Keywords
internalism
externalism
correlationism
ontology
multiplicity
How to Cite
Abstract
Why is there no philosophy of International Relations? Why, despite the significant intellectual and institutional development of International Relations after World War II, has IR failed to generate any ‘grand ideas’ that would influence the broadly understood humanities? None of the theories of international relations indicates the exceptional features of interna- tionality as its foundation. None of these theories formulates a fundamental claim to its subject matter in International Relations the way geography, history or sociology do. This leads to the conviction that international relations do not have to be formed by aspects of the social world that are specific to them, and can be interpreted in terms of ideas imported from the disciplines that deal with examining aspects relevant to them. The basic disadvantage of this openness of International Relations to other disciplines is the lack of reflection on its own ‘deep ontology.’ This seems to be the most important reason for the lack of a philosophy of International Rela- tions. The author accomplishes two basic goals in his text. Firstly, he undermines the legitimacy of the three attitudes prevailing in IR on understanding internationality, which he calls internal- ism, externalism and correlationism. Secondly, he presents the essence and consequences of the negative character of IR, which involves the absence of the philosophy of IR and studying internationality in the same manner as political science does. The author argues that understanding this ‘strange orthodoxy’ can be a means to overcom- ing it, thereby opening up the possibility of conceiving the ontology of IR, or outlining the path leading to the philosophy of International Relations. Finally, the author refers to the proposal of Justin Rosenberg, to then present an idea for an ontology on which the philosophy of Interna- tional Relations could be founded.
References
Abbott A. (2001), Chaos of Disciplines, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Anderson P. (1974), Lineages of the Absolutist State, New Left, London.
Anievas A. (2016), History, Theory, and Contingency in the Study of Modern International Relations: The Global Transformation Revisited, “International Theory”, Vol. 8, No. 3.
Anievas A., Matin K. (2016), Historical Sociology, World History and the ‘Problematic of the International’, in: Historical Sociology and World History. Uneven and Combined Development over the Longue Durée, (eds.) A. Anievas, K. Matin, London–New York.
Bryant L., Srnicek N., Harman G. (2011), Towards a Speculative Philosophy, in: The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism, (eds.) L. Bryant, N. Srnicek, G. Harman, Melbourne.
Bull H. (1966), Society and Anarchy in International Relations, in: In Diplomatic Investigations, (eds.) H. Butterfield, M. Wight, London.
Bull H., Watson A. (eds.), (1984), The Expansion of International Society, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Buzan B., Little R. (2000), International Systems in World History. Remaking the Study of International Relations, Oxford.
Buzan B., Little R. (2001), Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do About it, “Millennium: Journal of International Studies”, Vol. 30, No. 1.
Buzan B., Lawson G. (2015), The Global Transformation. History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations, Cambridge.
Carr E. H. [1946, (1939)], The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919–1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, London.
Guzzini S. (1998), Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy. The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London–New York.
Harman Graham (2011), Quentin Meillassoux. Philosophy in the Making, Edinburgh.
Jouvenel B. de (1955), De la souveraineté. A la Recherche Du Bien Politique, Paris.
Keohane R. O. (1988), International Institutions: Two Approaches, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 32, No. 4.
Kincaid H. (ed.) (2012), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Social Science, New York.
Mann M. (1986), The Sources of Social Power: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760, Vol. 1, Cambridge.
Mann M. (1993), The Sources of Social Power: The Rise of Classes and Nation States 1760–1914, Vol. 2, Cambridge.
Meillassoux Q. (2008), After Finitude. An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, London.
Meillassoux Q. [2015, (2006)], Po skończoności. Esej o koniecznej przygodności, Warszawa.
Meillassoux Q. (2014), Time Without Becoming, in: Mimesis International, (ed.) A. Longo, MIM Edizioni.
Morgenthau H. J. [2010, (1948)], Polityka między narodami. Walka o potęgę i pokój, Warszawa.
Morgenthau H. J. (1959), Theoretical Aspects of International Relations, in: Theoretical Aspects of International Relation, (ed.) W. T. R. Fox, Notre Dame.
Oren I. (2016), A Sociological Analysis of the Decline of American IR Theory, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 18, No. 4.
Poggi G. (1965), A Main Theme of Contemporary Sociological Analysis: Its Achievements and Limitations, “The British Journal of Sociology”, Vol. 16, No. 4.
Rosenberg J. (2006), Why Is There No International Historical Sociology?, “European Journal of International Relations”, Vol. 12, No. 3.
Rosenberg J. (2013), The ‘Philosophical Premises’ of Uneven and Combined Development, “Review of International Studies”, Vol. 39, No. 3.
Rosenberg J. (2016a), Uneven and Combined Development ‘The International’ in Theory and History, in: Historical Sociology and World History, (eds.) A. Anievas, K. Matin, Uneven and Combined Development over the Longue Durée, London–New York.
Rosenberg J. (2016b), International Relations in the Prison of Political Science, “International Relations”, Vol. 30, No. 2.
Rosenberg J. (2017), The Elusive International, “International Relations”, Vol. 31, No. 1.
Selby J. (2007), Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR, “International Relations”, Vol. 21, No. 3.
Tenbruck F. (1994), Internal History of Society or Universal History?, “Theory, Culture & Society”, Vol. 11, No. 1.
Verbeek B., McIntyre L. (2017), Why Is There No Philosophy of Political Science?, in: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science, (eds.) L. McIntyre, A. Rosenberg, London–New York.
Wallerstein I. (1974–2011), The Modern World-System, Vol. 4, Berkeley.
Walker R. B. J. (1993), Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, New York.
Waltz K. N. (1979), Theory of International Politics, Reading.
Waltz K. N. (1986), Reflections on ‘Theory of International Politics’: A Response to My Critics, in: Neorealism and its Critics, (ed.) R. Keohane, New York.
Waltz K. N. (1998), Interview with Ken Waltz. Conducted by Fred Halliday and Justin Rosenberg, “Review of International Studies”, Vol. 24, No. 3.
Wendt A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge.
White H. (2010), The Practical Past, “Historein”, Vol. 10.
White H. (2014), Przeszłość praktyczna, Universitas, Kraków.
Wight M. [1966, (1960)], Why Is There No International Theory?, in: Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics, (eds.) H. Buterfield, M. Wight, London.
Wood E. M. (2002), The Origin of Capitalism, London.
License
Articles published in "Przegląd Strategiczny" are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0. License (CC BY 4.0). They may be copied, redistributed and shared only if appropriate credit is given.