Change in International Society: How Not to Recreate the “First Debate” of International Relations

Abstract

The English school of international relations is in large parts focused on the study of historical change; at the same time, however, it is remarkably unclear on how to understand change in between the idealist belief in progress and the realist eternal cycles of recurrence. This article seeks to avoid this dead end by questioning the school's understanding of change as a commonsensical concept. It is argued that change would be better understood as composed of three facets: one ontological (what is change?), one explanatory (what causes change?), and one normative (is change desirable?). This metatheoretical reconceptualization of change permits cross-checking the three facets against each other for internal coherence, but most importantly, it makes visible the underlying assumptions used to study change, so that ideas of history, causes, and normative ideals can be openly scrutinized, questioned, and defended rather than treated as self-evident. The resulting suggestion of an internally metatheoretically coherent understanding of change in international society signifies a much-needed addition to the English school tool-kit. It brings a promise of a significant metatheoretical overhaul of the theory, which, if taken up, will open up new horizons for the school. In addition, it opens up similar metatheoretical inquiries into other international relations theories’ views of change.

Interpretivists in the English School: Aren’t we all?

“…Jackson, 2020: 140). Yet, this classification of the world into analytical categories may in itself be a performative action, so that researching and teaching about international society in extension makes practitioners act as if it were there, and in that sense influence their thoughts and actions (Friedner Parrat, 2020: 768). Note that this is one of the instances where observers and observed meaningfully converge.…”

“…Arguably, prescriptive normative theory is vital to the English School analysis of change, and one of its distinctive features. Given ‘the performative quality of the subject matter’ an attitude of possible improvement is also called for (Friedner Parrat, 2020: 770) – not least to avoid the trap of mixing categorisation with recommendation, or is with ought , pointed out by Jackson (2020). Alleged structuralists are also interpretivists, and their work is open to normative considerations, although not everybody might choose to take up that challenge.…”

“…As Bevir and Blakely (2018: 430) put it: ‘There is a link between the expectation of a normal science of ethics and a vision of modernity as convergent on a final enlightened phase’. In the end, normative issues are part and parcel of English School analyses, and are arguably better discussed in terms of what is desirable than in terms of empirical markers, since those are anyway rarely conclusive (Friedner Parrat, 2020: 771).…”

Worlding war as a primary institution of international society

“…Importantly, agency remains. The evolutionary analogy must not be overstretched, suggesting international society’s contemporary form is “natural.” ES theory is skeptical of, even hostile toward, teleological historical claims (Friedner Parrat, 2020). International society’s specific form and the functions of its primary institutions are contingent upon unpredictable choices made by specific agents.…”

“…“Interpretive” methodology drawing on concepts of “practice” and anthropological analysis linked to Grounded Theory explore how practitioners produce and reproduce behaviors that manifest, disperse, and change behavioral norms providing institutions with specific content, organize interactions, and manifest contestation (e.g. Friedner Parrat, 2020; Navari, 2011, 2020; Wilson, 2012).…”