The Nature of International Society

Manning, Charles Anthony Woodward

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-02704-0

Cited by 85 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This world society sense of a social whole of humankind is strong in the classical English school. As Manning (:177) wrote: “Within, beneath, alongside, behind, and transcending, the notional society of states, there exists, and for some purposes fairly effectively, the nascent society of all mankind.” Bull (:269) further observed that “the concept of world society … stands to the totality of global social interaction as our concept of international society stands to the concept of the international system.”…”

Section: The “Whole” Behind It: System Levels and Sectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One way of understanding sectors and distinguishing them from levels of analysis is to see them as views of the whole system through an analytical lens which selects one particular type of relationship and highlights the types of unit, interaction, and structure most closely associated with it. The metaphor of a lens is a useful way of understanding what sectors represent, and how they can and cannot be used (Manning :2).…”

Section: The “Whole” Behind It: System Levels and Sectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology

Albert

Buzan

2013

Int Polit Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores some basic issues which arise from International Relations (IR) theory also being a form of social theory in a broader sense. Many of these issues are related to the question of a “social whole,” that is, whether international relations/International Relations is one of many parts of a social whole, on what grounds it is differentiated from other parts, and whether it operates on a distinct level of social reality. We argue that these questions have been addressed in many forms of IR theory, but mostly only implicitly, and that the failure to make explicit assumptions about a social whole is probably due to the relative neglect of the subject in modern Sociology. The article argues that implicit assumptions about a social whole can be unearthed by looking at the concepts of systems, levels, and sectors, discussing debates about each of these in turn. Openly addressing IR theory as social theory, and spelling out images of a social whole, allows one to gain a sharper understanding of some of the basic analytical categories used, and to judge whether they form plausible delimitations of social reality within a wider social context.

show abstract

Section: The “Whole” Behind It: System Levels and Sectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The “Whole” Behind It: System Levels and Sectorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology

Albert

Buzan

2013

Int Polit Sociol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Why, despite such valiant efforts, has the problem of varying and conflicting lists and taxonomies of primary institutions persisted? My diagnosis is that ES analysis has moved too far away from what one of its pioneers called “diplomatics” (Manning 1962:1–10, 56–58, 182–184; Wilson 2004:759–60). Too far way, that is, from the understandings, assumptions, and expectations that constitute the “psychomilieu” (Harold and Margaret Sprout, cited in Dougherty and Pfaltzgraff 1981:69–70) of those professionally engaged in interstate (or more broadly interpolity) relations.…”

Section: The Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…International society, it should be remembered, is not a real society, a society comprised of “flesh and blood” human beings. Rather it is what Manning called a quasi‐society (Manning 1962:21–22, 27–31; Wilson 2004:759–760), or a second‐order society “where the members are not individual human beings but durable collectivities of humans possessed of identities and actor qualities that are more than the sum of their parts” (Buzan 2004:24–25, 188–190). We cannot ask the members of this society about the institutional complexion of their lives.…”

Section: Grounded Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

The English School Meets the Chicago School: The Case for a Grounded Theory of International Institutions¹

