (for two recent interventions, see Habermas 2002a, 2002b). There is some truth in this, though there are worse things to be than a liberal with something sensible to say about current affairs. There is also an interest in the future of ‘post-national’ or ‘post-Westphalian’ democracy which is shared by Habermas himself, British Habermasians and German IR scholars (Linklater 1996; Habermas 1998).12 Some further thoughts about the general relationship of German IR to German intellectual traditions may be appropriate here. Even though German IR has now taken up Habermas, one could suggest that his overall influence has been less than in Anglo-Saxon IR (this makes the questionable assumption that such things can be measured). Moreover, the intellectual tradition traceable back to Nietzsche that has been so influential outside Germany barely registers a flicker on the German IR seismograph. Nietzsche is not exactly considered to be a national treasure in Germany, but he is not philosophically persona non grata either, though

Anglo-Saxon historiography 243 he appears to be so for liberal social scientists. Critics versus pomos, such a popular sport among the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples, is a non-debate in German IR as the pomos would be hopelessly outnumbered. The German IR specialist who has written most substantially about postmodernism, Mathias Albert, could not have been classified as a fully fledged postmodernist and is now the leading advocate of an encounter between Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory and IR (Albert 1996, 1999, 2002). Albert argues that IR’s interest in Habermas has been disproportionate when Luhmann, his chief domestic rival as a social theorist, has been neglected. I am not sure if this is so surprising, since even if this rivalry has been important at a certain level of social theory Luhmann’s ideas are not present in ‘everyday’ German intellectual culture to the same extent as Habermas’. However, the general point remains and is well taken; both Anglo-Saxon and German IR have been selective in their appropriations of German intellectual traditions. The new survey of German IR edited by Gunther Hellmann, Klaus Dieter Wolf and Michael Zürn (2003) is a missed opportunity in this respect. Although this volume could be used as raw material by anyone interested in the sociology of German IR, it provides very little in the way of explicit history or sociology of the German discipline. At the same time, the volume demonstrates the pertinence of Wæver’s image of national IR communities surrounded by a US/global discipline. The editors seek to demonstrate German IR’s achievement in establishing itself as a force independent of the American discipline, but in order to do so they have to document the presence of German-speaking scholars in leading US fora and debates. This confirms Wæver’s point very nicely, if inadvertently. In concluding this section, I need to address the question of method. I have referred on several occasions in the last few pages to the import and export of ideas. This serves to acknowledge my debt to Pierre Bourdieu’s work on the international circulation of ideas, detailing how ideas produced within one context are often read, and can potentially be misunderstood, in another (Bourdieu 1990, and an abridged English translation in Bourdieu 1999), and also to Klaus-Gerd Giesen’s concept of interaction between a world market and a domestic market in ideas (see Giesen, Chapter 1 this volume). I have myself made use of these approaches in the past and think they could continue to be useful, though they are not the only possibilities. Further relevant considerations about the importance of national context, both to political thought itself and the ways in which it is studied, may be found in recent work in the history of ideas (Castiglione and Hampsher-Monk 2001), and Edward Said’s concept of ‘travelling theory’ as developed in postcolonial studies may have potential in relation to the movement of ideas (for an IR application, see Mandaville 2001). Indeed, Peter Mandaville’s gloss of ‘travelling theory’ coincides nicely with the concerns of this section: ‘a set of ideas which helps us to understand

244 Gerard Holden how cultures and ideas are transformed through movement from one social context to another’ (Mandaville 2001: 84). What I would like to do now, though, is to return to Bourdieu and Giesen in order to re-examine an aspect of their approach(es) which – I now think – is somewhat problematic. I concentrate on Bourdieu; although Giesen’s approach cannot be reduced to Bourdieu, it does rely heavily on his ideas. The problem in a nutshell is that even though Bourdieu believes and states, in his work on the movement of ideas, that intellectual internationalism is desirable though difficult, his own sociology of academic institutions and practices raises doubts as to whether it is even possible (Bourdieu 1984, 1996). Bourdieu’s analysis of the French higher education system treats it as the self-reproducing site of a struggle for social status and symbolic capital, and the obvious question that arises is whether his work can analyse this struggle without being part of it. Critics of Bourdieu have argued that he never resolved the problem of determinism and voluntarism, and indeed remained a structuralist and determinist despite his attempts to avoid these positions. He is also criticized for exemplifying in his own work a number of the things for which he criticizes academia in general. In Richard Jenkins’ words, it is possible to view Bourdieu’s own use of language as ‘a dimension of the author’s own struggle for cultural distinction within a specifically Parisian intellectual context’ (Jenkins 1992: 21). Bourdieu’s own work on the international movement of ideas remained little more than a sketch, though he repeated the sketch in ways that suggest he saw this question as meriting more detailed research.13 The 1990 article, with its focus on Franco–German philosophical relations, is suggestive but not in itself sufficient to resolve fears that the goal of intellectual internationalism might be rendered unattainable by existing academic institutions and habits. Bourdieu’s insistence that his analysis of French institutions could be extended to other systems remains an assertion, though it is hard to say whether international institutional homogeneity would make analysis of the movement of ideas more or less difficult. Presumably it would make things a bit easier, but Wæver’s exploration of the history of other university systems suggests that there are significant differences. However, Wæver’s sociology of science does not (yet) give us much guidance on how to approach the movement of ideas, and my impression of Whitley’s approach is that it does not solve this problem either. What this means for the application of a Bourdieu-inspired approach in IR, as in Giesen’s work, is that its foundations are not as robust as Giesen implies. Giesen too portrays an academic world in which the formation of schools of thought (sometimes using foreign materials) is largely determined by considerations of academic status. Although he seeks to replace the intra-academic struggle for status with scientific democracy, a condition in which genuine scholarly disputes can take place, his own account of how academia works seems to suggest that such a democracy would

Anglo-Saxon historiography 245 require a science without institutions or hierarchies, bearing little resemblance to any historical or contemporary academic system we know about. (I note, however, Jörg Friedrichs’ contribution to this volume and his argument that Scandinavian academia is highly egalitarian.) Nor is there any indication of how we would get there from here. The instinctive response may be to say that academia does not in fact function in such a brutal way, that there is just something wrong with the portrayal of an academic rat race (with apologies to rats). How, then, does it work? Perhaps the Habermasian ‘better argument’ argument is part of an alternative account, perhaps pragmatism is another possibility, and perhaps Bakhtinian dialogue can play a part. However, the whole point of Bourdieu’s sociology of higher education, and what gives it its capacity to provoke, is the way it makes us question such apparent certainties as the belief that scientific democracy – or something like it – already exists and is guaranteed by existing institutions. The challenge, therefore, is to develop the sociological analysis that identifies the (undoubted) obstacles to genuine intellectual internationalism, and will help in the investigation of comparative case studies and the movement of ideas, without finding ourselves led to the uncomfortable conclusion that we are indeed floundering in a slough of status-seeking and careerism. The basic problem is not that cross-community communication does not take place, as it is clear that it does; what we need to know is how much of it is distorted, why, and what, if anything, can be done about this. I do not yet have a solution to this problem, and I think one has to recognize that it is more serious than the somewhat analogous ‘presentism’ question within disciplinary historiography. As I argued above, ‘presentism’ is not a genuine problem because there can be no intellectual history without it. The difficulties of an objective cross-community sociology of science seem to be greater. Indeed, my own British–German case study might be thought vulnerable to the objection that I have simply gone ahead and written the comparison without making its methodological basis sufficiently clear. The general project of writing a historical account combined with a cross-community intellectual history of IR depends on a satisfactory answer to this question.

Conclusion and perspectives Some five years following the publication of Schmidt’s book and Wæver’s article, our knowledge about IR knowledge has advanced but there is still much to do. Schmidt and Wæver are developing their respective analyses further. My own argument in this chapter has been to the effect that of the two components of IR’s intellectual history, namely Anglo-Saxon historiography and cross-community comparisons, the former is methodologically fairly unproblematic and pedagogically important, while the latter is pedagogically less urgent but methodologically more problematic. I have

246 Gerard Holden suggested that the historiography of Anglo-Saxon IR has in some respects fallen short of the goals it set itself, because it has been unable to show why revisionist history should have a decisive influence on the way contemporary debates are framed. I have supported the view that there are genuine differences between national or linguistic IR communities, and have used the example of the Frankfurt School to explore the ways in which different communities can use parts of the same intellectual tradition for different purposes. This may lead to a distortion of certain theorists’ ideas as they are exported and imported, though one cannot deny importers the right to take up ideas from external traditions. When the import goes wrong, however, the importers should not blame the theorists whose thought they have taken out of its original context. Each intellectual community has its own history, which means that before we can address the movement of ideas between communities we need to be able to reconstruct the historical context of that community and of the ideas that have developed within it. In this sense there is at least one clear and important connection between the two sub-fields: historical context matters in both. I have also argued that a distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ context is unlikely to be fruitful. There is no shortage of similar cases that would merit a detailed examination. One could envisage a comparison between the ways in which French IR scholars have treated the thought of their ‘own’ star theorists and Anglo-Saxon scholars’ work inspired by the same thinkers, or an examination of the way in which ideas have been imported to and exported from post-Cold War Russia (the import of ‘Western’ IR, the export of Bakhtin). Only when more studies have been carried out can we assess their implications for the discipline as a whole. My examination of questions of method has, however, led to doubts as to whether the tools we need to pursue the movement of ideas across the borders of national or linguistic communities are immediately to hand. There are therefore no grounds for complacency. My conclusion is hardly original, but it is in a way encouraging: more research is needed.

Acknowledgements This chapter started life as a paper presented at the 2003 ISA Convention in Portland, in the panel on ‘Knowledge About IR Knowledge’. I am grateful to Ole Wæver for the original invitation to present a paper, to the other participants for the ensuing discussion, and to Knud Erik Jørgensen and Tonny Brems Knudsen for giving me the opportunity to revise the paper for publication and providing me with their detailed and insightful comments.

Anglo-Saxon historiography 247

Notes 1 It seems to me that Gunnell too writes more or less contextual intellectual history while describing it as ‘internal’. In The Descent of Political Theory (Gunnell 1993) Gunnell criticizes contextualist historians for determinism and functionalism, but without mentioning Skinner; in his more recent Orders of Discourse (1998), he spells out in detail his disagreements with Skinner without rejecting contextual intellectual history altogether (Gunnell 1998: 14–16, 160–70). For another contribution which endorses my criticism of IR’s disciplinary historians while pointing out that not all contextualist intellectual history is Skinnerian: see Bell (2003). 2 So far as I am aware, no one involved in this debate has challenged the view that it makes sense to speak of accurate history as both more desirable than inaccurate history and a goal to which historians can reasonably aspire. 3 My thanks to Brian Schmidt for letting me see a manuscript copy of this introduction prior to publication; my comments do not, of course, entail that Schmidt would agree with this interpretation. The reference results from my own pagination of a manuscript without page numbers. 4 This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg; the pages of the Review of International Studies and the British Journal of Politics and International Relations are awash with English School articles. 5 On the relationship between British, continental European and American IR see also Chapter 6 on the UK (this volume). 6 Wyn Jones argues, I suspect correctly, that post-structuralists often cling to the idea of something like emancipation even when they are mistrustful of the grand narrative. 7 Christoph Humrich (private communication) has referred me to Habermas (1992: 65–7 and 82) as evidence that Habermas cannot be held responsible for the circularity. My thanks to him for the reference. 8 The word kritisch in German functions in much the same way as ‘critical’ does in English; about 70 per cent of the time (a rough estimate), its chief purpose is to draw attention to the correctness of the author’s own views, whatever these may happen to be. 9 I rely here on reviews, especially the discussion in Söllner (2002). 10 Westbindung is usually used in connection with the integration of the FRG into institutions such as NATO and the European Community, but Reemtsma’s application of the term to intellectual history makes the desired point about Habermas’ thought very nicely. 11 Honneth comments that in contemporary conditions the concepts of ‘contradiction’ and ‘crisis’ no longer have any purchase. 12 For a more detailed account of the ZIB-Habermasians see Christoph Humrich (Chapter 3, this volume). For his account of the British critical theorists, see Humrich (2003). Humrich’s position is more sympathetic to the classical critical theory tradition than my own, and he is correspondingly more critical of the ZIB-Habermasians and less critical of the British ‘critical critics’. He would also, I suspect, challenge my characterization of Habermas as a more or less mainstream liberal-cum-social democrat. For another critique of the British ‘critical critics’ by a German scholar resident in the UK, see Jahn (1998). 13 In addition to the 1990 article, see also the ‘postface: vingt ans après’ (dated 1987) to Homo academicus, and the evidence of Bourdieu’s collaboration with Richard Shusterman on the preparation of an English version of the 1990 essay.

248 Gerard Holden

References Albert, M. (1996) Fallen der (Welt-)Ordnung. Internationale Beziehungen und ihre Theorien zwischen Moderne und Postmoderne, Opladen: Leske & Budrich. —— (1999) ‘Observing World Politics: Luhmann’s Systems Theory of Society and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 28(2): 239–65. —— (2002) Zur Politik der Weltgesellschaft. Identität und Recht im Kontext internationaler Vergesellschaftung, Weilerswist: Velbrueck Wissenschaft. Ashworth, L.M. (2002) ‘Did the Realist–Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations’, International Relations 16(1): 33–51. Aydinli, E. and Mathews, J. (2000) ‘Are the Core and Periphery Irreconcilable? The Curious World of Publishing in Contemporary International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives 1(3): 289–303. Baynes, K. (2001) ‘Deliberative Politics, the Public Sphere, and Global Democracy’, in R. Wyn Jones (ed.) Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 161–70. Bell, D.S.A. (2003) ‘Political Theory and the Functions of Intellectual History: A Response to Emmanuel Navon’, Review of International Studies 29(1): 151–60. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Homo academicus, Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit. —— (1990) ‘Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées’, Romanistische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte/Cahiers d’histoire des Littératures Romanes 2(2–3): 1–10. —— (1996) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power, Cambridge: Polity Press. —— (1999) ‘The Social Conditions of the International Circulation of Ideas’, in R. Shusterman (ed.) Bourdieu: A Critical Reader, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 220–8. Brown, C. (2000) ‘International Political Theory – A British Political Science?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(1): 114–23. Buzan, B. (2001) ‘The English School: An Underexploited Resource in IR’, Review of International Studies 27(3): 471–88. Carlsnaes, W., Risse, T. and Simmons, B.A. (eds) (2002) Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage. Castiglione, D. and Hampsher-Monk, I. (eds) (2001) The History of Political Thought in National Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chan, G. (1999) Chinese Perspectives on International Relations: A Framework for Analysis, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Chan, S., Mandaville, P. and Bleiker, R. (eds) (2001) The Zen of International Relations: IR Theory from East to West, Basingstoke: Palgrave. Checkel, J.T. (2001) ‘Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change’, International Organization 55(3): 553–88. Cohen, R. (2001) ‘Living and Teaching Across Cultures’, International Studies Perspectives 2(2): 151–60. Crawford, R.M.A. (2001) ‘Where Have All the Theorists Gone – Gone to Britain, Every One? A Story of Two Parochialisms in International Relations’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 221–42.

Anglo-Saxon historiography 249 Drulák, P. and Druláková, R. (2000) ‘International Relations in the Czech Republic: A Review of the Discipline’, Journal of International Relations and Development 3(3): 256–82. Drulák, P. and Königová, L. (2002) ‘The Discipline of International Relations in Central and Eastern Europe’, European Political Science 1(3): 47–53. Fierke, K.M. and Jørgensen, K.E. (eds) (2001) Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, Armonk and London: M.E. Sharpe. Friedrichs, J. (2001) ‘International Relations Theory in France’, Journal of International Relations and Development 4(2): 118–37. Geeraerts, G. and Jeng, M. (2001) ‘International Relations Theory in China’, Global Society 15(3): 251–76. Groom, A.J.R. and Mandaville, P. (2001) ‘Hegemony and Autonomy in International Relations: The Continental Experience’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 151–65. Gunnell, J.G. (1993) The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. —— (1998) The Orders of Discourse: Philosophy, Social Science, and Politics, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Guzzini, S. (1998) Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London: Routledge. —— (2000a) ‘Making Sense of Constructivism in International Relations’, in K. Segbers and K. Imbusch The Globalization of Eastern Europe, Münster: Lit-Verlag, pp. 53–76. —— (2000b) ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 6(2): 147–82. Habermas, J. (1992) ‘Handlungen, Sprechakte, sprachlich vermittelte Interaktionen und Lebenswelt’, in Nachmetaphysisches Denken. Philosophische Aufsätze, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 63–104. —— (1998) ‘Die postnationale Konstellation und die Zukunft der Demokratie’, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 7: 804–17. —— (2002a) ‘Fundamentalismus und Terror. Antworten auf Fragen zum 11. September 2001’, Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 2: 165–78. —— (2002b) ‘Letter to America’, The Nation 16 December. Halliday, F. (1999) ‘The Chimera of the “International University” ’, International Affairs 75(1): 99–120. Hampsher-Monk, I. (2001) ‘The History of Political Thought and the Political History of Thought’, in D. Castiglione and I. Hampsher-Monk (eds) The History of Political Thought in National Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–74. Hellmann, G., Wolf, K.D. and Zürn, M. (eds) (2003) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Hitzel-Cassagnes, T. (2002) ‘Warten auf Godot: Anmerkungen zur Konzeptualisierung von Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 9(1): 139–54. Hoffman, M. (1989) ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-paradigm Debate’, in H.C. Dyer and L. Mangasarian (eds) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, London: Macmillan, pp. 60–86.

