Relationalism or why diplomats find international relations theory strange

Publikation: Bidrag til bog/antologi/rapportBidrag til bog/antologiForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

In this conclusion, which reflects critically on this approach and its
wider consequences, I argue that diplomats are estranged from IR theory and
vice versa - because IR scholars generally subscribe to substantialism,
whereas diplomats tend to think in terms of relations. In fact, a deeper
understanding of these relations is a key theoretical take-away point of
this book. More specifically, I argue that relationalism - as a
meta-theoretical approach - not only helps us understand the diplomatic
production of world politics, relationalism also reflects a particular
ontology, which differs fundamentally from the worldview that most
IR scholars subscribe to. As I suggest, most IR scholars depart from the
social phenomenon they want to study, for example, states, diplomats,
soldiers, organizations, treaties, companies, and women. Assuming a priori the existence of these phenomena (e.g. states or individuals) and
ascribing certain characteristics to them, they develop substantive theories.
Consequently, diplomacy is reduced to the mechanics of states
bumping into each other or a system of reciprocal signaling.
However, most diplomats know, in an embodied but often unarticulated
sense, that world politics is deeply relational. Their job is to
make those relations "work," and they are convinced that important
knowledge can be gained by consulting and meeting with foreign
powers, that is, "the other." As such, they subscribe to a relational
thinking (shared to some extent by diplomatic scholars). Relationalism
takes as its point of departure the idea that social phenomena making
up world politics always develop in relation to other social phenomena.
Thus, for example, states are not born into' this world as fully
developed states that then "exist"; states are made in continuous
relations with other states and non-state actors. The development,
consolidation, weakening (or even disappearance) of states can only
be understood in terms of continuous processes that play out in relation
to other social processes. These ontological and epistemological
differences between much of IR scholarship and diplomatic knowledge
and practice are important for how we understand (and construct)
world politics, including war, international cooperation, and
responses to human and natural catastrophes.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TitelDiplomacy and the Making of World Politics
RedaktørerOle Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, Iver B. Neumann
Antal sider24
UdgivelsesstedCambridge
ForlagCambridge University Press
Publikationsdato2015
Sider284-208
ISBN (Trykt)9781107099265, 9781107492004
StatusUdgivet - 2015
NavnCambridge Studies in International Relations
Nummer136
ISSN0959-6844

    Forskningsområder

  • Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet - Diplomati, International politik, international politik teori, relationalisme, Ontologi, Epistemologi, substantialisme, Emirbayer

Antal downloads er baseret på statistik fra Google Scholar og www.ku.dk


Ingen data tilgængelig

ID: 143041226