Discipline admonished: On International Relations fragmentation and the disciplinary politics of stocktaking

Abstract

The International Relations discipline has recently witnessed a wave of stocktakings and they surprisingly often follow the narrative that the discipline once revolved around all-encompassing great debates, which, either neatly or claustrophobically depending on the stocktaker, organized the discipline. Today, most stocktakers argue, International Relations has moved beyond great debate -the very symbol of the discipline -and is undergoing fragmentation. For some scholars, fragmentation is caused by the lack of any great structuring debate and a proliferation of less-than-great theories. To others, fragmentation is a result of the divisive great debates themselves. When stocktakers portray fragmentation as novelty, however, they neglect the prominent historical record of this fragmentation narrative. By rereading stocktaking exercises from the 1940s to today, this article argues that the stocktaking genre -past and present -is conducive to seeing the past as more simple, coherent and ordered while the present is marked by fragmentation and cacophony. Neat summaries of the academic scene in one's own time are quite rare. Few stocktakers ever identified one conversation/debate driving the discipline, not during the first, second, third or fourth debates -and those who did disagreed on what the main trenches and its warriors were. The article concludes by arguing that International Relations' recurrent anxieties about its fragmentation beg questions, not about whether it is real this time, but about the disciplinary politics of this stocktaking narrative. Stocktaking exercises are never only objective descriptions of a current state of disarray; they are political moves in the discipline. Dissatisfied

The networks and niches of international political economy

“…This is also no great problem, and the absence of 'hegemony' in IPE can also be viewed as potentially productive. Histories of scholarly disciplines remind us that particular fields often need an opposing one to justify their existence (Kristensen 2015;Samman and Seabrooke 2017). 'Historical Sociology', for example, would find it hard to justify itself if not opposed to elements of 'Social History' (Skocpol 1987).…”

Introduction: The international of everything

“…Importantly, however, this is not the recent development it appears. It reaches back to the early years of the discipline, and, as Peter Marcus Kristensen (2016) has shown, it is even the case that ‘the image of a dividing discipline in crisis and split into fragments is an intrinsic part of the identity of IR’ (p. 260). From the 1940s onwards, if not before, IR scholars already worried that their field was merely a ‘hodgepodge .…”

Of Particles and Humans: the Question of ‘Human Being’ in Alexander Wendt’s Quantum Mind and Social Science

“…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 questions on epistemology, ontology and methodology in IR have in one way or another always been present at various stages of the disciplinary history.…”