Cambrisge Stat
Aiplomacy 145-1950
INSIDE/OUTSIDE:
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS AS
R.
a CAMBRIDGE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
POLITICAL THEORY
R Univesity of Victoria, Iam especially grateful forthe opportunity to
spend Hime atthe Centr of Intemational Ssies at Psinceton Univer
Shy in 1988-89 and at both the Department of International Relations
{nthe Peace Research Center atthe Austallan National University in
198s well asthe opportunity to teach at the International Instat
forSemioticand Suuctural Studies at the Univers of Hawa 19
Pars ofthis book have appeared in eater incarnations and T would
lke to acknowledge the opportunites I have been given fo ly out
workin progress. Chapter 2 appeared in Internationa tertxta! Rea
tars, eted by James Der Denan and Michae Shapiro and published
by Lexington Books. Chapter 3 was frst given at a conference
‘organised bythe Department of International Relations at the Aust
lan National University and the original version appear ina volume
‘of papers from the conference edited by Richard Higgott and Jim
Richardson and published by that Department. Chapters 4 snd 5 are
Discourses of military strategy express
‘worries about contracting response times and instantaneous deesions
her than about the login of extended traitor spaces. Discourses
of political economy speak about the enhanced mobility of capital
Compared with tefonal constraint experienced by governments and
sour, The language of probable and accelerations now falar
from astrophysies contasts sharply with the retained. dynamics
‘expressed in the great Newtonian synthesis of eos oder. A popular
Culture of freeze fumes instant replays and video simulations 1s
‘wily interpreted as an expression of 4 rapidly changing word of
{peed and contingency that increasingly eludes the comprehension
‘even of al those theories, those one dimensional echoes of Dusk,
Weber and Mars, that once captured the unprecedented dynamics of
‘modernity with such conviction.
‘Whetherin the context of traumatic events of accountsof modernity
variations onthe themesof spatial extension an historical progress,
‘or of more recent readings of what has been characterised variously a¢
§ posthistorcal o postmodern condition, contemporary claims about
fovelly pose a range of findamental problems for contemporary
politica thought ana practic. In his boo, 1am concerned 1 explore
ome of these problems by examining how they have come to be
‘expressed by contemporay theories of international relations
‘Theories of international elation, 1 wil argue, ave interesting less
forthe substantive explanations they offer aboxt politcal conditions in
{the modern world than as expresions of the ut of the contempo-
rary politcal imagination when confronted with persistent claims
tout and evidence of fundamental historical and strctorl trans
formation, They can be rad as wil read them here, a expressions of
an historically speie understanding of the character and location of
politcal ife in genera. They canals be rea, a5 will bo read them
hese, asa cri site in which attempts to think otherise about
political possiblities are constrained by categories and assumptions
{hat contemporary politcal analysis is encourage o take for granted, ssipsfoursios
‘Theos of international relations are more interesting a8 aspects of
contemporary world politics that need to be explained than as explo
rations of contempornry weeldpoiicsAssuch they may be read s
sharateristc discourse of the modeen sate and at 8 constitutive
practice whose effects can be traced in the renotet interstices of
‘very fe To ask hove theories of interatonal latins demarcate
land discipline the horzons beyond which tis dangers to pursue
‘any politcal ation that aspires to the rational, the reais, the ens
[Bethe responsible or even the emancipatory, i to become acutely
Aware ofthe discursive framing of spatiotrspral options that hae et
it mark in the quiet schiem Betoreen theories of pola possty
Within and theories of mer relations beyond the secure confines of he
modern terior state. To ask how theories of international relations
‘manage to constisin al inimations of a chronopalites within the
ontologies determinations ofa geopolitics within the bounded geo
met spaces of hee and there, to become increasingly clea about
{he rule under which it hasbeen deemed possible to speak about
polis aa. As dacourses about limit an angers, about the pre
Sumed toundaves ef plital possiblity inthe space an ime ofthe
‘modern tate, theories of international relations express and arn the
necessary horizons ofthe moder political imagination. Fortunately,
the necessary horizons ofthe modem pail imagination are both
spatialy and temporally contingent.
Historicity and spatiality
‘The problematic character of modem theories of Intemational rel
tions hasbeen widely dscsued, especialy in reltion tothe presumed
Iankrupty of established intellectual Uaditions, the untidy prolifer
ton of research strategies an unseemly dependence om the interests
‘of speciesatsandeultures, and the hubris of empirical sca scence,
In the readings tobe developed here, hewever, 1 want show how
this general sense of dnstsaction mst become especially acute
when the historically specie undersandings of space snd time that
Inform the primary categories and tracitions of intenatonal relations
theory ace challenged By specalations about the acceeralive ten
ences of contemporary poll ie,
‘The most important expression ofthese understandings, indeed the
crucial modem politcal atiulation of ll spatiotemporal elation, i
the principle f sate sovereignty. They ae slo apparent in persistent
betes about the valiity of claims about politica elim in zelation
to equally persistent claims about histori and structural tne
formation. Consequently, much of my analysis is expicly concerned
with the specific spatiotemporal valorsations that may be traced. in
{lame about tate sovereignty and politcal realism. wil argue tat as
they have ben articulated a theories of inemational lations, ens
shout politcal realism are an historically specie consequence of
ontradictory ontological posites expresed By the principe of
tate Sovereignty, and not as is so often asserted an expression of
historical essences and stuctural neces.
[A the very least, Tam concerned to show that much more is gong,
om in the construction of dlaims about sate sovereignty and political
realism than is usually apparent from even the moa theoretically and
‘methodologically sophisticated literature in the eld. tis tue 28 30
‘many have concluded on the bas of vere reseatch strategies, hat
‘Shims about state sovereigaty and political cals simply alo grasp
the dynamics of contemporary world politics, then tis necessary to be
clear about the conditions under which it has been assumed to be
posable to engage with contemporary earticlations of spate:
Temporal relations. Familiar controversies about whether sates are
‘obstinate or obsolete, or whether ao-alled non-state actors play 9
‘Signicant role in contemporary word polis, or even whether sates
fare becoming caught within networks of interdependence of func
Vinal regimes, do not ake ws very fri this respect, On the contrary,
‘Tange proportion of research inthe fed of international relaions
remaine conten a draw attention to contemporary innovations while
simply taking a modernist framing of al spatiotemporal options as
languestionable given. While itis not surpehing that a discipline
langly constituted through categories of spatial extension should
cxperence dials coming to terms with problems of historical
teansformation and temporal aceleration, the implications ofthese
Alifcutes have remained rather elusive,
Part of my aim in reading persistent dams about state sovereignty
1nd polit realism a attempts to tesolve or more uavally to Fnget
about, the spatiotemporal conditions of contemporary poll prac
tices to explore some ofthe implications of recent attempts to canvass
‘he posit of on explicitly real atte within the theory of
International relations. Few would argue that such an titude snow
flourishing. Many even seem to fee! that such an atitude would be
undesirable. Certainly, the absence of « moment of critique in this
{context has provided one of the conventional measures By sthich to
Aistnguish International relations theory ffom most other areas of
‘contemporary social and politcal analysis. In fat wil argue, the
sbsence of cilia edge to most theories of international relations 62 usor/ovrsioe
rather special case. The distinction between theories of international
Featione and other frm of social and politcal analyse isl a
‘expresion ofthe ints ofa pital practice tit seeks tobe othe than
Vehat thas already become within the spatial horizns ofthe teretoria
‘While my analysis draws upon ides and strategies of investigation
that have become familar rom broad and sil controversal iterators
bout postmodernty and poststructuratsm, Lam primanly concerned
to show how moments of gue that ae already present in modern
theories of international eats have ben lost o forgotten through
‘esta strategies that const, polaris and rely specifically modern
‘sccounts of spatiotemporal relations. In this conte fr example Tam
interested not only in the pewvasive dscoures in which pie]
reat constantly confront idealists and utopian, but also the manner
Inwhich the possibilty of aca theory ofinterational reatons hae
been erased by a privileging of epistemological and methodological
resrptions that simply take historically peciic-modern-ontolgicl
options asa given. The spt framing of the relation between an
futonomous subject et apart from the ebective world i especialy
ruc fori resonates with the sme moderns dichotomies hat have
boon ried so smoothly within aims about ste sovereignty snd
politcal realism. Epstemologies that simply lfm these dichotomies
[zen obviously the mot appropriate place from which toinvestgae
4 world in which boundaries are so evident shifting and uncertain,
[Asa theory, or complex of theories, constituted through claims
about sovereign identity in space and time, international relations
Simply takes for granted that which sems to me to have become most
problematic I prefer to assume that any analysis of contemporary
"Would politics that takes the principle of sovereign entity in space
and time as an unquestioned assumption about the way the word is
{88 opposed to an often very tentous claim made as part of the
practices of modem subject, including the lemon practices of
‘modem states ~ can only pay with analogies and metaphors taken
ftom discourses in Which this assumption i also taken for grants
hence mach of the contemporsty appeal of ultarlanmroconcrnic
theory a8. 2 way of explaining pattems of confit and cooperation
between sates Fora that they havebeen advanced under the banner
ofan epistemologily rigorous socal science, uianan stories about
rational action zeman explicitly iterary devices and cary enormous
‘ontological and ideologlal baggage. Shiting allusions from that
which i assumed fo be known the rational action of soverign
individuals n'a maeket~ to that which has to be explained — the
ratlonaliational ston of sovereign states ina anarchical sytem!
Society — they especially have encouraged the uncritical afmation of
claims to sovereign identity in space and tne that might be beter
placed under rather more crcl swspicon
While my explicit focus ison modern Anglo-Amerkca theories of
international relations, and on attempts to develop a cra posture
towards them, Iam al concerned with broader theoreti analyses
‘ofthe rearticulation of spatiotemporal relations in late or postinoder
nity, and with what the specie experiences af international relations
theory might tll us about the Hii of our ability to comprehend and
respond to contemporary spasotemporal transformations more gen
cally. Reading theories of international relations as a constuive
hoeizon of modern polis inthe testi stat, want to cai some
ofthe difficulties Besetng attempts to envisage any other Kind of
Politics, whether designated as a wood plies encompassing the
planet 3¢ local politics arising fom particular places, or a somehow
both at once ~ the possibility that seems to me to be both the most
interesting but also the one that is explicitly denied by modernist
assumptions about sovercign identity In space and time
Tn Ris broader contest, expecially, ite dificult avd two sources
‘of controversy that have become apparent inthe contrasting meanings
row assigned to modemity and tothe designation ofthe present as
either post Late. Both the character and contemporary fate of
modernity are dificult o pin down i this expect, On the one band,
‘modernity hasbeen characterised a elther a privileging of space over
lime ora a culture of historia and tempor self-consciousness. On
the other, contemporary accelerations have been understood as 4
reasserion of ether temporality or spall
‘As they have descended from claims about the ancients and the
moderns, claims about modernity usually refer to a form of life assoc
sted with the emergence of those autonomous subjecivities and
unbridgesble chasms charted by Descartes, Gallo and Hobbes, cele
brated by Kart, and rifled in popular characterisation of Enlighten
‘ment retson, As they have descended from various cultural move
-mentsoverthe past century oro, they refer mae toa sensitivity othe
fragility of those autonomous subjetivites and the impossibly of
thore chasms between subject and objet, Inguage and world or
Jknower and known. The theme of modernity as an ert not ony of
‘pid soc-poltcal, economic and technological transformations but
ko ofa new consciousness of teporality and the contingency of
‘specially modern experiences, hasbeen especialy familiar snce the
Inte ninetzenth century In fact, mach ofthe recent erates on the isior/oursine
‘The conditions under which we are now able ~ ot unable - to
conceive of what it might mean to speak of word poli and thas of
the spatiotemporal rearticultion of politcal community, ace ligely
dened in terms of assumptions enshrined in the principle of sate
sovereignty, It is precisely thse asuinplons that are pul into ques.
‘on, though not forthe Bist time, by the convergence of philosophical
erties that have informed the postmeder tar. Again it shot Be
‘ear that to engage ina postmodern exploration of what ight now
‘ean tospeak of word pie cannot involv a simple dismiss all
{hat has gone befor. It does, however, require a recengagement with
the historically constituted Hts ofprevaling discourse about inter.
rational relaonsiworld politics without simply assuming thal the
Historically specie escluions ofall. spatiotemporal options
expressed by the principle of sate soverelgnty are the only round
from which exeal thought and emancipatory practice ean be
‘generated,
“Meditations om the disciplinary practices of
discipline
‘Asa sequence of meditations on 3 discourse about the horizons of
moder pits, this book has wo straightforward thesis rconclsion.
Ieis motivated more by a sense ofthe clclty of peaking coherenly
about polics a this hstoral juncture than by any confidence that
{anyone orany one theoretical orientation offers clear wy forward, It
ros certainly reject the notion that the postmodern tur oles some
ew research paradigm as these have come tobe conceived within
moder social Science. But it does have Losey articulated ging
theme, one that remains exceptionally dificalt 9 specify except a 2
very general level
TE the eary-moder principe of state sovereignty that still gues
‘contemporary political thought iso problematic as these meditations
‘suggest it s necessary to atend to the questions to which that pin
ciple was merely an historically specie response. While there is
lundoubledly some difculy in claims about the continuity of ques
tions overtime, it does seem to me that questions about pola!
idem, an thus about the leytimation of various forms of inclason insior/oursine
and exchson, are no longer adequately answered in the testo
teem we have inher fom exty-anodern Europe and reproduced
50 real inthe name of tate and nation, This has aay bees 2
contested answer, liough the ferme of contestation may Nave NOW
Tecome ure complex and insatent. Questions about. politcal
identity, however do scm to be increasingly central o attempts 10
spec some content to Yer like world poles. They also seem
Increasingly eesstn tothe entrenched rseich strategies deployed
both inthe name ofthe dicpine of interationalreations and of
forms of pois theoey that ae content reat the sharp distinction
‘between lita theory and ntenallonal relations ae an impli
promis
Consequently it alo seems necessary to ated to the most funda-
imental assumptions about the relation between unity and diversity
ann between space ad tne through which the early-moder answer
ws fled and permitted to enter into the must pervasive practices of|
‘modern poli if, Against those who would continwe fo preserve
intematonal rations as. disptine of dogmatisms ad eiiations,
wat to sugges! that ls about contemporary world polis neces
Sry engage with the mos fundamental questions about contempo
rary pola fe Rather than continue to be a site at which the
Characters interogalins of plies! theory are marpnaied and
deferred, ought to be a ste a which such interogatons ane con
ducted most persistently. And against those seh would init that
fundamental questions cn sil be eolved within modernist assump
tions about he relationship of unity and diversity in space an tie, T
ant to sugges that tis precely these assumptions that make Ito
Aitfcae to envisage any Kind of meaningul plial identity in 8
‘wot of profound temporal accelerations ad spatial dshoctions
‘These meltatons have both a more and a less explct focus. Of
‘most immediate cancer ate specie moments of contoversy within
the disptin international eatin since 1945, The mostimportant|
a these have occured under the guise ofthe grand aninomy be-
tween polite reaism and poli dealin a utopian. Crea the
formers pluaity of discourses about diference in both space and
lime, and the latte a8 the discourse that makes claims Yo political
realism pose inthe fst place. Contrary to almost all the conven
tional wisdom, wil suggest thatthe dominant tradition of thinking in
this dspine snot political realism eich isin any ease best under-