250 Gerard Holden Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106(3): 41–60. Holden, G. (2001) ‘The Politer Kingdoms of the Globe: Context and Comparison in the Intellectual History of IR’, Global Society 15(1): 27–51. —— (2002) ‘Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History and the Discourse about IR Discourse’, Review of International Studies 28(2): 253–70. Holzinger, K. (2001) ‘Kommunikationsmodi und Handlungstypen in den Internationalen Beziehungen. Anmerkungen zu einigen irreführenden Dichotomien’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 8(2): 243–86. Honneth, A. (2001) ‘Universalismus aus dem Geist eines demokratischen Patriotismus. Jürgen Habermas als politischer Intellektuelle’, Forschung Frankfurt 4: 4–9. —— (ed.) (2002) Befreiung aus der Mündigkeit. Paradoxien des gegenwärtigen Kapitalismus, Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag. Humrich, C. (2003) ‘Kritische Theorie’, in Siegfried Schieder and Manuela Spindler (eds) Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen, Opladen: UTB/ Leske & Budrich, pp. 421–47. Inoguchi, T. and Bacon, P. (2001) ‘The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1(1): 1–20. Jahn, B. (1998) ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back: Critical Theory as the Latest Edition of Liberal Idealism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 27(3): 613–41. Jenkins, R. (1992) Pierre Bourdieu, London and New York: Routledge. Jones, D.L. (2001) ‘Creating Cosmopolitan Power: International Mediation as Communicative Action’, in R. Wyn Jones (ed.) Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, CO, and London: Lynne Rienner, pp. 171–87. Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 9–42. Keck, O. (1995) ‘Rationales kommunikatives Handeln in den internationalen Beziehungen. Ist eine Verbindung von Rational-Choice-Theorie und Habermas’ Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns möglich?’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2(1): 5–48. Linklater, A. (1996) ‘Citizenship and Sovereignty in the Post-Westphalian State’, European Journal of International Relations 2(1): 77–103. —— (1998) The Transformation of Political Community: Ethical Foundations of the PostWestphalian Era, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. —— (2001) ‘The Changing Contours of Critical International Relations Theory’, in R. Wyn Jones Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, CO, and London: Lynne Rienner, pp. 23–43. Little, R. (1999) ‘Historiography and International Relations’, Review of International Studies 25(2): 291–9. Long, D. and Schmidt, B.C. (2004) ‘Introduction’, in D. Long and B.C. Schmidt (eds) Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, Albany, State University of New York (manuscript). Lucarelli, S. and Menotti, R. (2002) ‘No-constructivists’ Land: International Relations in Italy in the 1990s’, Journal of International Relations and Development 5(2): 114–42. Lynch, M. (2002) ‘Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement’, European Journal of International Relations 8(2): 187–230.

Anglo-Saxon historiography 251 Mandaville, P. (2001) Transnational Muslim Politics: Reimagining the umma, London and New York: Routledge. Meyer, J.-B., Kaplan, D. and Charum, J. (2001) ‘Scientific Nomadism and the New Geopolitics of Knowledge’, International Social Science Journal 168 (June): 309–21. Müller, H. (1994) ‘Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln. Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 15–44. Neufeld, M. (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —— (2001) ‘What’s Critical About Critical International Relations Theory?’, in R. Wyn Jones (ed.) Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, CO, and London: Lynne Rienner, pp. 127–45. Neufeld, M. and Healy, T. (2001) ‘Above the “American Discipline”: A Canadian Perspective on Epistemological Diversity’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 243–53. Palmer, N.D. (1980) ‘The Study of International Relations in the United States: Perspectives of Half a Century’, International Studies Quarterly 24(3): 343–64. Porter, T. (2001) ‘Can There Be National Perspectives in Inter(National) Relations?’, in R.M.A. Crawford and D.S. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 131–47. Puchala, D.J. (1997) ‘Some Non-Western Perspectives on International Relations’, Journal of Peace Research 34(2): 129–34. Risse, T. (2000) ‘ “Let’s Argue!”: Communicative Action in World Politics’, International Organization 54(1): 1–39. —— (2003) ‘Konstruktivismus, Rationalismus und Theorien Internationaler Beziehungen – warum empirisch nichts so heiß gegessen wird, wie es theoretisch gekocht wurde’, in G. Hellmann, K.D. Wolf and M. Zürn (eds) Die neuen Internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 99–132. Runciman, D. (2001) ‘History of Political Thought: The State of the Discipline’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3(1): 84–104. Schmidt, B.C. (1998) The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations, Albany: State University of New York Press. —— (2002a) ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B.A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 3–22. —— (2002b) ‘Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline: American International Relations, Pluralist Theory and the Myth of Interwar Idealism’, International Relations 16(1): 9–31. Sergounin, A.A. (2000) ‘Russian Post-Communist Foreign Policy at the Crossroads: Changing Paradigms’, Journal of International Relations and Development 3(3): 216–55. Skinner, Q. (2002) Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Smith, S. (1995) ‘The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theory Today, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 1–37.

252 Gerard Holden —— (2000) ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(3): 374–402. Söllner, A. (2002) ‘Adorno und die politische Kultur der frühen Bundesrepublik’, Mittelweg 36 11(2): 37–52. Sylvester, C. (2002) Feminist International Relations: An Unfinished Journey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thies, C.G. (2002) ‘Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist–Realist Debate’, European Journal of International Relations 8(2): 147–85. Tickner, A.B. (2003) ‘Hearing Latin American Voices in IR Studies’, International Studies Perspectives 4(4): 325–50. Tsygankov, A. and Tsygankov, P. (1999) ‘Pluralism or Isolation of Civilisations? Russia’s Foreign Policy Discourse and the Reception of Huntington’s Paradigm of the Post-Cold War World’, Geopolitics 4(3): 47–72. Vitalis, R. (2000) ‘The Graceful and Generous Liberal Gesture: Making Racism Invisible in American International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29(2): 331–56. Wæver, O. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52(4): 687–727. —— (2003) ‘The Structure of the IR Discipline: A Proto-comparative Analysis’, paper prepared for the annual convention of ISA, Portland panel on ‘Knowledge About IR Knowledge: The Discipline According to the Sociology of Science’. Whitley, R. (2000) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2nd edn). Wilson, P. (1998) ‘The Myth of the “First Great Debate”’, Review of International Studies 24(Special Issue): 1–15. Wyn Jones, R. (1999) Security, Strategy, and Critical Theory, Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner. —— (ed.) (2001) Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, CO and London: Lynne Rienner. Zhang, Y. (2003) ‘The “English School” in China: A Travelogue of Ideas and their Diffusion’, European Journal of International Relations 9(1): 87–114.

Epilogue Brian C. Schmidt

This volume on the state of the discipline of International Relations (IR) in Europe makes an important contribution to what Duncan Bell (2001) has referred to as the dawn of a historiographical turn. Prior to the most recent interest in the historiography of IR, there was not only a paucity of literature devoted to examining the disciplinary history of IR, but the overall quality of many of these accounts was less than adequate (Schmidt 1998b, 2002b). Recently, however, IR scholars have followed the trend that is underway in a number of the social sciences, particularly political science, and are examining the disciplinary history of the field in a much more careful and systematic manner. Scholars are increasingly aware of the close relationship that exists between the present identity of a field and the manner in which its history is constructed (Dryzek and Leonard 1988; Kahler 1997). The new literature on the history of IR has not only challenged many of the conventional understandings about the field’s development, but it has also fostered an academic debate on the most appropriate method for investigating and reconstructing the history of the field. In this Epilogue, I have two main aims. First, I want to discuss briefly some of the recent findings about the history of IR and comment on the historiographical issues that this literature has generated. Second, I want to remark on some of the interesting themes and issues that the contributors have identified in their study of IR in Europe. Before proceeding, it is appropriate to underline the novelty of the endeavour undertaken in this book to examine carefully the different ways in which the discipline has been cultivated in Europe. While I noted above that there has been a paucity of literature devoted to the historiography of IR, this is even more the case with respect to literature on the development of IR in Europe. Indeed, the editors could point to only three previous books written on the general topic of the study of IR in Europe and Knud Erik Jørgensen has referred to continental IR theory as one of the discipline’s best-kept secrets (Jørgensen 2000). In this regard, the editors’ attempt to provide for mutual awareness rather than mutual neglect in European IR and beyond is to be applauded, since I want to argue that, despite the alleged American hegemony in the study of

254 Brian C. Schmidt international politics, it is a fundamental mistake to associate American IR with either ‘European IR’ or a ‘global discipline of IR’. Although the extent to which IR fulfils the criteria of being a truly global discipline devoid of any distinct national differences continues to be a matter of debate, it is much less controversial to acknowledge the fact that the history of IR is not synonymous with its development in the USA. Yet ever since Stanley Hoffmann (1977) described IR as an ‘American social science’ there has been a tendency to assume the existence of a USA hegemony in the study of international politics that everyone else either willingly or reluctantly follows. One of the profound consequences of American parochialism is the failure to consider the unique contributions made by research communities residing outside the borders of the USA. The inclination has been to assume that the mainstream study of IR is generally the same throughout the world and that it reflects the dominant research agenda as defined by the American IR scholarly community. However, the individual case studies presented in this book on the development of IR in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic appear to confirm Ole Wæver’s claim that ‘IR is quite different in different places’ (1998: 723). This view has also been confirmed by the small body of literature that examines the state of IR outside of North America. The case studies in this book raise additional suspicions about the notion that there is a global discipline of IR devoid of any distinct national differences. For example, a cursory comparison of the mainstream American IR scene with either the situation of IR in France or Italy would likely leave one wondering if there was anything in common. According to Kal Holsti, the existence of a global discipline should entail ‘(1) professional communication between researchers residing in different and separate political jurisdictions; and (2) a reasonably symmetrical pattern of “production” and “consumption” of theories, ideas, concepts, methods, and data between members of the community’ (Holsti 1985: 102). In 1985, Holsti found little evidence to suggest that IR was an international discipline and twenty years later the evidence, for the most part, points to the same conclusion (Goldmann 1996; Smith 2000, 2002; Wæver 1998). While the creation of a truly global discipline may, perhaps, be a continuing aspiration, research continues to indicate that the academic study of international politics is marked by American parochialism (Alker and Biersteker 1984; Crawford and Jarvis 2001; Goldmann 1996; Smith 2000, 2002; Wæver 1998). The consequences of American parochialism on the study of international politics is a prominent theme in the individual case studies of this book and represents a significant issue that must be addressed in comparative historical analyses of the development of IR. The fact that much of the existing work on the disciplinary history of IR has tended to focus on the situation in either the USA or the UK makes this book on the development of IR in Europe extremely pertinent. This

