Anthropomorphizing The State in IR Theory. What Is At Stake?
https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2024-4-114-136
Аннотация
There are several problems in the modern theory of international relations that are difficult to solve, but the very existence of which leads to a certain demarcation of possible and received knowledge. These phenomena include the problem of “anthropomorphizing,” which is an attribution or an identification of certain human characteristics with complex social actors, including, above all, states. This research technique is often not limited to the use of any figures of speech and serves to ascertain the ontological and epistemological foundations for further theorizing. The purpose of this article is to systematize the existing approaches to “anthropomorphization” and put forward further directions for understanding this theoretical problem. The author reconstructs the three main traditions of “anthropomorphization” – to the works of Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, and Georg Hegel. Each tradition has a certain understanding of both the meaning of this research technique, as well as of the ontological and epistemological consequences, which implicitly affect the result obtained. The tradition of Hugo Grotius is distinguished by a metaphorical understanding of “anthropomorphization” associated with a peculiar perception of the rights and freedoms of the individual. Conversely, the tradition of Thomas Hobbes considers the internal characteristics of the state by analogy with the individual, while similarities are used to raise new research questions. Finally, the last tradition arose under the influence of Georg Hegel. It connects the problem of “anthropomorphization” with the processes of external communication of states. This article provides an ordered interpretation of ontological and epistemological consequences of these theoretical schools, as well as the traditions that are linked to them (as much as possible). The author analyses the synthesis of several traditions of ‘anthropomorphizing’ presented by constructivist Alexander Wendt. The emerging tradition of “anthropomorphization” is aimed at clearly defining its own epistemological and ontological foundations while raising the theoretical status of “humanization” itself. As a result, the article concludes on the possibility, limitations, and prospects of revisiting and more actively using the concept of “anthropomorphization” in reflectivist and neopositivist methodologies, as well as the likelihood of hybrid versions of the three main research traditions emerging.
Ключевые слова
Список литературы
1. Abulof U. 2015. The malpractice of “rationality” in international relations. Rationality and Society. No 27(3). P. 358–384.
2. Alekseeva T. A. 2017. Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij v zerkalah “nauchnyh kartin mira”: chto dal'she? [IR Theory Through Lenses of Scientific World Pictures: What’s Next?]. Sravnitel'naja politika. No 8(4). P. 30–41. (In Russian).
3. Batalov E. Y. 2018. Antropologija mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij [The Anthropology of International Relations]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 352 p. (In Russian).
4. Beitz C. R. 1999. Political theory and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 264 p.
5. Beyer A. C. 2017. International Political Psychology: Explorations into a New Discipline. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 207 p.
6. Bilgin P. 2008. Thinking Past “Western” IR? Third World Quarterly. No 29(1). P. 5–23.
7. Bull H. 1976. Martin Wight and the theory of international relations: The second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture. Review of International Studies. No 2(2). P. 101–116.
8. Bull H. 1981. Hobbes and the international anarchy. Social Research. No 48(4). P. 717–738.
9. Burns T. 2014. Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism? Journal of International Political Theory. No 10(3). P. 325–344.
10. Congreve R. 1866. International Policy. Essays on the foreign policy of England. London: Chapman and Hall. 636 p.
11. Cutler A. C. 1991. The “Grotian tradition” in international relations. Review of International Studies. No 17(1). P. 41–65.
12. Epstein C. 2011. Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations. No 17(2). P. 327–350.
13. Fel'dman D. M. 2014. Mirovaja politika vo vlasti tolpy? [World Politics in the Hands of Crowds]. Vlast’. No 8. P. 28–32. (In Russian).
14. Filippov A. F. 2009. Aktual'nost' filosofii Gobbsa. Stat'ja pervaja [Relevance of Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy: article one]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. No 8(3). P. 102–112. (In Russian).
15. Fleming S. 2021. The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state. European Journal of Political Theory. No 20(1). P. 5–26.
16. Friedrichs J., Kratochwil F. 2009. On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization. No 63(4). P. 701–731.
17. Gallarotti G. 2013. The Enduring Importance of Hobbes in the Study of IR. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/10/hobbes-is-still-extremely-relevant-for-the-study-of-ir-especially-the-cosmopolitan-hobbes/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).
18. Gilpin R. G. 1984. The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization. No 38(2). P. 287–304.
19. Grotius J. 1994. O prave vojny i mira [On the Law of War and Peace]. Moscow: Ladomir. 868 p. (In Russian).
20. Hegel G. V. F. 1959. Sochinenija. Tom 4 [Writings. Vol. 4]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo social'nojekonomicheskoj literatury. 440 p. (In Russian).
21. Hegel G. V. F. 1970. Raboty raznyh let. Tom 1 [Works of different years. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Mysl’. 668 p. (In Russian).
22. Hegel G. V. F. 1990. Filosofiya prava [The Philosophy of Right]. Moscow: Mysl'. 524 p. (In Russian)
23. Hobbes T. 1991. Sochinenija v dvuh tomah. Tom 1 [Writings in two volumes. Vol. 1]. Moscow: Mysl'. 622 p. (In Russian).
24. Hooper C. 2001. Manly States: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics. New York. Columbia University Press. 393 p.