stood ava highly mobile and diversified strategy of theoretical eva-
sons. ts ater, that constitutive claim to universality that has come
to be both known and ridiculed as idealism and wtopianism. Those
‘other contoversies that are usualy placed atthe centre of acounts of
the development of the discipline ~ about state-ceneism and globs-
lam or out soo-sienttic methodologies ~Llso read as vations
‘om this centalantinomy. I ead ths antinomy, in tur, a8 specific
{tculation of philosophical options expressed by the principle a ate
‘overeignty- Concurring with supposedly realist claim about the sg
hlcance ofthe principle of state sovereignty, argue that theodes of
International reatons tell os fess about the charecer and com
sequences of sate sovereignty than the principle of state sovereignty
tell us about the categorical structures of international relations
theory, Beginning with typical or influential statements about research
‘options that have been made by contemporary scolar, [ty to
“establce the assumptions these statements tae for granted and then
to show how other ways of thinking might be opened up,
Less explcly, 1am concerned 1 set in motion a range of ideas
which respond tothe dilemmas of poltical identity, historia change
tnd the possibility of ertigue given an awareness of contemporary
tccelealons and uncertainties, One ne of analy begins with those
favly-modemn theorists who managed to rtculate» new ~ modern —
sccount of autonomous subjeciviies in the wake of the disotion of
‘medieval hierarchies In thiscontex, Lam eapeilly concerned to know
how iti sill possible to treat Machiavel) and Hobbes ascitial
thinkers despite the feroity with which they have been reduced f
rere eypers in a supposed canon about the necessities of power
polis,
'A second line of analysis is indebted to 9 range of thinkers who
sought to respond to the cque of Enlightenment rationalism atte
{urn ofthis entry. Because f his det influence on some of the
best-known theorists of intemational relations like. Hans J. Mor
senthau and Raymond Aron, | focus especially onthe legacy of Max
Weber.
‘The third set of ideas i asocated with the heterogeneous
cetanglement of postmoderst, posstuctralists and interpretive
theorists who have developed seatching critiques ofthe claims to
susonomeons subjectivity that were worked out in the eary-medern
fra and tenuously reaffirmed by Weber. Here my mai inspletion
comes ftom Michel Foucault but ony because have found him tobe a
paricularly challenging and sensitive entry into ways of thinking
but language, deny and power tha seem ome abe indispensa
‘Me or thinking about poles nthe late twentieth century. While do
rot wish to overemphasve the connections that might be drawn
between Weber and Foucaul,2 Ihave found it usefl think ofthese stpsloutsios
toy extaorinariy complex thinkers sft tes for engaging with
the reltonship between chime about modernity, om the ane hand,
fn about sovereign iden on the olher. As broad sites of pio
fophical and politcal controversy, they have provided me wih a
fontext ia which to draw upon some clements of the specially
tlecortructvecrque of sovereign dents associated with neques
Dera as well as an even broader ~ but here aly explicit ~ intel
lectus hetage marked expeclly bythe names of Kant, Mar and
Nietsche
Like many books on international relations, 1 begin with
Machiavel or ater, with what thas come to meant cam that one
“should begin with Machiavell. {then work my way through problems
that ave been posed by the three “eat dette’ tha are genealy
acknowledged 10 mark the development ofthe discipline ~ debates
bout realism and idealism about appropriate method and about the
‘obstinacy or obsolescence ofthe tte, I engage with eal by pee
ling about the coniaung iauence of claims about a tradition of
international relations theory in which the nate of Machiavelli has
retained a prominent role A parallel poralement infos iy discus
Jon of claims about the need to being ethics more forthrghtly into
contemporary discussions of international relations.
"Themes ase in thee diacusion of reali and idealsn ae then
recast in elation to more recent controversies arising fom attempt 0
Privilege certain modes of empirial and rationale enquiry. 13m
‘specially concemed to highlight the extent to which ontologies,
‘nological and ideological peotems are pushed sede in favour of 8
rmore epistemological conceived understanding of socal inquiry,
and the extent to which cine about poll realm manage to elie
fundamental contradictions between Sructarait and histo om
stents
In chapter 6 adres the spt framing ofthe primary dicplinary
categories more exp, focusing especially on the characterise
‘opposition betwen cis that the tndtoral state willbe ever-present
tots now inainenty absent and onthe transformation of horizontal
terntorialiies ino apparent hierarchies in the so-called “levels of
analysis schema, undoubtedly the key dsseation of explanatory
‘options encourage by this disciplne In chapter 7,1'y to mave across
the boundary Between iside and outside in order to develop &
wading of modern theories of democracy in the context of inter-
‘atonal relation. The very aempt to make such a move, however,
merely accentuates an avareness of the limite of modern poi
thought and practice inscribed by boundaries of the state, and
“spec ofthe lint ofthe particulars communities within which
ith become possible to articulate specifically modern accounts of
‘universality
Tn all of these readings of key debutes, conceptual options and
methodological injunctions, my concem is to destablise seemingly
‘opposed categories by showing how they area once mutually consti-
tative and yet always inthe process of dissolving into eachother. The
‘ie stalght-spaial ines of demarcation between inside al outside
‘creas and idealism turn ot tobe siting and treacherous. Uns
Pisingly, Lend up at that other conventional starting point, the
Principle of tte sovereignty. Concurring with the judgment that ie
Indeed necessary to take this principle a the key featere of modern
poliial ie, T seek to show how this judge tells us more about
the constitutive imagination of maders polit! life than about the
‘terminations and possibilities of the political words in which we
rove ive "2 THE PRINCE AND ‘THE
PAUPER’
‘The politics of origins
In canvassing the problems and achevesents of contemporary the:
‘ores of intermational rations, Kal Holt has sucinclyvepeated a
famiarreeainIneratonal theory he says, ina tat of disarray”
nthe pst decd, the tec eis ang inl consnaus
hich onpnsedphbsophial speculation, goed empl
‘sn ad provided fst hypotheses anaes othe real
{qetrsatut iteration plies has broken dwn, New onc
{Tne and image othe wr an how lt wer ote sip
na andcommerc amine ave sen Sekar ave feed
Arnett eats the set adn, which gs bck
Hobie and founeau, severely challenging the sumptions snd
‘we ews on whichis bat Sone as ou aenaees
‘ot so much bce they promise beter undertnding toe
‘ethadlogla novation but teas hey ae pponely mee
CCosstent wi eanemperary ralter The continued ner.