Epilogue 255 book makes an important contribution to the literature that examines the unique history and current contours of IR in countries beyond the USA and the UK (Breitenbauch and Wivel 2004; Chan 1994; Crawford and Jarvis 2001; Dyer and Mangasarian 1989; Giesen 1995; Groom 1994; Inoguchi and Bacon 2001). In order for future studies to avoid some of the problems that have beset earlier work on the history of IR it is necessary that attention be devoted to developing an appropriate historiographical framework. This is a prerequisite for reconstructing the history of IR in specific national settings as well as for engaging in comparative work on the development of IR. The endeavour undertaken in this volume to engage in discussion about IR discourse in national and regional IR traditions and communities across Europe raises a number of historiographical issues. These issues include controversies concerning the recognition of IR as a distinct field of inquiry, questions pertaining to the autonomy of IR from related fields of inquiry, the extent to which IR is influenced by internal or external factors, and the role of political culture and ideology in the development of IR. In order to avoid some of the problems and confusions that have characterized previous work on the disciplinary history of IR, these types of issues must be explicitly addressed by adopting an appropriate historiographical framework. Jørgensen and Knudsen are keenly aware of the issues that confront them in their task of reviewing the state of the art of European IR. They have developed a cultural-institutional approach to assist them in their task. This approach incorporates three explanatory variables: political culture, the organizational culture of both science bureaucracies and university systems, and academic discourses within the social sciences and humanities. This approach has a number of affinities with the critical internal discursive approach that I have advocated in my own work. Before I comment on the merits of a cultural-institutional approach, I briefly want to review some of the recent developments in the historiography of American and British IR.

The historiography of Anglo-American International Relations Until recently, the literature on the Anglo-American history of IR had, for the most part, failed to address adequately the question of how one should write a history of the field. The tendency was to describe the history of IR as if a complete consensus existed on the essential dimensions of the discipline’s evolution and to assume that the story of IR’s development applied globally, since there were no perceived distinct national differences in how the field or discipline evolved. Another tendency, which I address in more detail below, was to presume that significant events in the first-order realm of international politics exerted a causal influence on the evolution of the field. Taken together, these biases

256 Brian C. Schmidt contributed to the popularity of erroneously chronicling the history of IR in terms of the three ‘great debates’, which a number of scholars have described as the dominant self-image of the field (Goldmann 1996; Smith 1995; Wæver 1998). According to conventional wisdom, IR has experienced three disciplinary defining great debates: (1) between idealists and realists during the late 1930s and 1940s (the first great debate); (2) between traditionalists and behaviouralists or scientists during the 1960s (second great debate); and (3) among realists, pluralists and globalists or between positivists and post-positivists during the 1980s (third great debate). This account has served to demonstrate either coherence or incoherence but, most commonly, scientific progress, and may be found in countless textbooks and articles on the state of the field. The disciplinary power of the story of the great debates is further confirmed by the fact that it is repeated in countries whose own scholarly IR community had no direct participation in any of the so-called debates. Closely associated with the orthodox story of the great debates is the notion that the genesis of each of the debates was sparked by exogenous events in the realm of international politics that triggered a reaction and subsequent controversy in the field. For many, it seems self-evident that significant events in the practice of international politics, such as wars or abrupt changes in US foreign policy, necessarily and directly bring about a transformation in how the subject is studied and taught. The first great debate between ‘idealists’ and ‘realists’, for example, is almost always described as resulting from the inability of the League of Nations to prevent the Second World War, which, in Kuhnian terms, is depicted as a glaring anomaly to the reigning idealist paradigm of everlasting peace. By virtue of its superior ability to explain the persistent and ubiquitous struggle for power among nations, realism is viewed as winning the first great debate and simultaneously advancing the scientific credentials of the field. In recent years, however, a new cohort of disciplinary historians has challenged many of the traditional self-images of the field’s history; especially those derived from the idea of a set of recurrent great debates. The emerging consensus is that there are so many problems and difficulties involved in understanding the history of the field within the framework of the three great debates that we might be better off simply to reject this account of how the field has developed. In the first instance, it is not evident that all of three great debates actually took place. This is especially the case with respect to the so-called ‘first great debate’ that allegedly took place in the late 1930s and early 1940s between idealists and realists, which Miles Kahler (1997) has termed the ‘foundational myth of the field’. One of the surprising findings to emerge from the recent scholarship on the history of the field is that, contrary to popular belief, the field was never dominated by a group of utopian scholars who adhered to something akin to what has been described as the idealist paradigm

Epilogue 257 (Ashworth 2002; Kahler 1997; Long and Wilson 1995; Osiander 1998; Schmidt 1998a, 2002a; Thies 2002; Wilson 1998). In addition to raising questions about the historical authenticity of some of the field’s great debates, the latest work on the history of IR reveals that the stylized versions of the debates do not do justice to the nature of the controversies that were in fact taking place. Finally, it has been argued that the use of the analytical framework of a series of great debates to account for the field’s history is a conservative move that gives the field a greater sense of coherence than the actual history of the field warrants (Wæver 1998). Besides uncovering a number of new insights and challenging some of the orthodox assumptions about the history of IR, the recent literature is much more cognizant of the theoretical and methodological issues that are involved in writing about the history of the field. As Gerard Holden has noted, there are ‘some reassuringly “real” theoretical issues at stake in disciplinary history, not the least of which are questions of how, and to what ends, it should be pursued’ (2002: 253). Disciplinary history is rarely a neutral or impartial undertaking. Rather, it is often closely tied to intellectual struggles to legitimize the contemporary identity of the field. Although one of the aims of disciplinary history is often to say something authoritative about the field’s present character, it is important to avoid the presentist temptation of writing history solely to legitimize or delegitimize a particular disciplinary identity (Gunnell 1991, 1993; Schmidt 1998b, 2002b). The main intention of disciplinary history should be to reconstruct carefully and accurately the past in that ‘truth is often more dramatic than fiction and carries as much rhetorical and critical force’ (Gunnell 1991: 218). Some of the issues and controversies regarding historiographical method in IR are reviewed by Gerard Holden (Chapter 9, this volume). According to Holden, one of the significant disagreements among those working in the sub-field of disciplinary history is between those, like myself, who advocate an internal approach, and those, such as Holden, who endorse Quentin Skinner’s contextual approach. While there are grounds to quarrel with several of the controversial claims advanced in Holden’s chapter, he is correct to identify the controversy between ‘internal’ and ‘external’, or contextual, approaches as being fundamental. In my attempt to reconstruct the disciplinary history of IR in the USA, I have advocated an approach that may be described as a critical internal discursive history (Schmidt 1998a, 1998b, 2002a, 2002b, 2005). Holden is also correct to note that I have suggested that an internal as compared to an external focus may well help to account for the distinct national differences in how the field has developed (Schmidt 2002a: 16). The aim of an internal approach is to reconstruct as accurately as possible the history of the conversation that has been constitutive of academic IR. An internal approach to disciplinary history holds that the most relevant context is the immediate one of the conversation that the individuals who self-consciously

258 Brian C. Schmidt viewed themselves as members of the IR field were engaged in and the disciplinary and university setting. In other words, those advocating an internal approach insist that the most appropriate context for investigating the history of the field is its academic setting rather than the world at large. Contrary to what some of the critics allege, an internal approach in no way ignores the significance of exogenous factors in the ‘real world’, but it does give greater weight to endogenous factors in accounting for the specific character of the academic conversation about international politics. I argue that conceptual change in disciplinary practice is best understood by examining the endogenous developments in an academic field of inquiry. An internal discursive approach is meant to be an alternative to external or contextual approaches that have dominated the historiography of IR. As Wæver acknowledges, ‘the most popular explanations are “external” in a particular sense: the impact of developments in real-world international relations on developments within the discipline of IR’ (Wæver 1998: 691). Wæver also remarks that IR’s external stories about the evolution of the discipline often seem to be convincing, which, beginning with Hoffmann (1977), helps to account for their popularity. Yet while no one will deny that IR has been influenced to some degree by the major events that have marked the activity of international politics, this does not automatically imply that these exogenous events can directly explain the disciplinary history of the field. The important point to emphasize is that the subject matter of IR is always constructed conceptually by the members in the field, and thus the relevance of the ‘outside’ is determined by how those in the academy conceive of and react to it. The radically different manner by which the distinct national IR communities discussed in this book conceptualize the subject matter of international politics clearly illustrates this point, but this point is often lost by contextualists who assume a parallel likeness between academic discourse and the context they have retrospectively created. Moreover, contextually based accounts of the evolution of academic disciplines inevitably end up diverting attention away from the internal dynamics that led to the subject matter being conceptualized in a particular manner. Instead, the focus is placed on constructing the subtleties of the external environment and then attempting to show how this explains what is going on inside an academic discipline. An internal approach, on the other hand, argues that the university context from which IR arose as a distinct field of study is the most immediate and relevant milieu for understanding its historical development. The cultural-institutional approach advocated in this volume shares a number of similarities with an internal approach to disciplinary history. Before I turn my attention to discussing the editors’ approach, it is essential that we do not reach the false conclusion that the debate between internal and external approaches represents another of the discipline’s dichotomies. Almost everyone will agree that establishing the correct

Epilogue 259 context is an important prerequisite to understanding the history and current contours of IR in Europe. As Holden comments, however, one of the problems is of identifying the proper boundary between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ context. This problem, I argue, can be dealt with most effectively by engaging in detailed historical research. In the case of the USA and the UK, for example, there are pragmatic reasons for adopting an internal approach (Dunne 1998; Schmidt 1998b). The most appropriate context for investigating the history of IR in both of these countries is its academic setting rather than the world a large. Yet based on the description provided by Petr Drulák and Radka Druláková (Chapter 7, this volume) of the state of IR in Czechoslovakia during the Cold War when the field was under the strict control of the Communist Party, it is evident that a historiographical approach based solely on an analysis of internal conceptual development would be inadequate. Thus, despite Holden’s complaint, I do endorse historiographical pluralism; a number of different approaches and methodologies can and should be used to recover the disciplinary history of national IR communities.