25. Jackson P. T. 2004. Hegel’s House, or “People are states too.” Review of International Studies. No 30(2). P. 281–287.
26. Jeffery R. 2006. Hugo Grotius in international thought. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 222 p.
27. Kahler M. 1998. Rationality in international relations. International Organization. No 52(4). P. 919–941.
28. Kashyap S. 2022. Tracing Hobbes in Realist International Relations Theory. URL: https://www.eir.info/2022/02/22/tracing-hobbes-in-realist-international-relations-theory/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).
29. Kataev D. S., Fel'dman D.M. (2010). Chelovek v nauke o mirovoj politike [A human being in the science of world politics]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 6. P. 102–107. (In Russian).
30. Kharkevich M. V. 2016. Formy publichnoj diplomatii i tipy gosudarstv [Forms of public diplomacy and types of states]. Politika i obshhestvo. No. 9. P. 1244–1255. (In Russian).
31. Khudajkulova, A. Neklyudov N. 2019. Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoj bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodno-politicheskom diskurse [Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse]. MGIMO Review of International Relations. No 6(69). P. 129–148. (In Russian).
32. Kuznetsov, A. M. 2013. Chelovek v mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenijah: dan' vremeni ili neobkhodimaja transformacija paradigmy? [A human being in international relations: the demand of time or the demanded transformation of science?] Politicheskaja kontseptologiya. No. 2. P. 218–229. (In Russian).
33. Lerner, A B. 2021. What's it like to be a state? An argument for state consciousness. International Theory. No 13(2). P. 260–286.
34. Linklater, A. 1996. Hegel, the State and International Relations. In: I. Clark, I. Neumann eds. Classical Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan. P. 93–203
35. Lomas P. 2005. Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: a reply to Alexander Wendt. Review of International Studie. No 31(2). P. 349–355.
36. MacKay J., Levin J. 2018. A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation. Journal of International Relations and Developmen. No 21(1). P. 75–100.
37. Marks M. P. 2011. Metaphors in international relations theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 271 p.
38. Mearsheimer J. J. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Ney York: W. W. Nanon & Company. 592 p.
39. Mitzen J. 2006. Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. No 12(3). P. 341–370.
40. Neufeld M. A. 1995. The restructuring of international relations theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 192 p.
41. Neumann, I. B. 2004. Beware of organicism: the narrative self of the state. Review of International Studie. No 30(2). P. 259–267.
42. Onuf N. 1989. World of our making: Rules and rule in social theory and international relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina. 341 p.
43. Quine W. V. 2003. S tochki zreniya logiki: 9 logiko-filosofskih ocherkov [From the Point of Logic: 9 Logical and Philosophical Essays]. Tomsk: Izd-vo Tom. un-ta. 272 p. (In Russian).
44. Ringmar E. 1996. On the ontological status of the state. European Journal of International Relations. No 2(4). P. 439–466.
45. Schiff J. 2008. “Real”? As if! Critical reflections on state personhood. Review of International Studies. No 34(2). P. 363–377.
46. Shmitt K. 2006. Leviafan v uchenii o gosudarstve Tomasa Gobbsa [Leviathan in Hobbe’s writings on state]. Moscow: Vladimir Dal. 300 p. (In Russian).
47. Strauss L. 2000. Vvedenie v politicheskuyu filosofiju [Introduction to political philosophy]. Moscow: Logos. 364 p. (In Russian).
48. Skinner Q. 2008. Hobbes and Republican Liberty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 268 p.
49. Smith S. B. 1983. Hegel’s Views on War, the State, and International Relations. American Political Science Review. No 77(3). P. 624–632.
50. Spragens T. A. 1973. The politics of motion: the world of Thomas Hobbes. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. 224 p.
51. Tuck R. 2002. The rights of war and peace: political thought and the international order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 254 p.
52. Vincent A. 1983. The Hegelian state and International polities. Review of International Studies. No 9(3). P. 191–205.
53. Waltz K. N. 2001. Theory of International Politics. Long Grove: Waveland Press. 256 p.
54. Wendt A. 1999. Social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 447 p.
55. Wendt A. 2004. The state as person in international theory. Review of International Studies. No 30(2). P. 289–316.
56. Wendt A. 2005. How not to argue against state personhood: A reply to Lomas. Review of International Studies. No 31(2). P. 357–360.
57. Wight C. 2006. Agents, structures and international relations: politics as ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 360 p.
58. Wight M. 1992. International Theory: The Three Traditions. New York: Holmes & Meier. 286 p.
59. Williams M. C. 1996. Hobbes and international relations: a reconsideration. International Organization. No 50(2). P. 213–236.
60. Yurdusev N. A. 2006. Thomas Hobbes and international relations: from realism to rationalism. Australian Journal of International Affairs. No 60(2). P. 305–332.
Рецензия
Для цитирования:
. Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2024;3(4):114-136. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2024-4-114-136
For citation:
Loshkariov I.D. Anthropomorphizing The State in IR Theory. What Is At Stake? Russian Journal of World Politics and Law of Nations. 2024;3(4):114-136. https://doi.org/10.24833/RJWPLN-2024-4-114-136
Просмотров:
145
JATS XML
Послать статью по эл. почте 