Pacifism, the Science of Peace, and the Constitution of War as a Governance Problem

What makes great power relations more (or less) competitive? One key argument in International Relations (IR) is that interpretations matter and shape how competitive great power relations are. This article seeks to further develop this argument. Drawing on objectual IR and the sociology of expectations, it proposes a constructivist framework that unpacks two crucial, yet surprisingly little studied aspects of the making of great power competition: (i) the constitution and organization of great power relations as a contest over scarce goods and (ii) the interplay of narratives and knowledge objects that underpins it. To illustrate the framework and contribute to theory development, the article reconstructs the dynamics of two prominent dimensions of great power competition in the past decade: The tensions between NATO and Russia in Europe and the economic competition between the United States and China. It shows that the making of great power competition involves three interrelated elements: the framing of relations among powerful states as contests over some valued goods, the production of knowledge about the distribution of these goods, and governance arrangements stipulating rules for the contests. What underpins the three elements is an interplay of narratives and knowledge objects: General narratives of what the competition is about and what is at stake preconfigure which knowledge objects are regarded as pertinent. The pertinent knowledge objects, in turn, shape the specific narratives that are told about how the competition unfolds.

Narratives, Knowledge Objects, and the Making of Great Power Competition

Müller

2024

Objects of Expertise. The Socio-Material Politics of Expert Knowledge in Global Governance

Esguerra

2024

Global governance institutions emerge around problems ranging from climate change to cybersecurity. Expert knowledge is instrumental in defining these problems, developing corresponding solutions, and thereby structuring international order. But in the process of problem construction, claims to expertise are competing, often contingent, and increasingly rely on graphs and models, black-boxing normative assumptions of knowledge production. Thus, international relations (IR) requires an approach that engages with the political dynamics of knowledge production happening within and beyond the spheres of traditional politics. This special forum on objects of expertise offers such an approach, and this introductory article lays out the overarching framework. It conceptualizes objects of expertise as authoritative knowledge relevant for governing put into a socio-material form. First, understanding expertise in terms of authoritative knowledge points to the contested attempts at rendering knowledge authoritative in a specific sphere; expertise is a relational category of (contested) group belonging. Second, knowledge becomes expertise when it is made authoritative in relation to a problem relevant for governing. Finally, expertise gains objectual character when it is put into a delineable socio-material entity in which it assumes a recognizable, specific form. This form grants objects of expertise a certain level of credibility and stability, allowing them to function as trusted sources of information and guidance.

Objects at Work: Cybersecurity Certificates Making Topological Expertise

Leander

2024

Objects do work creating expertise. This article parses how. It works with, revisits, and develops the notion of “boundary-work” located at the core of science and technology studies by Thomas Gieryn, Susan Leigh Star, and others and adds to it the notion of “orienting work” borrowing from the work of materialist feminists such as Sarah Ahmed and Maria do Mar Pereira. Working with these concepts, it shows that cybersecurity certificates make expertise topological. They demarcate, connect, create affective attachments to, and prefigure shapeshifting boundaries of cybersecurity expertise. They orient toward a maze of routes to cybersecurity expertise, a multiplicity of shifting locations in it, and toward fences that are stretched and straddled. Departing from conventional assumptions about the role of certificates in the formation of expertise, I show that rather than close off and stabilize expertise, the work of cybersecurity certificates opens and unsettles it. The cybersecurity expertise they make is preserved in continuous deformation. I also show that rather than fragment and fracture expertise, the work of certificates stretches, bends, and twists an expertise that remains connected. The work makes expertise of a distinctly topological quality. Engaging this moving, shapeshifting terrain politically is both exceptionally challenging and fundamentally important. The shifting expert terrain is generating a steadily expanding range of cybersecurity concerns that are inscribed ever more firmly in the socio-technical infrastructures of cybersecurity with ramifications for everyday life.