The cultural-institutional approach The three factors identified by Jørgensen and Knudsen – the political culture of countries in which theorizing takes place, the organizational culture of both science bureaucracies and university systems, and the habits and professional discourses within the social sciences and humanities – appear to be ideally suited to explaining the different ways the discipline has been cultivated in specific national settings. These factors are also helpful to account for the differences that may be discerned between the Anglo-American and European discipline of IR. Morten Valbjørn (Chapter 8, this volume) makes an insightful argument that rather than being culture-blank, IR is actually culture-blind – ‘blind to the diversity of international relations and blind to its own cultural particularity’. The dominant assumption of those working in the American mainstream is that culture simply does not make a difference in the study of international politics. This assumption allows those in the mainstream to maintain the universal pretensions of American IR, while at the same time stifling any curiosity about how the subject matter is constructed and studied in other parts of the world. Chris Brown (2001) has made the paradoxical point that American IR is not sufficiently parochial; it fails to recognize the manner in which its dominant methodologies and theories (e.g. rational choice) are a reflection of unique American values. Thus while construing its research programme as universal and cosmopolitan, American IR, according to Valbjørn, Brown and others, actually reflects the particular worldview and interests of the USA. Jørgensen and Knudsen suggest that one of the reasons why disciplinary historians studying the development of IR in the USA and the UK

260 Brian C. Schmidt have ignored the impact of political culture is that both countries have for a long time enjoyed a democratic liberal political culture, while much of Europe has not. Consequently, the role of political culture is accentuated in understanding the study of IR in Spain under Franco (see Chapter 4), in Germany as a consequence of coming to grips with Nazism (see Chapter 3), and Czechoslovakia (Chapter 7) and other Eastern European countries during the time that they were dominated by communist political ideology, but is given little attention in the case of the USA. Yet if Jørgensen and Knudsen are correct to identify political culture as one of the important variables for understanding the development of IR in Europe, it should also not be overlooked in the American and British context. This is especially the case if we include the role of ideology in assessing the development of the discipline (Little 1981, 1999). Ido Oren, for example, has painstakingly demonstrated that rather than American political science being the archetypal objective, detached science of politics, it in fact ‘is ideological, and its unacknowledged, underlying ideal is America’ (2003: 172). Oren reveals a systematic pattern whereby the positive images American political scientists had of countries such as Imperial Germany, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union underwent a major negative transformation after they officially became the declared enemies of the US government. Regarding the basis of the historical evidence Oren uncovers, he argues that American political science bears all the characteristics of a historically and nationally rooted ideology. Another example of political culture impacting upon IR theory in the USA is provided by the pioneering work of Robert Vitalis. His work on the early development of IR in the USA emphasizes the role that race and white supremacy in American society and culture had on the origins and development of the field (Vitalis 2005). For Vitalis, it is impossible to understand the development of IR without giving due attention to the role of racism in American society and culture. Acknowledging the role that different political cultures and ideologies have in the study of international politics allows us to pursue one possible explanation for the variation in the way the discipline has been cultivated. However, we are still left with the difficult dilemma of how to specify the causal logic between political culture and the development of the field in a specific national setting. As important as political culture might be for understanding the evolution of academic discourse, I would not encourage disciplinary historians to direct all of their attention to examining the concept of political culture to explain the development of IR. There is little doubt that the organizational culture of science bureaucracies and university systems is an important factor in accounting for the development of, and the variability among, national IR communities. This particular explanatory variable is largely consistent with the critical internal discursive approach I advocate. As mentioned above, an internal approach argues that the university setting from which IR arose as a dis-

Epilogue 261 tinct field of study is the most immediate and relevant milieu for understanding its historical development. From the numerous examples provided by the editors and contributors, it is obvious that they agree that internal factors provide a pertinent context for examining the way research on international affairs is conducted. This view is also generally supported by Wæver and is most evident in his use of the model provided by Richard Whitley (1984) to interpret the intellectual and social organization of IR (Wæver 1998, 2003). While there are many institutional features that can be subsumed under the organizational culture variable, in the case of IR, the issue of where the field or discipline is physically located in the academy is especially consequential. The case studies show that whether the study of international politics takes place in a department of political science, law, history, or in an independent and separate department of International Relations has a significant impact upon the type of knowledge produced. While I have accentuated the importance of the institutional home of IR, there are a variety of additional features – sources of funding, existence of professional associations and research councils, publication outlets, tenure and promotion systems, and the structure of the university – highlighted by a cultural-institutional approach. The third variable of the cultural-institutional approach, namely the habits and professional discourses within the social sciences and humanities, is a quintessential internal attribute. I have made the reconstruction of academic discourse the main focus of my own critical internal discursive approach to explaining the disciplinary history of IR. The intention of this approach is to reconstruct as accurately as possible the evolution of the discrete conversation of academic IR. This conversation should not be taken as metaphor, for what is being reconstructed is an actual conversation among scholars and others who self-consciously and institutionally thought of themselves as participating in the field of IR. The subject matter is discourse – as embodied in scholarly journal articles, professional conference papers, manuscripts, textbooks, and other sources that record the literal conversation of the discipline. These sources may be construed as representing the discursive artefacts of the field’s past. Taken together, the three explanatory variables that make up the cultural-institutional approach are ideally suited for explaining the main features of IR in specific countries as well as for engaging in comparative work on the development of the field. While political culture represents the broadest variable that has had an impact on IR, the editors acknowledge that academic discourse must be considered in order to account for the idiosyncratic features associated with IR in specific countries. The important point worth repeating is that in order to engage in discussion about IR discourse, attention must be devoted to developing and employing a suitable historiographical framework. The editors as well as the individual authors of this volume have followed this sage advice and in the

262 Brian C. Schmidt process have revealed a number of interesting features about the discipline of IR in Europe.

Origins and location Comparative work on the state of IR in national and regional settings cannot avoid addressing the closely related controversies concerning the institutional home as well as the date of when the field or discipline was formally established. While the search for the official origins of IR is a problematic exercise, there is no escaping the fact that origins do matter – they help condition the present. One of the most basic and conventional assumptions about the history of IR is that its origins emanate directly from the First World War. The events of the First World War and the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919 are believed by many to have led directly to the formation of IR as an independent academic discipline in both the USA and the UK. Moreover, many assume that these events can explain why the so-called idealist or utopian paradigm reigned supreme during the inter-war period. Yet the new cohort of disciplinary historians has conclusively demonstrated that these assumptions are simply incorrect; in fact they are nothing more than disciplinary myths (Ashworth 2002; Kahler 1997; Schmidt 1998a, 1998b; Wilson 1998). In the case of the USA, there are legitimate historical reasons for tracing the founding of IR back to the early 1900s. There may be disciplinary reasons for forgetting the origins of IR in the USA, especially since the pre-First World War conversation was very much devoted to the issues of imperialism, empire and colonial administration that some would like not to remember (Long and Schmidt 2005). Yet if we misidentify the origins of the field, we will inevitably get much of the subsequent history wrong. Several of the contributors suggest that an academic discipline of IR in Europe is a post-Second World War development. In the case of Spain, for example, Segura (Chapter 4, this volume) claims that IR only came into existence in 1957, and Drulák and Druláková (Chapter 7) argue that this was the same year that the foundations of IR in Czechoslovakia were established. This is a relatively late start if we compare it to the situation in the USA and the UK where the conventional date of 1919 is frequently, but incorrectly, suggested to be the year when IR began. Yet it is not uncommon to find references suggesting that IR only took root in the USA after the Second World War. For example, Stanley Hoffmann’s (1977) popular essay ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’ basically argues that the development of IR as a discipline in the USA began in earnest after the conclusion of the Second World War. The different dates that are frequently used to indicate when IR was established in specific countries can help to account for some of the variation in the contemporary state of the discipline. While longevity does not necessarily equal productivity, it is reasonable to assume that the discipline will be more

Epilogue 263 developed and have a higher profile in those countries where IR has a longer history. The controversy concerning the origins of IR is related to the manner in which the field or discipline is conceptualized, and comparative work on the state of IR inevitably has to address these sorts of issues. The variability in the institutional and disciplinary boundaries of the field is, in part, responsible for the wide range of dates that have been used to mark the birth of IR. All of the chapters in this volume emphasize the importance of the disciplinary setting in which the study of international politics takes place. Many of the unique features of IR in Spain and France, for example, may be attributed to the fact that the study of international politics is physically located in the fields of law and history, respectively. We can confidently conclude that variations in the institutional boundaries of the field are related to the national setting in which IR is situated. We can also conclude that the institutional and disciplinary context of IR has a significant impact upon the manner in which the discipline is cultivated in Europe and elsewhere.