Aleseloment of many new tts, cone with the starting jae
twchnoogalbandormaton have raed ew Kinds of goesbons
tout ner pli, questions wich were ot leva the
ints of poles entempated by Sur inet ancestors 9h
‘net fhe wing win the reset Ga tain
In this pasage, Host stress thre themes tha have been common to
‘many alemps since at less the mid-1970s to lake stock of How we
‘ought to examine the eles’ of international relations. There is the
‘observation about ‘paradigm proliferation, abou the loss of clear
consensusas to what the sad of international lations involves both
substantively and methodalogall. Thee isthe connection dren
betwen this tendency towards paradigm proliferation and a ense
thatthe phenomena being studied are changing ways inadequately
grasped by established theoretical erentatons. And, finally, there is
the reference tthe alton, specially the dasial or realist
leaition inthis ease inked explicitly to the names of Thomas Hobbes
and Jean Jacques Roussea.
"Enormous iterates now exist both on the prlferstion of esearch
orientations and on the claim thatthe substantive character of ner
‘ational relations s boing transformed, However, both Mteratures rest
"spon astance towards the prior claim that herein facta tradition,
three centres lng intellectual consenss’ which may be understood
ssbotha point of departure and a dstilation of eonveniional wld.
This claim has been subject (0 relatively Ile critical attention,
capecally in the United Stales where the analysis of international
‘elation has absorbed the unfortunate habit, characteris of so much
Social science, of treating the tradition’ as both naturally given in the
‘govt texty and largely ielevant tothe analysis of modeen human
fairs, Even where the history of plilical thought is taken serious,
land were the dificulis inthe way of understanding any particular
testae well known, emai almost truism cla hat there i
‘Meniiable tradition of international theory against which corrent
tendencies in both theory and practice an be situated, measured and
inde,
Reference to such a tradition may be justified a a simple practiat
‘convenience, The story tobe told has to begin someirhere Bt isnot
always any to begin a he bepinning, only because the tdenticaon
‘a point of engin depends on where we think we ae now. Thus, a
Prtcal convenience i alway able o tar ino a powerful myth of
trig, Other polnt of departure ate rendered trivial ar even unthi
tie, The highly problematic character of claims about origins, cont
ics, telologes, progressions and ruptares ix conveniently for
ote
‘The idetiation of tradition of interational relations theory has
ovr become especialy problemati We live ina word in which there
fas been a. proliferation not only of research paradigens in the
scadomic analysis of international relations but also of myths of origin
tore genealy. The Hegelian tre to univereity sll echoes 35 'pr
fre “development” of ‘modernisation, but living within poder
{tye are just key tobe bemused by histories a seed by Geis
ven from the centes of fing empires, amid ample evidence of
fandamentlistselfsighteousness about past and future, origins shit
tnd recede, Reifed temporal horizons give meaning to where we
{think we may be going. They also provide a sense of who this wei
Allo oten, ‘we’ turn out 1 be those who have progressed “devel
‘opector ‘mavdernise’, to be distinguishes from ‘they’ who have no.
These horizons seem increasingly tenuouy, certainly inadequate a 2 sie/oursioe
way’ of orienting either serious academic anal or progressive pal
Ul practi
‘Contemporary claims about intellectual. traditions are cought
even a avarenes that dominant myths of origin all those tries
abouta move rom backwardW advanced, ftom pesionate ational,
from bactrim fo enlightenment ~ harbour an embarrassment of
subse (ethnocentric, rca, the arrogance of empites, He But
‘her of wars and extermination camps) and a vealisaton that these
stories stil inform the most kas ategories through which we under-
Sand and atin the worl. The term demlopment, for extmple, now
‘letnands quotation mark, a distancing of accounts of whats ging on
in particular societies fom the evolutionary teleology with which the
‘erm i indelibly aeointed, Caught in thi way, contemporary socal
fn polleal thought has become embroiled in farseaching debates
shout the character, potential and sustainably of modernity. ques:
Soning of received temporal horizons of myths of origin, of accu
of continlty and discontinuity, of ried teleologies ~ has become a
precondition for engaging withthe literature on contemporary socal
Sd poteal thought al.
"The questioning often leads to familar answers, Mare could resolve
a crique ofthe achievements of capitalism through a Hegelian claim
shout the universal subject of History. Even the pessimistic Weber
Could resolve hs deep ambivalence about ralionalsation through an
appeal toa new her the protoeistental individual, Drawing on
both, eile also displaying deep nostalgia for Kant, ingen Habermas
an sl ee ways of fuliling the promises of Enlightenment thaugh
practices of communication,
"Yet anyone now trying to come to terms with Mary, or Weber oF
Hubermas, not to mention the ingrained habs of Anglo-American
liveralsm or ‘commonsense’, quickly finds that the. promises of
Enlightenment sem very elusive. The grand Hegelian trek whether
‘alten as a Hebvew parable of flflisent in time, or a Greek story
bout the journey fom becoming to being, or an Enlightenment cain
Shout universal reason ~ has been put nto radical doubt By 4 bread
‘ange of contemporary phlosophial currents, of which poststuctura-
lise is only the most insistent. Meanwhile, and in a fess rari
ltnsphere, we are becoming increasingly aware of other stores, of
people who have been writen out of the Hegelian sxp. For those
rang om other chronologies, other cultures and other traditions,
‘reunsof a universal History appear more convincingly asthe par
ticular aims ofa culturally specie history, as claims asin from
storia practices in which universalist aspiration is closely entwined
‘wth the legiimation of domination
‘To move froma seemingly innocent reference ta tation to these
large question about the philosophy of history is obviously to enter
‘upon very murky and contesable ferrin. Most scholars Iying 40
stake sense of the contemporary work are likely to turn back very
‘icky, This especialy the case among theorkts of Intemational
{elaions, who have often shown a certain pride in thei Immunity to
{theoretical and philosophical diversions. Whether they defend their
him fo hardheadednes and realm in an emplclt account of
Soro scenic explanation or inthe aupposed pragmatism of public
policy analysis, they are likely to suggest tht Toose references to a
frecition are ine usta convenient place 1 start a paite way of
Iocating their concerns within an established disciplinary mati. If
pushed, such scholars ar likely to suggest an appropiate division of
Iabour, just as there is between, for example, polital scence and
poll theory: except thatthe distinction between politcal theory
{and poiticalstence sits grounded in what are widely judge to be
‘Fubions assumptions about the posibty of distinguishing between
hormative and empirical concerns If we have learnt anything at all
ftom the debates about sence and vals from the 196s and 1970
iethat empirical theory oe policy analysis cannot be folate abiaaly
from the metatheoretical and philosophical assumptions that ae so
often drvened out by loud appeals objectivity’ or ‘reality
References oa tradition of international elaions theory are by no
means innocent This i not to say that they are entirely misleading,
‘They offer us a numberof important clus about the historically
constituted nature of bath the theory and practice of international
polis But parlcuaty as they are inserted into textbooks, into
passing references ad obligatory footnotes ~ accounts ofa tration
ferve to legitimise and ciseunscribe what couats as proper schol
Ship. Indeed, the slences and limits engendered by claims about a
{eadtion of international relations theory ought to be of pressing
concern to students of contemporary polit le in general and not
fonly to the apparently discrete discipline of international relations
‘Two aspects of the prevailing rendition of this tradition are of par
ticular intrest here
“The fst concerns the rather pecullar relationship between theories
of international relations and other ares of contemporary sci and
polit enguiey, a pecuarty that brought into especialy sharp
{ous by coneasting responses tothe problems posed by claims to 8 ixsie/oursive
tration. Although tbe wentth century has ven many altemps to
liy Hegre forest mortcontemporary sca and plist analysts
sl work onthe bass of assumptions about a tradition of socal and
pola hough, whatever unfortunate anachronism o deieation of
reat textos occurred simpy because it spossble even necessary
{ointerpet history asalongmarch tomedemiy. From the high ground
sf modernty,criteal vices especlly those echoing Nitsthe or Hel
Aegger, may be dismissed as dangerous wells, as unveiling to
‘ecignse the obvious achievements of progress or atleast to put up
withthe oss of disenchantment vi sufcent Weberian fortads
In the ease of theories of international reatons, however, the high
sound of modernity gives way toshitingsand much more eel. The
tradition of intemaona relations thery, with allt csims about
recess of state and the prouily of power over ethic, i olen
Drlcultedexpliilyn eppostion toa moderns reading of Pistrial
progress. Certain Nieuschean cadences, selectively heard and cradely
harmonised with many other septal voices ae not dificult to detect
In some ofthe more ilueni formations of what a tation of|
international relations theory iavolves. Ironically perhaps, but sig
rial, both defenders of claim toa rion fntenational ela
Hons theory and those who share a postNieeschean sceptiim
towards any such cim share a deep distrust of the grand tek to
rmadernist univers, The itony ofthis convergence is especially
apparent in the recent forme of critique to which claims about &
Tongstanding tation of inernational relations theory have been
subjected. Contrary to all those portrayals of the grest debates in
International elation theory aa contest between a relatvis elim
and a univers idealism for eample, te slbientiied politcal
tealsts have recently found themeelves being challenged ‘on the
{ground ofhstrcism and ference ~ precelythe ground that has
teen identified asthe preserve of thse who are willing Io face up to
the tragic necessities of power politics na sjtem of sovereign sates,
‘And whether in tems of adentie method, oof the ultaran cate
tories of liberal politcal economy, many contemporary (srtural or
"eo eas have been caught trying to defend a raion thal canbe
traced bock to Thucyies whe lo laying aim tothe universal
Eategories of modernity.
