Abstract
One of the most interesting outcomes of the rationalist vs. reflexivist debate in the theory of International Relations has been the so-called practice turn which dates to the first decade of the XXI century and seems to be in full swing today. This already mature research programme is mostly an attempt to shift focus from the static, structural theorising characteristic of the previous debate towards more processual approach. The programme itself involves vast body of literature, multiple themes and diverse claims, transcending established boundaries within IR theory – providing a fertile ground for both brilliant insights and troubling contradictions.
My aim in this paper is to explore the placement of A. Wiener’s conceptualisation of contestation in the theory of international relations. To achieve this, I explore the genealogy of related concepts, especially the practice turn in IR theory and the concept of Communities of Practice, which both consider work on contestation as part of their research programmes. Although the paper is primarily explorative and descriptive, it employs the tool developed for theoretical analysis, rooted in the recent work of Gałganek (2022), where philosophical positions that he identified in the field I have connected with existing paradigms (with his approval) for theoretical closure. To this, I also add Wendt’s (1999) division of existing paradigms into materialist and idealist ontology. The provocative title is meant to reflect a materialist critique of both the programme and contestation theory, while at the same time recognising the growing interest in IR ontology in contemporary IR theorising – a shift away from epistemology-heavy approaches of the late twentieth century.
The main argument of the paper is that the scientific programme resulting from the practice turn in IR theory provided a much-needed processual and practical ontology. It is, however, paired with an interpretive and normative epistemology, which leaves it without tangible foundation. Contestation, as a product of the programme, inherits the same problem and would benefit from adopting a materialist ontology. In doing so, it could be reconciled with other materialist approaches, which would ground it and potentially allow contestation to be recognised as an organising principle not only in global governance, but in international relations as a whole.
References
Adler E. (2005), Communitarian International Relations. The epistemic foundations of International Relations, Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203022443
Adler E. (2010), Europe as a civilizational community of practice, in: Civilisations in World Politics. Plural and pluralist perspectives, ed. P. Katzenstein, Routledge.
Adler E., Bremberg N., Sondarjee M. (2024), Communities of Practice in World Politics: Advancing a Research Agenda, “Glogal Studies Quarterly”, no. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksad070
Adler E., Pouliot V. (2011), International Practices, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511862373
Andrione-Moylan A., Claessen E., Costa Reis F., Gao W., Vineet Hegde V., Lecocq S., Petri F., Van der Vorst C., Boulard C. (2022), Understanding Contestation: an interdisciplinary roadmap. Working Paper, Connectivity, Ku Leuven University, https://ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/research/connectivity-programme/concept-notes-1/understanding-contestation-an-interdisciplinary.pdf, 12.10.2025.
Baranowski P. (2023), Mit ortodoksji. Teorie SM a wyjaśnienia polityki międzynarodowej Bliskiego Wschodu, „Przegląd literatury”, Wydawnictwo Naukowe FNCE, Poznań.
Bernstein S., Laurence M. (2022), Practices and Norms. Relationships, Disjunctures and Change, in: A. Drieschova, C. Bueger, T. Hopf, Conceptualising International Practices. Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052504.004
Bicchi F. (2011), The EU as a Community of Practice: Foreign Policy Communications in the COREU Network, “Journal of European Public Policy”, no. 18(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2011.615200
Bicchi F. (2021), Communities of Practice and What They Can Do for International Relations, “Review of International Studies”, no. 48(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210521000528
Biedenkopf K., Costa O., Góra M. (2021), Introduction: shades of contestation and politicisation of CFSP, “European Security”, no. 30:3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1964473
Börzel T., Broniecki P., Hartlapp M., Obholzer L. (2023), Contesting Europe: Eurosceptic Dissent and Integration Polarization in the European Parliament, “Journal of Common Market Studies”, vol. 61, no. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13448
Börzel T., Zürn M. (2021), Contestations of the Liberal International Order: From Liberal Multilateralism to Postnational Liberalism, “International Organization”, no. 75, Spring. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000570
Bueger C., Gadinger F. (2018), International Practice Theory, Palgrave Macmillan.
Bueger C., Gadinger F. (2018), International Practice Theory. Second Edition, Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73350-0
Costa O., Juncos A., Mü ller P., Sjursen H. (2024), Contested but Resilient: Accounting for the Endurance of the European Union’s Foreign Policy, “Journal of Common Market Studies”, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jcms.13686, 12.10.2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13686
Cox A. (2004), What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four seminal works, “Journal of Information Sciences”, no. 31(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551505057016
de Witte F. (2018), Interdependence and Contestation in European Integration, “European Papers”, vol. 3, no. 2.