Wilson

2012

International Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of primary international institutions is a core idea of the English School and central to those scholars from Bull to Buzan who have sought to take it in a more sociological direction. Yet the English School has traditionally found it difficult to define and identify with consistency the institutions of international society. A group of scholars, here called the 'new institutionalists', have recently sought to address this problem by devising tighter definitions and applying them more rigorously. But different understandings and lists of institutions continue to proliferate. The source of the problem is the reliance on 'stipulative' definitions, drawn from an increasingly abstract theoretical literature. The problem is compounded by the new institutionalists' employment of social structural and other 'outsider' methods of social research. This article argues that it is only possible to empirically ground institutions, a task on which all agree, by returning to the interpretive 'insider' approach traditionally associated with the school-but employing it in a much more rigorous way. To this end it makes the case for a 'grounded theory' of international institutions inspired by Chicago School sociology.The English School (ES) concept of primary international institutions, having lain dormant for several decades, has recently been picked up by a number of theorists (e.g. Buzan, 2004;Holsti, 2004;Navari, 2011;Schouenborg, 2011;Clark, 2011) and deemed a highly promising tool for empirical analysis and theoretical development in International Relations (IR). Primary institutions, to provide a preliminary definition, are not formal organizations such as the EU, NATO or the UN, but 'set[s] of habits and practices shaped towards the realization of common goals' (Bull, 1977: 74). They are more diffuse and fundamental than international institutions in the 'organizations', and in ES parlance, 'secondary' sense. When it is claimed (e.g. Suganami, 1983; Suganami, 2003: 253-4; Buzan, 2004: 161, 166; Dunne, 2001a: 69-80) that 2 concern for the institutional structure of inter-state relations is a defining feature of the ES, or that 'Bull … worked in conjunction with a group of theorists and practitioners, now identified as the founding fathers of the English school of international relations, who stressed the importance of the institutional foundations of state behaviour ' (Little and Williams, 2006: 1), it is institutions in the primary sense to which reference is being made. According to Buzan (2005b: 190) the concept of primary institutions is the 'core idea' of the ES. In Clark 's view (2011: 46) it is its 'central insight'. According to Schouenborg (2011: 27) it is its 'central concept'.Given this it is perhaps surprising that there is little agreement within the ES about the number and identity of international society's primary institutions. Various lists have been drawn up with some containing as few as three institutions and one containing as many as 26. Initially the problem was considered to b...

show abstract

“…The existence of an international society is a foundational premise of the English School (Manning 1962; Wight 1977; Bull 1977); some reviewers (Suganami 2000) have even suggested that the term “English School” is a misleading term for a multi‐national group, and thus the “international society approach” would be a better descriptor, since this term identifies the group’s core research agenda. Part of the reason for the English School’s intellectual coherence was methodological: English School scholars emphasized diplomacy, law, history, and philosophy in international relations theory, offering an alternative to the behavioral‐positivist framework then dominant in American international relations scholarship.…”

Section: The English School’s Westphalian International Societymentioning

confidence: 99%

Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory

Kayaoğlu

2010

International Studies Review

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past 10–15 years, an increasing number of revisionist scholars have rejected the most significant elements of the argument about the centrality of the Peace of Westphalia (1648) to the evolution and structure of international society. At the same time, the prominence of this argument has grown in the English School and constructivist international relations scholarship. I deconstruct the function of the Westphalian narrative to explain its pervasiveness and persistence. I argue that it was first developed by nineteenth century imperial international jurists and that the Westphalian narrative perpetuates a Eurocentric bias in international relations theory. This bias maintains that Westphalia created an international society, consolidating a normative divergence between European international relations and the rest of the international system. This dualism is predicated on the assumption that with Westphalia European states had solved the anarchy problem either through cultural or contractual evolution. Non‐European states, lacking this European culture and social contract, remained in anarchy until the European states allowed them to join the international society—upon their achievement of the “standards of civilization.” This Westphalian narrative distorts the emergence of the modern international system and leads to misdiagnoses of major problems of contemporary international relations. Furthermore, their commitment to the Westphalian narrative prevents international relations scholars from adequately theorizing about international interdependencies and accommodating global pluralism.

show abstract

The Nature of International Society

Cited by 85 publications

References 0 publications

International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology

International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology

The English School Meets the Chicago School: The Case for a Grounded Theory of International Institutions¹

Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The Nature of International Society

Cited by 85 publications

References 0 publications

International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology

International Relations Theory and the “Social Whole”: Encounters and Gaps Between IR and Sociology

The English School Meets the Chicago School: The Case for a Grounded Theory of International Institutions1

Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

The English School Meets the Chicago School: The Case for a Grounded Theory of International Institutions¹