Playing the game of sovereign states: Charles Manning’s constructivism avant-la-lettre

Abstract

This article analyses C.A.W. Manning’s The Nature of International Society ( NIS) by exploring the constructivist insights avant-la-lettre displayed in this not so prominent opus on international society. The article’s objective is twofold. First, to re-establish Manning’s argument, which has been distorted by its successors. That is to say, whereas often identified as a source of inspiration by subsequent generations of English School academics, the British mainstream at the same time appears to have missed out on Manning’s more metatheoretical, socio-linguistic insights. By exploring his message about the link between knowledge, language, meaning and reality, this article secondly addresses the added value of Manning’s work in terms of his analysis of the metaphor of sovereignty games. It is argued that, particularly in the analysis of the constitutive role of language, NIS provides useful insights for the reconvention project of the English School.

Agents versus structures in English School theory: Is co-constitution the answer?

“…Manning arguably invented the concept of international society as a set of social practices 1 and he certainly gave it its ideational colouring. Aalberts (2010) argues, correctly in my view, that he viewed international society through the lenses of linguistic philosophy; that is, as a set of linguistic constructs or ‘games’. Manning considered the proper disciplinary foundations of the subject to be ‘sociology’, by which he would appear to have meant society as a set of social constructions in the contemporary sense.…”

The dangers of interpretation: C.A.W. Manning and the “going concern” of international society

“…in the order of the intelligibles, apprehensible to the imagination and not to the eye” (Manning, 1962: 166). Unlike, say, Robert Jackson’s (2003) or Alex Wendt’s (1999) accounts in which states are the players of the international-affairs game, for Manning, states remain merely notional rather than sensibly real and thus cannot possibly be the players sitting above the board; states are internal to the game (Aalberts, 2010: 257–258). As such Manning’s interpretive explanation is, appropriately, not directed at states, but at human beings playing the game of sovereign states; one can explain to a human being how to play chess, but it would make little sense to explain the game to the queen or to a pawn.…”

Reification in IR: The Process and Consequences of Reifying the Idea of International Society

“…It was only because state leaders and diplomats acted on this assumption, that inter-state relations could take on "societal" features (Manning 1962: 30). Contemporary interpreters of Manning's contribution to IR assert that he saw the society of states as a social construct subject to interpretation (Aalberts 2010, Long 2012, Suganami 2001. However, Manning was not consistent in presenting international society as an idea.…”