This article will engage with the growing literature on the subject of trust in international politics by pointing out remaining problems and contradictions in recent critiques against the rationalist mainstream. Although it finds itself in agreement with these critiques it will argue that despite its more nuanced appreciation of trust, this critical scholarship does not quite succeed in either leaving the rationalist conceptions behind or in achieving a more substantial account of the concept of trust. In order to do so the article will first challenge the remaining methodological framework in which trust scholarship is couched. Second, the article will proceed to show how the emotive element in acts of trust can be highlighted when approached through a phronetic lens and how the introduction of emotion into trust scholarship in IR will allow a richer and thicker study of the phenomenon of trust in international politics. Centrally, the article will claim that any study of trust which ignores the elementary emotional component will remain incomplete.
General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Science suggests a thought-provoking reorientation of the social sciences. Addressing some of the key assumptions in Wendt's account, this article argues that despite a quite elaborate and eloquent development of a monist ontological position, conceptual discussions remain solely focussed on the nature of beings and neglect wider implications for the nature of being, particularly human being, that arise out of its abandonment of a substance ontology. To develop such a critique, I will first address some preliminary considerations about the broader assumptions underlying Wendt's argument. Secondly, the article zooms in on the central concern arising out of Wendt's approach regarding the conceptualisation of human being before raising a set of critical remarks which need further deliberation if a quantum approach to the social sciences is to be successful.Keywords: ontology, consciousness, reflexivity, ontological difference Big leaps in the conceptualisation and understanding of IR are rare. We can list seminal contributions (mostly only recognised retrospectively as such) at critical junctures within the discipline but overall these 'revolutionary', rather than 'evolutionary', contributions are few and far between. Additionally, even those often seen as 'revolutionary' in their contribution to the study of international relations are not unanimously recognised as such, not least due to the growing and accelerating diversification of (meta-)theoretical positions within IR. 1 In many ways, Wendt's contribution arrives at a time when meta-theoretical debates are back on the agenda within the discipline of IR. 2 Of course, matters concerning fundamental 1 Peter Marcus Kristensen, 'Discipline admonished: On International Relations fragmentations and the disciplinary politics of stock taking
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0260210509008572How to cite this article: TORSTEN MICHEL (2009). Pigs can't y, or can they? Ontology, scientic realism and the metaphysics of presence in international relations.Abstract. In recent debates in IR theory a specific trend has evolved which advocates a renewed focus on matters of ontology as a way to overcome or at least to reconceptualise the divides within the field of IR that we encounter especially after the considerable widening of scope after the end of the Cold War. Responding to these claims the article sets out to provide a closer look at the different arguments presented for a renewed concern with ontology and its ramifications. With this task in mind, three particular complexes will be addressed. First, we have to identify the central claims of these new ontological approaches and assess them in respect to coherence and analytic rigour. Secondly, then, we will proceed with identifying the underlying reasons for their shortcomings which as will be shown lie with the misguided concept of ontology. If this conception is properly reworked, can indeed bring new light into otherwise protracted or even deadlocked debates. * I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their fruitful and engaging comments and critique on earlier drafts of this article. All errors and shortcomings that remain are, of course, my own.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.