Size and language In addition to the origins and institutional home of the discipline, the case studies reveal that the size of the academic community accounts for some of the variation among national IR communities across Europe. The dominance of the British and American IR community in terms of setting the research agenda, participation in professional conferences, and the publication of books and articles in the leading journals may, in part, be explained by the sheer number of scholars who are employed in the field of IR. Conversely, the relatively small size of the IR community in countries such as Italy, Spain and France helps to account for their low visibility and may, perhaps, also explain the relatively late date of when IR became a recognized field of inquiry. But size, as evidenced by the academic and professional success of the Nordic countries, cannot explain the entire story. The Nordic countries have not only developed an elaborate institutional research structure that facilitates multi-level cooperation among Nordic scholars, but many of these scholars are also active participants in American and British IR. Before I address the issue of the relationship between European and American IR, I want to mention the fairly obvious point that the prevalence of the English language in the discipline is an additional factor that serves to marginalize those research communities which teach and publish in their native language. Several of the contributors highlight the often overlooked point about the dominance of the English language and the consequences this has for European IR. The prominence of the English language along with the relatively small size of many of the national IR communities goes a long way to explain why European IR remains, in Jørgensen’s terms, one of the discipline’s best-kept secrets.

264 Brian C. Schmidt

Attachment or detachment to the US mainstream A prominent theme that informs this volume concerns the state of IR in Europe as compared to the state of IR in the USA. Yet because of the dominance of the latter – in terms of setting the mainstream research agenda, in the production of the discipline’s leading theories, in defining the major theoretical and methodological debates, and coming close to monopolizing the published articles that appear in the most esteemed journals, most of which are based in the USA – there is often an inclination to associate American IR with the global discipline of IR. Wæver (1998, 2003), for example, succumbs to this tendency. While recognizing that ‘IR is quite different in different places’, Wæver argues that ‘there is a global discipline of IR, since most national IR communities follow the American debates, teach American theories, and Americans publish in European journals’ (1998: 723). He suggests that we can discount the degree of national variation in the study of international politics and instead focus on a ‘trans-national configuration centred on the US, which many scholars from abroad (try to) participate in, even if they are also situated in a national IR discipline which might be primary as social context for their own career’ (Wæver 2003). At the beginning of this Epilogue, I indicated that I was suspicious of the notion that there was a global discipline of IR devoid of any distinct national differences. There is, however, a range of diverse opinions on this issue (Crawford and Jarvis 2001; Kahler 1993; Porter 2001; Smith 2002; Wæver 1998, 2003). There is, on the other hand, a general agreement, as well as empirical evidence, that the US’ IR academic community dominates the study of international politics. The last issue I want to address is how the various national IR communities that together constitute the discipline of IR in Europe deal with, and relate to, either the American discipline of IR, or, if you prefer, the global discipline of IR. There appear to be basically three different approaches that the diverse national IR communities have adopted to deal with the American IR colossus. These approaches are not necessarily deliberate or intentional, but also appear to be a function of a number of unique cultural, historical and institutional features to be found within specific countries. The first approach is for a national IR community to accept its relative marginal status vis-à-vis the American IR mainstream and to pursue the study of international politics in their own unique manner. For lack of a better term, we can call this the ‘go your own way’ approach and, based on the chapters in this volume, Italy, France, and Spain appear to have selected this particular path. The second approach is to put forth the best possible effort to attach oneself to, and participate actively in, the American IR research agenda. The Nordic countries provide the best example of the attachment approach. Finally, there is the hybrid approach of simultaneously attempting to integrate with, and participate in, the American

Epilogue 265 agenda, while also pursuing one’s own unique national research agenda. The United Kingdom, and increasingly Germany, have adopted the hybrid approach. Each approach has certain advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of the ‘go your own way’ approach is that it almost guarantees a degree of marginalization from the American/global IR discipline. However, at the same time, this may also be construed as an advantage; especially if one does not embrace the science of politics idea that motivates many of those working in the American mainstream. Based on the historical case studies, it is evident that the decision by national IR communities either to embrace or reject the methods and aims of the American behavioural revolution largely shaped their subsequent relationship to the American/global discipline of IR. In addition to all the favourable organizational and institutional features of Nordic IR, including the existence of the highly regarded journal Cooperation and Conflict, Friedrichs (Chapter 5, this volume) points to the fact that the Nordic community largely accepted the ‘behaviourist mainstream of the time’. By absorbing the latest developments of American IR, especially the commitment to science, the Nordic countries pursued an adoptive strategy that has resulted in a very visible and vibrant Nordic contribution to the study of IR. For those national IR communities that either ignored or rejected the American behavioural revolution, the consequence has been marginalization; what Friedrichs (2004), in the case of France, describes as a strategy of academic self-reliance, and in the case of Italy, a strategy of resigned marginality. While marginalization is not often viewed in a favourable light, there are, nevertheless, certain benefits of the ‘going it alone’ approach. For one, it allows scholars to use analytical frameworks and address issues that are endemic to a particular community of scholars. The United Kingdom represents an interesting example of the advantages and disadvantages of the hybrid approach. While Jørgensen and Knudsen (Chapter 6, this volume) recognize that British IR is not synonymous with the English School, they are correct to argue that it has certainly played a major role in the development of IR in the United Kingdom. One of the defining characteristics of those associated with the English School was their outright rejection of the possibility of IR being a positivist science of politics (Dunne 1998). Yet in rejecting the American behaviouralists, most famously by Hedley Bull in his 1966 article ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’, British IR was, to a certain degree, marginalized throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s. During the time when a large segment of the IR community in the United Kingdom followed Bull and remained ‘resolutely deaf’ to the latest methodological and theoretical developments taking place across the Atlantic, members of the English School continued to focus on the study of international society and remained committed to their unique interdisciplinary and eclectic tradition. A number of important articles and books

266 Brian C. Schmidt were published on a range of diverse topics pertaining to international society, but much of this literature did not register with the community of IR scholars in the USA who failed to appreciate the intellectual merits of this research. Of course not everyone in the United Kingdom embraced the traditional English School framework and its rejection of a positivist scientific approach. There were those in the United Kingdom who were displeased with the marginalization of British IR that had resulted from the ‘go it alone’ approach. It was against this backdrop that Roy Jones (1981) issued his call for a closure of the English School, which Jørgensen and Knudsen point out had the unintended effect of contributing to the unique identity and approach of British IR. Fortunately for the study of international politics, the English School was not disbanded and is in fact experiencing a surge of interest and popularity (Buzan 2004). At the same time, it is also evident that IR scholars in the United Kingdom have recently been making a concerted effort to overcome their self-imposed marginalization and are participating actively in the American/global discipline of IR. Perhaps the best evidence of this is provided by the members of the English School who have gone to great lengths to connect their approach and concerns to developments in American/global IR. This is most apparent in the connection that has been made between the members of the English School with constructivism (Dunne 1995). Yet – and here is perhaps the greatest advantage of the hybrid approach – British IR is engaging in, and participating with, American/global IR on its own terms. In other words, British IR is using its unique and distinctive disciplinary characteristics, not the least of which is its commitment to theoretical pluralism, to engage the American mainstream in a number of academic debates and to offer insightful analysis of a host of contemporary global issues. Steve Smith (2000, 2002) argues that compared to the narrow rationalism that dominates the American/global discipline of IR, British IR, because of its tolerant and pluralistic ethos, is in a much better position to address the bewildering array of problems that confront world politics in an age of globalization. This is clearly a great compliment to the hybrid approach and one that should perhaps be emulated by other national IR communities. After reading this volume on the study of IR in Europe, one cannot avoid the conclusion that there is a remarkable degree of diversity in the state of IR in different countries. The editors’ cultural-institutional approach not only helps to illuminate the unique features of IR in specific national settings, but it also helps to account for the variation among national IR communities. Although the conclusion that there are differences in how various national IR communities undertake the study of international politics may be disappointing to those who remain committed to the idea of a universal science of politics, the existence of national parochialisms should not serve to denigrate the state of the discipline. Rather, scholars should take more interest in the state of IR in different

Epilogue 267 parts of the world and celebrate the diversity of ideas and theories that have been put forth in an attempt to understand or explain the complexities of world politics.

References Alker, H.R. and Biersteker, Th.J. (1984) ‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire’, International Studies Quarterly 28 (June): 121–42. Ashworth, L.M. (2002) ‘Did the Realist–Idealist Debate Ever Happen? A Revisionist History of International Relations’, International Relations 16 (April): 33–51. Bell, D.S.A. (2001) ‘International Relations: The Dawn of a Historiographical Turn?’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3 (April): 115–26. Breitenbauch, H.Ø. and Wivel, A. (2004) ‘Understanding National IR Disciplines Outside the United States: Political Culture and the Construction of International Relations in Denmark’, Journal of International Relations and Development 7: 414–43. Brown, C. (2001) ‘Fog in the Channel: Continental International Relations Theory Isolated’, in M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still An American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Bull, H. (1966) ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’, World Politics 18(3). Buzan, B. (2004) From International to World Society: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chan, S. (1994) ‘Beyond the North-west: Africa and the Rest’, in A.J.R. Groom and M. Light (eds) Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 237–54. Crawford, M.A. and Jarvis, D.S.L. (eds) (2001) International Relations – Still An American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Dryzek, J.S. and Leonard, S.T. (1988) ‘History and Discipline in Political Science’, American Political Science Review 82 (December): 1245–60. Dunne, T. (1995) ‘The Social Construction of International Society’, European Journal of International Relations 1(3): 367–89. Dunne, T. (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School, London: Macmillan. Dyer, H.C. and Mangasarian, L. (eds) (1989) The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art, London: Macmillan. Friedrichs, J. (2004) European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions, London: Routledge. Giesen, K.-G. (1995) ‘French Cancan zwichen Positivismus, Enzyklopädismus und Historismus’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen 2: 141–70. Goldmann, K. (1996) ‘International Relations: An Overview’, in R.E. Goodin and H.-D. Klingemann (eds) A New Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 401–27. Groom, A.J.R. (1994) ‘Introduction: The Past as Prelude’, in A.J.R. Groom and M. Light (eds) Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory, London: Pinter, pp. 1–6.

