The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations

Abstract

The international relations (IR) discipline is dominated by the American research community. Data about publication patterns in leading journals document this situation as well as a variance in theoretical orientations. IR is conducted differently in different places. The main patterns are explained through a sociology of science model that emphasizes the different nineteenth-century histories of the state, the early format of social science, and the institutionalized delineation among the different social sciences. The internal social and intellectual structure of American IR is two-tiered, with relatively independent subfields and a top layer defined by access to the leading journals (on which IR, in contrast to some social sciences, has a high consensus). The famous successive “great debates” serve an important function by letting lead theorists focus and structure the whole discipline. IR in France, Germany, and the United Kingdom has historically been structured differently, often with power vested more locally. American IR now moves in a direction that undermines its global hegemony. The widespread turn to rational choice privileges a reintegration (and status-wise rehabilitation) with the rest of political science over attention to IR practices elsewhere. This rationalistic turn is alien to Europeans, both because their IR is generally closer to sociology, philosophy, and anthropology, and because the liberal ontological premises of rational choice are less fitting to European societies. Simultaneously, European IR is beginning to break the local power bastions and establish independent research communities at a national or, increasingly, a European level. As American IR turns from global hegemony to national professionalization, IR becomes more pluralistic.

International relations in China and Europe: the case for interregional dialogue in a hegemonic discipline

“…The communication patterns of academic journals are interesting because journal data provide a direct indicator of the discipline (Waever 1998:697). Journals review, sanction and disseminate 'IR knowledge' (Goldmann 1995;Waever 1998;Breuning, Bredehoft, and Walton 2005). As regimes of truth that draw the lines between what counts as accredited knowledge and what does not, they provide a useful place to examine the exercise of disciplinary power.…”

Is There a 'Chinese School' of IR?

“…Gramsci's concept of hegemony (Gramsci 1971(Gramsci [1929(Gramsci -1935, and studies on the parochialism of European-Atlantic ("Western") IR theory (Waever 1998). Tickner and Waever draft a more complex matrix of "geocultural epistemologies" by combining selected elements of the postpositivist debate, namely, post-colonialism, with sociology and the philosophy of science (Waever and Tickner 2009: 6-16).…”

“…Even after the end of the Cold War, large-scale decolonization, and the formation of new regional powers in the non-"Western" hemisphere, Euro-Atlantic perspectives continue to shape IR research all over the world (Waever 1998;Smith 2000;Crawford and Jarvis 2001). Guided by the aim of overcoming this parochialism in IR and internationalizing IR theory, post-positivist contributions to IR literature examine the potential intellectual sources of autochthonous IR formulations in the non-"Western" world.…”

Postkolonyal Kuram Uluslararasi İli̇şki̇ler Di̇si̇pli̇ni̇ni̇ Dekoloni̇ze Etmek

“…Aslında postkolonyal kuramcılar da tüm eleştirel kuramcılar gibi, "pek de uluslararası olmayan Uluslararası İlişkiler disiplinindeki" (Waever, 1998) klasik "Batılı düşünce" tarzını değiştirmeyi ve dekolonize etmeyi, böylelikle disiplini hegemonik kavramsallaştırmalardan ve söylemlerden kurtarmayı amaç edinmektedir. Genel olarak bu temel argüman ile hareket ettiği söylenebilecek postkolonyal kuram, tek bir kuram değil fakat pek çok farklı kuramdan oluşan bir kuramlar grubu olarak nitelendirilebilir.…”