A pragmatic methodology for studying international practices

Abstract

Practice turn marks an important advancement in International Relations theorizing. In challenging abstract meta-theoretical debates, practice theorizing in International Relations aims to get close to the lifeworld(s) of the actual practitioners of politics. Scholars from different positions such as constructivism, critical theory, and post-structuralism have critically interrogated the analytical framework of practices in international politics. Building upon these works, we are concerned with a question of how to examine the context of international practices that unfolds in multiple ways in practitioners’ performances. Our central thesis is that a distinct pragmatic methodology offers an opportunity to keep with the practice turn and avoid the problematic foundational moves of mainstream practice theorizing. This involves foregrounding three interrelated processes in examining practices: the role of exceptions in the normal stream of performances, normative uptake of the analysts, and the semantic field that actors navigate in political performances. We argue that this methodology is predicated on its usefulness to interpret practices through reflective social-science inquiry.

How diplomacy evolves: the global spread of honorific state awards

“…It did not uncover a hegemonial elite control behind that instrument – otherwise, the Baroque Orders targeting only societally high-standing people may have been a better candidate for evolutionary selection. By focusing on the function of the diplomatic system, the epistemological problem of identifying relevant ‘practitioners’ and their untransparent intents was likewise avoided (Sundaram and Thakur, 2021). The state award’s high ‘diffusion potential’ was also not based on inexplicable ‘notions of efficiency or justice or progress’ (Strang and Meyer, 1993: 497); nor was it about a ‘fitness for survival’ denoting a tautological adaptation to its environment.…”

'A Return to the World': Diffraction and Truth-telling in Post-Cartesian IR

“…On the other hand, pragmatists call for us to bracket the 'truthfulness' of knowledge claims in lieu of praxis. Instead of aiming for accuracy in our representations, what we should do instead is to problematise and revalorise the practice of science as a vocation, with the end-goal of contributing to a more democratic society (Abraham and Abramson, 2015;Miettinen et al, 2009;S Sundaram and Thakur, 2019). I argue that these responses give rise to two interrelated problems.…”

Proclaiming a prophecy empty of substance? A pragmatist reconsideration of global governance

“…4 Whether as epistemology, ontology, or transcending such dualistic separations between theories of knowledge and theories of action in the first place, the thinking of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910), John Dewey (1859–1952), and George Herbert Mead (1863–1931) as key authors for its Classical and Richard Rorty (1931–2007) for its Neopragmatist version have been advanced frequently and, representing a rather diverse pluralistic approach, in different ways in the study of world politics. More specifically, sharing a commitment to the importance of action, interaction, and practice, pragmatist thinking has been invoked to challenge positivism and move beyond in epistemological and methodological terms (Abraham and Abramson, 2017; Bauer and Brighi, 2009; Cochran, 2002; Franke and Weber, 2012; Friedrichs and Kratochwil, 2009; Grimmel and Hellmann, 2019; Kratochwil, 2007; Ralston, 2013; Rytövuori-Apunen, 2005; Schmidt, 2014; Sil and Katzenstein, 2010; Sundaram and Thakur, 2019; Zaiotti, 2013). In ontological terms, Pragmatism has been advanced to explain action beyond the dualism stemming from the logic of consequentialism versus logic of appropriateness in IR (Franke and Roos, 2010; Hellmann, 2009; Hofferberth and Weber, 2015; Jackson, 2009; Pratt, 2016; Schmidt, 2014).…”