Eclecticism or exclusivity? The (critical) pragmatist ethos of (intersectional) analytic eclecticism

Abstract

Eclecticism in International Relations (IR) claims to reject the rigid boundaries set by various theoretical traditions, yet, in practice, it falls short of moving the field “beyond paradigms” and tends to produce analytical exclusivity rather than eclecticism. This exclusivity is the result of Sil and Katzenstein’s investment in tenets of American pragmatism. These tenets favor consensus and universalism, leading to the reproduction and exclusivity of the theoretical status quo. Dissolving paradigmatic boundaries requires a more critical form of pragmatism. Drawing on the common origins of feminism and pragmatism paired with the contemporary feminist concept of intersectionality, this essay proposes a critical pragmatist ethos and an intersectional analytic eclecticism. This can produce a more inclusive form of analytic eclecticism and render visible the power dynamics that shape experiences as well as academic scholarship. Only when analytic eclecticism is informed by intersectionality and a critical pragmatism might it actually move IR “beyond paradigms.”

Critical and Problem-Solving Perspectives on Decentring EU External Action Studies

“…Conventional Pragmatism, however, in the form of theoretical pluralism or analytic eclecticism, has been criticised for its tendency to overlook ethical concerns regarding inclusivity. If interparadigmatic dialogue remains confined to interaction among the dominant paradigms, it would generate only a partial pluralism that forgoes its claim to inclusivity and emancipatory potential by reifying existing power dynamics (Blanchard 2020;Peet 2020). Similarly, and in line with decentring, Eun (2018: 9-11) explains that more inclusivity is needed not only across theoretical boundaries but also among social and spatial divides, as a focus only on the former would continue to rest upon existing Euro/Western-centric paradigms.…”