268 Brian C. Schmidt Gunnell, J.G. (1991) ‘Disciplinary History: The Case of Political Science’, Strategies: A Journal of Theory, Culture and Politics 4(5): 182–227. Gunnell, J.G. (1993) The Descent of Political Theory: A Genealogy of an American Vocation, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hoffmann, S. (1977) ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus 106: 41–60. Holden, G. (2002) ‘Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History and the Discourse about IR Discourse’, Review of International Studies 28: 253–70. Holsti, K.J. (1985) The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Boston, MA: Allen & Unwin. Inoguchi, T. and Bacon, P. (2001) ‘The Study of International Relations in Japan: Towards a More International Discipline’, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific 1: 1–20. Jones, R.E. (1981) ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’, Review of International Studies 7: 1–13. Jørgensen, K.E. (2000) ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relations 6: 9–42. Kahler, M. (1993) ‘International Relations: Still an American Social Science?, in L.B. Miller and M.J. Smith (eds) Ideas and Ideals, Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Kahler, M. (1997) ‘Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory After 1945’, in M. Doyle and G.J. Ikenberry (eds) New Thinking in International Relations Theory, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 20–53. Little, R. (1981) ‘Ideology and Change’, in B. Buzan and R.J. Barry Jones (eds) Change and the Study of International Relations: The Evaded Dimension, London: Continuum International. Little, R. (1999) ‘Historiography and IR’, Review of International Studies 25: 291–9. Long, D. and Schmidt, B.C. (eds) (2005) Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Long, D. and Wilson, P. (eds) (1995) Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis: Inter-war Idealism Reassessed, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oren, I. (2003) Our Enemies and US: America’s Rivalries and the Making of Political Science, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Osiander, A. (1998) ‘Rereading Early Twentieth-century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited’, International Studies Quarterly 42(3): 409–32. Porter, T. (2001) ‘Can There be National Perspectives on Inter(National) Relations?’, in M.A. Crawford and D.S.L. Jarvis (eds) International Relations – Still An American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Schmidt, B.C. (1998a) ‘Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History of International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 42(3): 433–59. Schmidt, B.C. (1998b) The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Schmidt, B.C. (2002a) ‘Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline: American International Relations, Pluralist Theory and the Myth of Interwar Idealism’, International Relations 16 (April): 9–31. Schmidt, B.C. (2002b) ‘On the History and Historiography of International Relations’, in W. Carlsnaes, Th. Risse, and B.A. Simmons (eds) Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 3–22.

Epilogue 269 Schmidt, B.C. (2005) ‘Paul S. Reinsch and the Study of Imperialism and Internationalism’, in D. Long and B.C. Schmidt (eds) Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Smith, S. (1995) ‘The Self-images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory’, in K. Booth and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theory Today, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 1–37. Smith, S. (2000) ‘The Discipline of International Relations: Still An American Social Science’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 2(3): 374–402. Smith, S. (2002) ‘The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: “Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline” ’, International Studies Review 4(2): 67–85. Theis, C.G. (2002) ‘Progress, History, and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist–Realist Debate’, European Journal of International Relations 8: 147–85. Vitalis, R. (2005) ‘Birth of a Discipline’, in D. Long and B.C. Schmidt (eds) Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Wæver, O. (1998) ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization 52: 687–727. Wæver, O. (2003) ‘The Structure of the IR Discipline: A Proto-comparative Analysis’, paper presented at the annual convention of the ISA, Portland, Oregon. Whitley, R. (1984) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wilson, P. (1998) ‘The Myth of the “First Great Debate” ’, Review of International Studies 24 (Special Issue): 1–16.

Index

academic cosmopolitanism 233, 235; see also parochialism Albert, Mathias 87–8, 243 Allan, Pierre 24, 30–1 American IR 8, 40n9, 120n40, 132, 149, 155, 158, 163, 172, 192, 217, 227, 232, 254, 264; and Continental IR 19–20, 22, 114, 149, 247n5; and European IR 9, 27, 114–15, 225, 232, 254, 259, 263–7; hegemony 12, 19–20, 23, 114, 126, 232, 253–4, 263–4 Anglo-Saxon IR 57, 63; and historiography 11, 225–52; see also American IR, British IR Arenal, Celestino del 101–3, 106–7, 109–10, 112, 117, 119n26, 119n28, 119n40 Aron, Raymond 13n6, 22–5, 28, 58, 57, 61, 117n10, 163, 166n11, 214 Badie, Bertrand 36–9, 54, 216 Barcia Trelles, Camilo 102, 117n6 Bonanate, Luigi 48, 53, 58, 60, 67 Booth, Ken 156–8, 181, 216 Bourdieu, Pierre 22, 25, 40n4, 226, 235, 243–5, 247n13 Bozeman, Adda 206–8 Braillard, Philippe 25, 33–4, 40n8 British IR 12, 120n44, 149–67, 232, 234–5, 265–6; cosmopolitanism 233–5; Critical Theory 150, 237–8, 242, 247n12; evolution 150–4; Frankfurt School 226, 237–9, institutions 150–5; see also English School, International Society Brown, Chris 13n7, 73, 114, 150, 156–8, 159–60, 162, 203, 215–17, 227, 259 Bull, Hedley 6, 153–7, 159, 161, 163,

166n7, 166n10, 166n11, 166n12, 166n13, 166n15, 178, 203, 214, 265 Butterfield, Herbert 151, 153–5, 157–8, 163 Buzan, Barry 2, 106–7, 138–9, 143n6, 154, 160, 163–4, 166n17, 167n19, 167n21, 214, 216, 232, 266 Canadian IR 10, 12, 39, 118, 233 Carlsnaes, Walter 131, 135–6, 226 Carr, E.H. 150–3, 157, 163, 166 n3, 4, 11 Chinese IR 12–13, 206, 217, 235 Cold War 59, 60, 90, 178, 192, 236, 239, 259 communicative action: theory of 72, 74, 79–85, 89, 92n16, 215, 237–9, 242; see also norm-guided action, strategic action constructivism 47, 65, 80, 82, 87, 115, 164–5, 202, 266 contextualism 226–30, 247n1, 257–8; critical theory 237–8, 241–42, 247n12; internal vs. external context 226–31, 236, 246, 258 Continental IR 47, 113, 131, 162–3, 217, 253; see also European IR Copenhagen School 133, 138–40 critical self-reflection 1, 11; see also meta-study Critical Theory 73–5, 77–8, 80, 82, 87, 89–91, 91n6, 115, 237–8, 241–2, 247n12 cultural-institutional approach 3–6, 9, 255, 258, 259–62, 266 culture 2, 7, 9–11, 36–9, 91n7, 199–224, 137, 259; culture-blank IR 199–219; culture-blind IR 199–219; cultureblinded IR 11, 199–219, 259 Czech IR 4, 172–94; economic and

Index 271 political context 172; evolution 174–6, 190–2; institutions 177–81; lack of theoretical debate 184, 189; origins 176–7; output 181–9; periodicals 182–4; political culture 176; publications 181–2 Danish IR 125, 128–30, 133–4; see also Scandinavian IR, Nordic IR Deutsch, Karl W. 25, 155 Dunne, Tim 6, 153–4, 157–8, 161–3, 166n4, 166n6, 166n16, 227, 259, 265, 266 English School 6, 8–9, 119n22, 149, 150, 153–65, 166n6, 166n8, 166n17, 214, 232, 237, 247n4, 265–6; British Committee 6, 153–4, 157; and classical realism 150, 153, 155, 157, 164–5, 166n3; and International Law 149, 153–9, 162, 164; London School of Economics xi, 153, 166n8; origins 150, 153–4; pluralism vs. solidarism 150, 156–62, 164–5, 166n15–18; and rationalism 266; and utopianism 151, 166n6 European IR xiv, 1–2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 47, 141–2, 163, 211–13, 217–18, 232, 234, 263–7; see also Continental IR European Union 119n25, 131, 138, 160, 164 Frankfurt School 73, 75, 226, 237–8, 241–2 French-language IR 8, 19–41, 60–1, 107, 109–11, 141–2, 216–17; and American IR 19, 22–8, 40n9; Annales School 23, 26–9, 35, 37, 39, 214; encyclopaedism 25–6, 29, 31–5, 39, 217; evolution 21–9; historicism 29, 35–9; positivism 26, 29–31, 39, 217 Friedländer, Saul 26–7 German IR 8, 19, 72–99, 234, 241–3; and American IR 19, 77–8, 89; approaches 77–9, 85; communicative action 72, 74, 79–85, 89, 92n16; cosmopolitanism 234; Critical Theory 73–5, 80, 82, 86–7, 89–91, 215, 237, 241, 247n12; feminism 86, 88, 92n21, 241; institutionalism 74, 79; International Political Economy 77, 88; lack of self-reflection 77, 89, 91;