"The second aspet ofthe presumed tation tha of concern here
is ‘Machiavel. More than alos anyone ese, cetanly more than
titer Hobbes or Rousseau tis the name of Machel that has come
to symbolise what the tradition of international relations theory all
bout. is indeed necenary Yo take Machiavel very seriously, He
»
suggests cru insights to those seeking to develop a eal perspec
five on contemporary international elatons in particular an polis
Ie in general. To take Machiavell seriously, however cannot involve
‘simple submission to the carature of Wadiion. On the contrary,
‘Machiavelli can be read in ways that problematise the most basic
sssumptions on which clams about the tradition are based. Contrary
to oth the so-called realists who treat Machiavll as one of ther own
and the so-called idealists who castizate him fr his supposed realism,
‘Machiavell poses questions about polities! community and practice
that may stl be pursued even though his anewers expose Nie wn
Limited historical and conceptual horizons.
This is emphatically not a matter of making a claim about ‘what
‘Mochiavel relly said’ that may be counterposed fo the carature
‘ofthe train, nor to demonstrate nce again that Machiavell as
hot @ Machiavellian. Is, rather, lo indicate one way of denbiying
some of the discursive pracices that have turned an historical
problematic into an ahistorical apology for the violence of the
present It Is alin to suggest a connection between the alempt to
{levelop a cial dimension to international relations theory and
"emerging forms of politi practice. To meditate on the dentieation
‘of Machlavell with clans about tadion of interationa rlalions
theory is to begin to see how it might now be possible to think
there: to use references toa tation not as legiimation of
‘eicatlon and closure, but asa source of elleal opportunity. Even —
for perhaps especially ~ The Princ, that supposedly most ‘eas’ of
fen I wl auggest, oust be read asa refusal fo take any claim fo an
‘orga a an innocent at
‘The tradition of international relations theory: three
variations
Although references to a traditon of international relations theory are
common enough, they are fa fom monolthc® Some start with the
{Grek city states, thers withthe tin Renaisance, ond others with
the mature states system of eightenth-cetury Europe. There areal
‘minor variations in the selection of authors and texte claimed
represent the tation, Beyond this, however, ti useful to ditin-
{ulshthece vather diferent ways in which the tradition i dented
land describe. Although they areal closly related the fs ewe have
ben particularly susceptible to rican into an ahistorial claim
about the unchanging eeliesofintemational pies Inthe thd
‘erson the central issue thats at stake in the manner in which dams {0 2 trdtion of intemational rations theory have been aticulted
becomes more realy apparent
There hasbeen est, te account ofa permanent debate, the pers:
fet confonatin between the houses of realm and idealism.
LHL Canr’s rent seman paradigms lan Clark's identification
‘of Roussa with aon of deepal? and Kant with a tact at
‘ptimisn i's typical recent echo With varying degrees of qual
‘cation, it informs surveys ofthe diipine and textbook catepor
sations of the main theoretical tations. This account may feign
synpat for both sides, o it may be openly partisan neither case,
te find something zather similar to all those textbook histories of
Philosophy in which the eternal debate between rationalists and emp
"isons an uncanny resemblance 10 categories popularised 2s 2
consequence of Kant’ stem to sjathesse them. In thi case, asi
‘snot unreasonable to suspect that lime about an eternal debate et
‘upon an history specie framing ofthe avaiable alternatives.
This acount of the Irion as a tworway debate as often been
clallenged: From one direction we nd the Martin Wight-Hedley Bull
{vad in which something embed with Hugo Grotus acts asa kind
of senile middle rod? However, as with all appeal to a middle
‘ond, the intended compromise renforces the legitimacy ofthe two
poles asthe line of permitted dicourse. From another direction,
Similar problems beset Stanley Hotfmann or even Hans Morgenthat,
‘who, while rejecting the house of idealism fel uncomifertable witha
pure power politics and this seck refuge in a Webedan ‘ethic of
‘esponsiity* Ba agai, as with Weber himself, the‘ehic of absolute
fends remains the silent possiblity against which necesies and
"esponstlties ae articulated, While dismissed as impractical, univer
salt aspiration provides the hocizon against which the Sisyphean
‘flora statesmen ae tobe judge
Ina second formulation, the partisans of rai cam victory. The
sternal dialogue becomes an esentalisic monologue, although a
umber of theatre igures ~ Thucydides, Machinell, Hobbes,
Rousseau, Hegel, Morgethay, Care ~ ae ievited o read the snip.
Here terms tke pot, sale and mitiona interest appear with reat
agulany interspersed th claims about human are or politcal
neces, stuctral determin or the tragic condiion of human
fstence in general For the most pa thelist constantly repeated a
an aici of ft, although the odd complaint about anachronism or
ven gross mitepreentation can certainly be found, Occsionaly,
serious attempts are made to justify the inking of names im His way
Io continuous tradition. RIN. Berks syrheticatlempt to teat
political walsm as ‘mature attitude’ towards the inherent instability
1 poiical life or Friedrich Meinecke's asic account of the doctrine
‘tus at stand out in this respect?
Inthe third formiltion, the tation fs defined by negation, by
what itis not, And what isnot by most accounts split theory
Sometimes thisis intended to suggest thal it sconcerned with heman
relationships that are not subject to a centralised autho, ay i
‘entralised authosty were a precoaion for poi ie in general
father than a characteristic of some form of poltcal ife in particule
Initemore important rendition, however the acount ofa tradition by
segation ~ perhaps best represented by Marin Wight celebrated
tessy on why there is no international theory ~ suggests tha theories
Df intemational relations theory ae marginal to pola theory, ma
‘ial that to the specific fort af political community celebrated in
{aims about a taciion of propery poltical thought Theories of
Sntemational relations ate Said to be characterised precisely by 2
‘refusal ofthe Enlightenment vision of universal progress, by willing
ness to face up to contingency, pluralism and violence. Moreover,
{stead ofan appeal toa tration of else texts there ae references to
the relative cari, ‘unsystematic nature’ and intellectual and mor
poverty’ of the satered writings of historias, statesmen and the
‘ecasonal philosopher Like the ather two versions of the appl 09
tradition, Wight’ account sts important constraint on what theories
‘ofintemational relations can or cannot be But instead of» probibition
‘against idealism or utopian in general the limits are defined by 9
cular form of detism ~by the polis theory of life within states.
Intemational rations theory must therefore avoid the ‘domestic
analogy. It must nat transpose the universal, the teleology, the
Whiggish History characteristic of accounts of political fe within
states into accounts af relations betwee states,
‘Wight argues an explicit case or what s more usually rendered 3s. @
simple and ahistorical contrast between plc community within
nd international anarchy without. Moreover Wight’ simuonecs
‘appeal toa middle ground, whether one eads this 8 weclamation of
lugo Grotus or of David Hume, makes the contrast less sharp than
sual. Most sgecanly, Wight situates his analyse in an account of
the historical context in which this spatial diferentiaion became
‘onsitutive of modern politcal ie in the transformations ofthe late
‘medievalera The myth ofan eternal dition almost collapsesin the
face of a sustained historical analysis. Unfortunately, the myth of
ternal debote remains in the background, Wight thee categories
‘seem as deeply relied! a thse of Carr. Historical analysis gives way spefoursioe
‘once agin oa tradition that provides us with both a myth of origin
{and clear boundary Beyond which theories f international relations
‘Should not espe.
ven 20 in Wight’ rendition, the prablem atleast becomes 2 te
clearer. The dficlly is not the dubious Ist of names or the endless
{great debate, but the manner in which theories of international ela
ons become famed asa counterpoint to another great tradition that
‘other lang lst of names and texts that populate courses in the history
‘folic! thought It seems that theories of intermational lations ae
always destined to be the poor relation of something somehow more
‘authentic, more ‘palitical, more ‘eilca, or atleast to be always
struggling to eatch up with all those concepts techniques and asp
ons that can be taken for granted by thoteconcermed with human
‘communis within lates,
Machiavelli and political community
Machiavelli's entry into this problematic is at once stralghtforwant
and disconcerting complex ~ much like Machiavel’s own writing.
He has entered inte popular dicourse a the paradigmatic reals He
has Become the most privileged ion, the mas resonant sjmbel, the
‘ame amos! a the top ofthe list of names, the writer ofthe ext that
‘more than any other has become synonymous with the teadiion
Read a the paradigmatic realist he s immediately reduced to instant
formulas~ about the prioty of power over etic, about the necesslty
of violence and inuigue inthe alfais of state, about ends justifying
tans and ison
‘All of which is clearly not to real Machiavelli a al but to endorse a
You might also like
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeFrom EverandThe Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good LifeRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (5814)
- The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreFrom EverandThe Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You AreRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (1092)
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItFrom EverandNever Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On ItRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (845)
- Grit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceFrom EverandGrit: The Power of Passion and PerseveranceRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (590)
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceFrom EverandHidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space RaceRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (897)
- Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeFrom EverandShoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of NikeRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (540)
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersFrom EverandThe Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy AnswersRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (348)
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureFrom EverandElon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic FutureRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (474)
- Her Body and Other Parties: StoriesFrom EverandHer Body and Other Parties: StoriesRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (822)
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerFrom EverandThe Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of CancerRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (271)
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)From EverandThe Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (122)
- The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingFrom EverandThe Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy LivingRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (401)
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyFrom EverandThe World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first CenturyRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (2259)
- The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)From EverandThe Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)Rating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (98)
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaFrom EverandDevil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New AmericaRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (266)
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryFrom EverandA Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True StoryRating: 3.5 out of 5 stars3.5/5 (231)
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnFrom EverandTeam of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham LincolnRating: 4.5 out of 5 stars4.5/5 (234)
- On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealFrom EverandOn Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New DealRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (74)
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaFrom EverandThe Unwinding: An Inner History of the New AmericaRating: 4 out of 5 stars4/5 (45)
