Why Is There No Reactionary International Theory?

Abstract

Why is there no reactionary international theory? International Relations has long drawn on a range of traditions in political thought. However, no current or recent major IRtheoretic school is expressly reactionary. This is surprising both because reaction was once common in IR, and is now common in world politics. We define reaction as a form of political nostalgia: a belief the past was better than the present and likely future, generally accompanied by a desire to recover that prior condition. The current lack of reactionary IR impacts the field's capacity to make sense both of its own history and of reactionary practice in the world. In this exploratory account, we provide a definition of reaction, then show no current school of IR theory falls within it-but that it nonetheless once deeply shaped the field. We survey reactionary ideas in the history of political thought, finding a cogent and persistent tradition. We then explore the impact of reactionary ideas on the practice of world politics, identifying two distinct varieties of reactionary state and illustrating them empirically. We conclude by considering the question of why reaction is now absent from IR theory-yet all around us in world politics.

What is a minor international theory? On the limits of ‘Critical International Relations’

“…To critique effectively we must recognise that these marginal thinkers are critical about things too. The distinction first proposed in the 1980s between a sovereign modernity playing out as IR and virtuous marginalised critics who seek an exit from the power relations of the discipline, is a rhetorical trope that might appear to have passed its sell-by-date in an era defined by reactionary critiques of modernism in IR (de Benoist and Champetier, 2012; Evola, 2018; Mackay and LaRoche, 2018; Michelsen and De Orellana, 2020).…”

From critique to reaction: The new right, critical theory and international relations

“…These ideas and movements have attracted increasing attention in international political theory. Some have asked why there is no reactionary theory in IR at a time when awareness of these ideas is essential (Drolet and Williams, 2021; McKay and LaRoche, 2018). Others have begun to excavate the marginalized or forgotten lineages of radical conservative international theory, tracing their contemporary expressions, impacts, and implications (Abrahamsen et al, 2020; Drolet and Williams, 2018, 2020; de Orellana and Michelsen, 2019).…”

Towards great ethno-civilizations and spiritual empires? How the European New Right imagines a post-liberal world order

“…Jean-Francois Drolet and Michael Williams have recently claimed that in the light of recent events it is "vital" to engage with the "marginalized or forgotten lineages of radical conservative international theory" (2021). And yet, only a handful of scholars have so far taken interest in this aspect of far-right thinking (Abrahamsen et al, 2020;De Orellano and Michelsen, 2019;Drolet and Williams, 2018, 2021a, 2021bMackay and LaRoche, 2018;Tjalve, 2020). One reason for this relative paucity could be that far-right movements, parties, and pundits are often subjected to knee-jerk portrayals as nationalists.…”