postmodernism 86, 87, 243; realism 79, 86–7, 92n20; ZIB-debate 72–4, 77, 79–82, 85–6, 88, 90, 92, 247n12 Giesen, Klaus-Gerd xi, 5, 8, 13n1, 19–46, 78, 92n10, 203, 217, 243–4, 255 Great Debates 72, 114, 152, 154–6, 164–5, 174, 180, 199, 225–6, 228, 236, 256–7; idealism vs. realism 51, 53, 115, 150–4, 227, 231, 256; positivism vs. post-positivism 133, 135–8, 143n19, 164, 182, 256; traditionalism vs. behaviouralism 69, 155–6, 166n11, 256 Grotian Approach 152–4, 156–7; see also English School; International Society; rationalism Guzzini, Stefano 56, 67, 80, 177, 181, 228 Habermas, Jürgen 8, 54, 72–4, 79–84, 88–90, 91n3, 92n16, 92n18, 215, 226, 237–43, 245, 247n7, 247n10, 247n12 Hellmann, Günther 2, 8, 12, 13n1, 19, 77–8, 86, 91n4, 92n15, 232, 243 Herman, Jacques 30–1, 40n7 Hoffmann, Stanley 12, 19, 23, 28, 65, 172, 193, 211, 232–3, 254, 258, 262 Holsti, Kalevi J. 114, 254 humanitarian intervention xii, 150, 158–60, 162, 165, 167n18, 184, 187, 189 Huntington, Samuel 91n7, 206–8, 212, 214, 217, 237 idealism 115, 150–4, 227, 231 institutions xv, academic institutions 62, 66, 142, 173–4, 177–181, 244–5, fundamental institutions 150, 154–5, 166n10; German institutional analysis 91n8; international institutions 29, 48, 112, 150, 153–5, 162, 164 intellectual history xi, 215, 227–32, 237, 245, 247n1, 247n10 internal approach 257–60; see also external approach international agreements 238, 240 internationalism 134, 150, 151–2, 230, 244–5 International Law 6, 40n3, 101–2, 104–7, 111, 113, 149–52, 154–9, 161–2, 164, 193; Natural law and Positive law 156–7

272 Index International society xii, 12, 102–5, 107, 109–15, 119n22, 150, 153–62, 165, 166n8, 200, 265–6; see also English School international theory 153, 158, 199 interpretive approach 110, 151–2, 164, 177; interpretation 106, 108, 155–6, 158, 165, 181, 213 Italian IR 47–68, 141–2; academic and social context 57–65; approaches 51–4; constructivism 47–8, 65; end of Cold War 47–8, 66; evolution 59–65; the international IR community 54–7; literature 48–57; new geopolitical studies 48, 50–1; realism vs. liberalism 50, 51, 53–4; rationalism vs. reflectivism 49, 53, 65; research issues 48–9 Japanese IR 12, 13n6, 206, 217, 232–3, 235 Jönsson, Christer 13n1, 125, 127, 130, 132–3, 135 Kotyk, Václav 175, 183, 189–90, 194n9 Kratochwil, Friedrich 135, 164, 205, 214 Kuhn, Thomas 26, 73–5, 79, 82, 256 Laïdi, Zaki 34–5, 216 Lauterpacht, Hersch 151–3, 159, 166n3 League of Nations 1, 150–1, 154, 166n10, 256 liberalism 31, 50, 51, 53–4, 162–3, 165, 178 Linklater, Andrew 160, 163, 237–8, 240, 242 London School of Economics xi, 153, 166n8 Luhmann, Niklas 87–8, 243 Manning, Charles A.W. 150–4, 166n1, 166n5 Merle, Marcel 27–9, 36 meta-study 1–2, 117n7; see also critical self-reflection Meyers, Reinhard 13n7, 77, 86, 91n10 Mezinárodní politika 181–2, 184 Mezinárodní vztahy 175, 181–2, 184–6, 190–2 Morgenthau, Hans 51, 54, 102, 152, 166n11, 187–8, 193, 201 Müller, Harald 80–1, 83–4, 91n3, 91n7, 91n18, 215, 238–40

national interest 48, 151, 184, 187–9 NATO 183–4, 188, 189, 247n10 Neufeld, Mark 233, 237–8 Neumann, Iver 131, 137–8, 215 NISA (Nordic International Studies Association) 12, 130 Nordic Council 129–30 Nordic IR 89–113, 265; and American IR 128, 132, 141; approaches 131, 134–8, 141; behaviourism 133, 136; institutional history 126; peace research 128–9, 138; and Continental IR 131; post-positivism 133, 136–8; research cooperation 126, 127–31, 141–2; scientific revisionism and revolutionism 134–8; see also Copenhagen School, Scandinavian IR norm-guided action 83; see also communicative action, strategic action Norwegian IR 125, 128, 133; see also Scandinavian IR, Nordic IR Onuf, Nicholas G. 164 origin of theories 7 Panebianco, Angelo 50–1, 54, 57 parochialism 133, 254, 266 pluralism 150, 156–58, 160–2, 164–5, 166n15, 266; see also solidarism political community 150, 158–60, 162 Porter, Tony 118n19, 118n21, 233, 264 Positivism 26, 29–32, 35–6, 38–9, 78, 87 112, 142n3 post-positivism 133, 136–8, 208 presentism 226–31, 245 professional discourse 6, 259, 261 Ras˘ek, Antonín 189 rational choice theory 6, 53, 63–4, 81, 136, 163, 225, 259 rationalism 49, 78, 80, 82, 202, 266; see also English School realism 8, 22–3, 41n13, 50–4, 79, 86–7, 112, 134, 150–4, 157, 165–6, 188, 227, 256 regime theory 32, 37, 41n13, 78–9 Renouvin, Pierre 22–3 Ringmar, Erik 137, 143n4 Risse, Thomas 8, 13n1, 62, 78–83, 85–6, 91n3, 239–40 Roche, Jean-Jacques 20, 33, 34

Index 273 Said, Edward 209–11, 238, 243 Santoro, Carlo Maria 50–1, 53 Scandinavian IR x, 10, 125, 129, 133, 135; see also Nordic IR Schmidt, Brian C. xii, xiv, 6, 11, 40n8, 67, 150, 225–31, 245, 247n3 science bureaucracies 4–6, 255, 259–60 securitization 139–40 security dilemma 151–2, 204 security studies 113, 133, 138–41, 238 Senarclens, Pierre de 32–3 Skinner, Quentin 228–30, 247n1, 257 Sloterdijk, Peter 75, 90 Smith, Steve 4, 19, 112, 114–16, 131, 149, 156, 163–4, 173, 181, 199, 202, 205, 214–15, 228, 232, 234, 254, 256, 264, 266 Smouts, Marie-Claude 4, 13n1, 36–9, 40n3, 40n8, 41n14, 106–7, 109, 216 sociology of science 39, 51, 228–9, 232–3, 237, 244–5 solidarism 150, 156–60, 164–5, 166n16; see also pluralism Spanish IR 3, academic context 100, 104–9; and American IR 108, 110, 113–16; consolidation 101, 104, 106–8, 111–12; and European IR 100, 113–16; evolution 101–4; research issues 112–13; Spanish tradition 109–12 strategic action 83; see also communicative action, norm-guided action Suganami, Hidemi 156, 166n5

Swedish IR 125, 128–9, 133, 135, 142n1, see also Scandinavian IR, Nordic IR Truyol, Antonio 102–4, 107, 112, 117n10 United Nations 151, 154, 159, 161–2, 166n10 Valenta, Jir˘í 187–9, 192 Vincent, John 157, 159–60, 207, 214 Wæver, Ole 13n9, 51, 62, 74, 82, 88–90, 100, 109, 112, 114–15, 117n2, 131–2, 137–40, 143n6, 158, 163, 167n19, 173, 203–4, 213–17, 219n4, 225, 228–9, 232–7, 243–6 Watson, Adam 153–4, 166n7, 167n19, 203, 214 Weber, Max 23, 35, 155, 164, 205 Webster, Charles K. 150–1 Wendt, Alexander 76, 91n9, 163–4 Wheeler, Nicholas 158, 160, 167n20 Whitley, Richard 230, 235–6, 244, 261 Wight, Martin 151, 153–5, 157–60, 163, 166n10, 166n11, 214 Wolfers, Arnold 187, 193 Wyn Jones, Richard 237–8, 240–2, 247n6 Zimmern, Alfred 1, 150–1, 166n11 Zürn, Michael 2, 8, 13n4, 19, 78–9, 81, 86, 91n4, 92n15, 243

eBooks – at www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk

A library at your fingertips!

eBooks are electronic versions of printed books. You can store them on your PC/laptop or browse them online. They have advantages for anyone needing rapid access to a wide variety of published, copyright information. eBooks can help your research by enabling you to bookmark chapters, annotate text and use instant searches to find specific words or phrases. Several eBook files would fit on even a small laptop or PDA. NEW: Save money by eSubscribing: cheap, online access to any eBook for as long as you need it.

Annual subscription packages We now offer special low-cost bulk subscriptions to packages of eBooks in certain subject areas. These are available to libraries or to individuals. For more information please contact [email protected] We’re continually developing the eBook concept, so keep up to date by visiting the website.

www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk