International Relations as Rhetorical Discipline: Toward (Re-)Newing Horizons

Abstract

International Relations takes it all too often for granted that different scholarly sub‐communities in the field are incommensurable and, therefore, that the erosion of the community of International Relations scholars is inevitable. I present a three‐fold argument against this inevitability: First, International Relations is much better understood as a field of overlapping horizons than a discipline of incommensurable paradigms. Second, the most consequential overlap is epistemological. This overlap is constituted by very specific rhetorical understandings of epistemology that come remarkably close to the Aristotelian Rhetoric and Philosophical Sophistic. International Relations is a rhetorical discipline. Third, dialogue is able to seize the opportunities for communication across different horizons within and beyond International Relations—making it a lively and open discipline instead of a constellation of hermetically sealed and self‐referential sub‐communities.

Theagent'slogics of action: defining and mapping political judgement

“…The gist of all of this is that logics of action are not incommensurable paradigms but, in Gadamer's language (Gadamer, 1972;Kornprobst, 2009), overlapping horizons. It may take some effort to uncover them but avoiding determinism and appreciating the importance of judgementtwo sides of the same coin -constitute important overlaps across contending perspectives.…”

“…8 Third, there are authors who distinguish -some more explicitly and others more implicitly -between different phases of the political process through which actors come to make up their minds. Some of these phases are dominated by consequentialism and others by alternative logics such as argumentation (Finnemore and Sikkink, 1998;Crawford, 2002;Kornprobst, 2008).…”

Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in International Relations

“…It may be an occupational peculiarity, but international relationists are exceptionally skillful at identifying ever‐widening internal divisions and acrimonious lines of opposition that inhibit dialogue and peaceful resolution of scholarly conflicts. Some stress, and often lament, how the proliferation of research specialties, incompatible theories, and meta‐theoretical camps has balkanized the discipline internally and created a range of insular coteries who rarely engage in dialogue (Hellmann 2009 and the subsequent forum; Holsti 1985; Hermann 1998; Jones and Holsti 2002; Mansbach 2002; Sylvester 2007; Kornprobst 2009; Wæver 2010). Others emphasize growing inside/outside gaps between the parochial IR discipline and bordering social sciences (Buzan and Little 2001), between the theoretical discipline and the outside world of policymakers (George 1993; Lepgold 1998; Jentleson 2002; Walt 2005; Nye 2008), or geographically between the rationalist “American social science” produced in the core discipline and periphery perspectives produced elsewhere (Hoffmann 1977; Holsti 1985; Kahler 1993; Wæver 1998; Aydinli and Mathews 2000; Smith 2000; Tickner 2003; Tickner and Wæver 2009).…”

Mapping Conflict Research: A Bibliometric Study of Contemporary Scientific Discourses1

“…This preference is based on the assumption that the findings produced by a bibliometric method should be put into context and interpreted in order to be more deeply understood and more fruitfully utilized, even if attempts to do so are apt to invite some criticism and alternative readings. An example of a recent paper on discursive communities within the IR literature that adopts a purely qualitative approach is that of Kornprobst (2009).…”