Deitelhoff N., Zimmermann L. (2020), Things We Lost in the Fire: How Different Types of Contestation Affect the Robustness of International Norms, “International Studies Review”, vol. 22, iss. 1.
Drieschova A., Bueger C. (2022), Conceptualising International Practices: Establishing a Research Agenda in Conversations, in: A. Drieschova, C. Bueger, T. Hopf, Conceptualising International Practices. Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052504
Ekman A., Everts S. (eds.) (2024), Contestation. The new dynamic driving global politics, Chaillot Paper, May, European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS).
Escartin A. (2020), Populist challenges to EU foreign policy in the Southern Neighbourhood: an informal and illiberal Europeanisation?, “Journal of European Public Policy”, no. 27(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1712459
Gałganek A. (1992), Zmiana w globalnym systemie. Supercykle i wojna hegemoniczna, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, Poznań.
Gałganek A. (2021), Filozofia nauki o stosunkach mię dzynarodowych. Ontologia, Epistemologia, Metodologia, Universitas, Kraków.
Gilpin R. (1981), War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511664267
Groen A. (2020), Loose Coordination or Ideological Contestation? Transnational Party Activities of German Political Parties on the EU Military Operation, “EUNAVFOR Med. Foreign Policy Analysis”, no. 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/fpa/oraa004
Hopf T. (2022), Critique of the Practice Turn in IR Theory. Some Responses, in: Conceptualising International Practices. Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations, eds. A. Drieschova, C. Bueger, T. Hopf, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052504.002
Juncos A., Pomorska K. (2024), Populists in the Shadow of Unanimity: Contestation of EU Foreign and Security Policy, “Politics and Governance”, vol. 12, article 8099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.8099
Keohane R., Nye J. (1977), Power and Interdependence, Little, Brown and Company.
Kratochwil F. (2022), Practices and a ‘Theory’ of Action? Some Conceptual Issues Concerning Ends, Reasons and Happiness, in: Conceptualising International Practices. Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations, eds. A. Drieschova, C. Bueger, T. Hopf, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052504.011
Lake D., Martin L., Risse T. (2021), Challenges to the Liberal Order: Reflections on International Organization, “International Organization”, no. 75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000636
Lawson F. (2015), International Relations Theory and the Middle East, in: International Relations of the Middle East, ed. L. Fawcett, Fourth Edition, Oxford University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198708742.003.0002
Lovato M., Walter-Drop G., Noutcheva G., Dijkstra H. (2021), The Internal Contestation of EU Foreign and Security Policy, A Literature Review of the Implications of Intra – EU Contestation on Crises and Conflicts, “JOINT Research Papers”, no. 1.
Michailidou A. (2015), The role of the public in shaping EU contestation: Euroscepticism and online news media, “International Political Science Review”, vol. 34(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115577230
Modelski G. (1987), Long cycles in world politics, Macmillan, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09151-5
Neumann I. (2002), Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy, “Millennium: Journal of International Studies”, vol. 31, no. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298020310031201
Niemann H., Schillinger H. (2016), Contestation ‘all the way down’? The grammar of contestation in norm research, “Review of International Studies”, vol. 43, part 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210516000188
Pejovic M. (2022), Online EU Contestation in Times of Crisis: Towards a European Digital Demos?, “Societies”, no. 12,34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12020034
Pouliot V. (2016), International Pecking Orders. The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316534564
Roch J. (2019), Unpacking EU contestation: Europeanization and critique in Germany and Spain, “Culture, Practice & Europeanization”, vol. 4, no. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/2566-7742-2019-2-13
Ruggie J. (1988), What Makes the world Hang Together. Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge, “International Organisation”, no. 52/4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/002081898550770
Schäfer H. (2022), The Dynamics of Repetition. Translocal Practice and Transnational Negotiations, in: Conceptualising International Practices. Directions for the Practice Turn in International Relations, eds. A. Drieschova, C. Bueger, T. Hopf, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052504.009
Wenger E. (1998), Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
Wenger E., McDermott R., Snyder W. M. (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Wendt A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183
Wiener A. (2014), A Theory of Contestation, Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55235-9
Wiener A. (2015), A Theory of Contestation, A Consice Summary, Conference paper.
Wiener A. (2017), A Reply to My Critics, “Polity. The Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association”, vol. 49, no. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/690101
Wiener A. (2017a), A Theory of Contestation – A Concise Summary of Its Argument and Concepts, “Polity. The Journal of the Northeastern Political Science Association”, vol. 49, no. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/690100
Wille T. (2018), Practice Turn in International Relations, in: Oxford Bibliographies in International Relations, ed. P. James, Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199743292-0231
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Piotr Baranowski
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.