Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-bt4hw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T21:45:04.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory, history, and great transformations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2016

Christian Reus-Smit
Christian Reus-Smit*
Affiliation:
School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
*
E-mail: Christian.Reus-Smit@eui.eu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In International Relations arguments about historical origins provoke theoretical debates, as origins assume an emergent theoretical unit of inquiry – an international order, system, society, etc. – while at the same time defining its core properties and dynamics. By boldly casting the long 19th century as the origin of global modernity and, in turn, the modern international order, Buzan and Lawson’s The Global Transformation challenges the romance with Westphalia that undergirds so much of our theorizing. Yet, the contributions to this symposium push deeper than usual, challenging established ways of conceiving change, and suggesting very different models of proper theorizing. While all of the papers ostensibly debate large-scale systems change, three modes of change are in contention: breakpoint, evolutionary, and processual. The further one pushes towards the latter, however, the more elusive the idea of ‘system’ becomes, eroding the fundamental boundary condition that undergirds the systemic mode of theorizing that dominates the field. Similarly, a persistent theme in these contributions is Buzan and Lawson’s purported failure to theorize change. But instead of offering rival theories, contributors advance very different conceptions of theorizing, from pre-observational conceptualization to causal explanation. This not only challenges the field to reflect more systematically on the process of theorizing, but to acknowledge forms of theorizing that it currently brackets.

Information

Type
Symposium: Theory, History, and the Global Transformation
Information
International Theory , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 422 - 435
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anievas, Alexander. 2016. “History, Theory and Contingency in the Study of Modern International Relations: The Global Transformation Revisited.” International Theory 8(3):468–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biersteker, Thomas J., and Weber, Cynthia, eds. 1996. State Sovereignty as a Social Construct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgin, Pinar. 2016. “How to Remedy Eurocentrism in IR? A Complement and a Challenge for The Global Transformation .” International Theory 8(3):492–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braumoeller, Bear. 2016. “The Promise of Historical Dynamism for the American Study of International Relations.” International Theory 8(3):458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Hedley, and Watson, Adam, eds. 1984. The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2015. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of IR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2016. “Theory, History, and the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8(3):502–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, Edward, Hallett. 1961. What is History? London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Cox, Robert. 1986. “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory.” In Neorealism and its Critics, edited by Robert O. Keohane, 204–254. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinsley, Francis, Harry. 1967. Power and the Pursuit of Peace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Holsti, Kalevi J. 1991. Peace and War: Armed Conflicts and International Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikenberry, G. John. 2011. Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1997. “Problematic Lucidity: Stephen Krasner’s ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade’.” World Politics 50(1):150–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krasner, Stephen J. 1999. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Linklater, Andrew. 2011. The Problem of Harm in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukes, Stephen. 2005. Power: A Radical View. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Paul, and Nexon, Daniel. 2016. “The Global Transformation: More than Meets the Eye.” International Theory 8(3):436–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nexon, Daniel. 2009. The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Andrew. 2016. “The Global Transformation, Multiple Early Modernities and International Systems Change.” International Theory 8(3):481–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philpott, Daniel. 2001. Revolutions in Sovereignty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 1994. “Interpretation and Disciplinary Orthodoxy in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 20(2):201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 1999. The Moral Purpose of the State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian, and Snidal, Duncan. 2008. “Between Utopia and Reality: The Practical Discourses of International Relations.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, edited by Christian Reus-Smit, and Duncan Snidal, 3–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, James N. 1990. Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1993. “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations.” International Organization 47(1):139–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Visions of Politics, Volume One: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swedberg, Richard. 2015. The Art of Social Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Swedberg, Richard. 2012. “Theorizing in Sociology and Social Science: Turning to the Context of Discovery.” Theory and Society 41(1):1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World System, Volume 1. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar