نظریه کردارگراییِ روابط بین الملل

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی- پژوهشی مستقل

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی دانشگاه پیام نور

2 گروه روابط بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

کردارگرایی، یکی از جدیدترین نظریه‌هایِ روابط بین‌الملل است. این نظریه، حاصلِ ورود چرخش کرداری در رشته‌ی روابط بین الملل، در دهه‌ی نخست قرن بیست‌و‌یکم می‌باشد. در باره‌ی ماهیت و هویت کردارگرایی در روابط بین‌الملل اختلاف نظر است. برخی آن را نسخه‌ی تحول و تکامل یافته‌ی سازه‌انگاری دانسته و آن را نوسازه‌انگاری می‌خوانند؛ بعضی دیگر، کردارگرایی را نظریه‌ای متفاوت و متمایز از سازه‌انگاری می‌دانند. در این مقاله استدلال می‌شود که کردارگرایی یک نظریه‌ی مستقل از سازه‌انگاری است؛ به‌گونه‌ای‌که با تلقی کردارهای بین‌المللی به‌عنوان واحد تحلیل و متغیر مستقل، به تبیین تجربی و عملی روابط بین‌الملل می‌پردازد. در واقع، روابط بین‌الملل برحسب کردارهای روزمره‌ای که کنش‌ورزان بین‌المللی به‌طور روزانه انجام می‌دهند تعریف و تحلیل می‌گردد. هدف این مقاله، تقریر، تبیین و نقد نظریه‌ی کردارگراییِ روابط بین الملل است. برای تأمین این هدف، نخست، چرخش کرداری در روابط بین‌الملل مرور می‌شود. سپس، رهیافت‌های نظری مختلف و انواع کردارگرایی توضیح داده می‌شود. سومین بخش، به بررسی اصول و مفروضه‌ها و تعهدات نظریِ کردارگرایی می پردازد. گفتار چهارم، به بحث چگونگی تحلیل روابط بین‌الملل، در قالب چند مطالعه‌ی موردی، از منظر کردارگرایی اختصاص دارد. در آخرین قسمت، نظریه‌ی کردارگرایی روابط بین‌الملل نقد و ارزیابی می‌گردد. سرانجام، نتیجه مباحث ارائه می گردد.

کلید‌واژه‌ها: کنش، کردار، چرخش‌کرداری، کردارنگاری، عادت‌واره، رابطه‌گرایی، اجتماع کرداری، عمل-گرایی.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Practice Theory of International Relations

نویسندگان [English]

  • Firoozeh Radfar 1
  • Seyed Jalal Dehghani Firoozabadi 2
1 Assistant Professor, Departement of Political Sciences, Payame Noor Univerity
2 Department of IR, AllamehTabataba University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Practice theory (PT) is one of the latest theories of International Relations (IR). This theory is the outcome of the practice turn in social theory in the first decade of the 21st century. There are controversies among scholars on the nature and identity of this theory. Some consider it as a new and developed version of constructivism or neo-constructivism. Others, on the contrary, regard it as a separate theory from constructivism. Likewise, this article, argues that PT is different from constructivism in such a way that it considers international practices as the unit of analysis and independent variable to empirically and practically explain “ir”. In fact, “ir” are defined and analyzed according to regular practices of international activists on a daily basis. The aim of this study is to articulate, explain, and critique PT in the Iranian IR community. To obtain this goal, first, the practice turn in IR is explained. Then different approaches and typologies of PT are clarified. The third section examines the principles, hypotheses, and theoretical commitments of PT. The fourth part deals with how ir are analyzed via PT referring to some case studies. Next, PT is critically evaluated. Finally, the findings of the study are presented.



Keywords: Action, Practice, Practice Turn, Praxiography, Habitus, Relationalism, Practice Communities, Practice Theory.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Practice
  • Practice Turn
  • Praxiography
  • Habitus
  • Relationalism
  • Practice Communities
  • Practice Theory

مراجع

  1. بیوگر، ک.، گادینجر، ف. (1400)، نظریه کردارگرایی بین‌الملل: چشم­اندازهای نوین، ترجمه سیدجلال دهقانی فیروزآبادی و ماندانا سجادی، تهران: موسسه مطالعات و تحقیقات بین­المللی ابرار معاصر تهران.
  2. دهقانی فیروزآبادی، س.ج.، سجادی، م. (1400)، مقدمه مترجم، در: بیوگر، ک و گادینجر، ف، نظریه کردارگرایی بین‌الملل: چشم­اندازهای نوین، ترجمه سید جلال دهقانی فیروزآبادی و ماندانا سجادی، تهران: موسسه مطالعات و تحقیقات بین­المللی ابرار معاصر تهران.
  3. Adler, E. (2019). World Ordering: A Social Theory of Cognitive Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Adler, E., and Pouliot, V. (2011a) International Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
  5. Adler, E., Pouliot, V. (2011b). International Practices, International Theory, 3(1), 1–36.
  6. Adler, E., Pouliot, V. (2017). Fulfilling the Promises of Practice Theory in IR, in Daniel H. Nexon, The Practice Turn in International Relations, International Studies Quarterly.
  7. Adler, E. (2008). The Spread of Security Communities: Communities of Practice, Self-Restraint, and NATO’s Post—Cold War Transformation. European Journal of International Relations, 14(2), 195-230.
  8. Adler-Nissen, R., (2012). Bourdieu in International Relations, London: Routledge.
  9. Adler-Nissen, R.. (2015). Relationalism or Why Diplomats Find International Relations Theory So Strange, in Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver B. Neumann, (eds), Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.284–308.
  10. Adler-Nissen, (2016). Towards a Practice Turn in EU Studies: The Everyday of European Integration, Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 87-103.
  11. Bicchi, F. (2022). Communities of practice and what they can do for International Relations, Review of International Studies, 48(1), 24 –43.
  12. Bigo, D. (2011). Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of Practices, Practices of Power, International Political Sociology, 5(3), 225–258.
  13. Bourbeau, P. (2017). The Practice Approach in Global Politics, Journal of Global Security Studies, 2(2), 170–182, https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogx001.
  14. Bremberg, N. (2016). Making sense of the EU’s response to the Arab uprisings: foreign policy practice at times of crisis, European Security, 25(4), 423-441, DOI: 10.1080/09662839.2016.1236019. 
  15. Bueger, C., Gadinger, F. (2014). International Practice Theory: New Perspectives, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
  16. Bueger, C., Gadinger, F. (2015). The play of international practice: Minimalism, pragmatism and Critical theory, International Studies Quarterly, 59.
  17. Bueger, Christian and Gadinger Frank. (2017). Family issues: plurality and methodology in international practice theory, in Daniel H. Nexon, The Practice Turn in International Relations, International Studies Quarterly.
  18. Bueger, C., Gadinger, F. (2018). International Practice Theory: New Perspectives, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
  19. Bueger, C., Gadinger, F. (2021). International Practice Theory: New Perspectives, translated by Seyed Jalal Dehghani Firoozabadi and Mandana Sajadi, Tehran: TISRI Publication.
  20. Bueger, C. (2016). Doing Europe: Agency and the European Union in the Field of Counter-Piracy Practice. European Security, 25 (4), 407–422.
  21. Cornut, J. (2017). The Practice Turn in International Relations Theory. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Retrieved 30 Jan. 2022, from https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-113.
  22. Der Derian, J., Shapiro, M. J. (1989). International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics, Lexington MA: Lexington Books.
  23. Græger, N. (2017). Grasping the Everyday and Extraordinary in EU-NATO relations: The Added Value of Practice Approaches, European Security, 26(3), 340-358.
  24. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as Practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian war, London and New York: Routledge.
  25. Hedling, E., Bremberg, N. (2021). Practice Approaches to the Digital Transformations of Diplomacy: Toward a New Research Agenda, International Studies Review, 23(4):1595–1618
  26. Holthaus, L. (2020). Who Practises Practice Theory (and How)? (Meta-theorists, Scholar practitioners, (Bourdieusian) Researchers, and Social Prestige in Academia, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 48(3), 323 –333.
  27. Hopf, T.(2010). The logic of habit in international relations. European Journal of International Relations, 16(4), 539–561.
  28. Hopf, T. (2002). Social Construction of International Politics: Identities and Foreign Policies, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
  29. Jonas,, Littig, B., Wroblewski, A. (eds.). (2017). Methodological Refkections on Practice Oriented Theories, Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  30. Joseph, J., Kurki, M. (2018). The limits of practice: why realism can complement IR’s practice turn, International Theory, 10 (1), 71-97.
  31. Kessler, O., Steele, B. (2016). Third Generation Constructivism: An introduction to the special issue, European Review of International Studies, 3(3), 7–13.
  32. Kratochwil, F. (2011). Making sense of ‘international practices,’ in: Adler E and Pouliot V (eds.), International Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Kratochwil, F. (2018). Praxis: On Acting and Knowing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Kustermans, J. (2016). Parsing the Practice Turn: Practice, Practical Knowledge, Practices, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44(2), 175–196.
  35. Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  36. Lechner, S., Frost, M. (2018). Practice Theory and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Manners, I., Whitman, R. (2016). Another Theory is Possible: Dissident Voices in Theorising Europe, Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(1), 1-18.
  38. McCourt, D. M. (2016). Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism, International Studies Quarterly, 60, 475–485.
  39. Mitzen, J. (2006). Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma, European Journal of International Relations,12 (3), 341-370.
  40. Neumann, B. (2002). Returning Practice to Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 31 (3), 627–51.
  41. Neumann, I. B. (2012). Diplomatic Sites: A Critical Enquiry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  42. Nicolini, (2012). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  43. Nicolini, D. (2017). Practice Theory as a Package of Theory, Method and Vocabulary: Affordances and Limitations, in Jonas, Michael, Littig, Beate and Wroblewski, Angela (Eds.), Methodological Reflections on Practice Oriented Theories, Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
  44. Nyman, J. (2021). The Everyday Life of Security: Capturing Space, Practice, and Affect, International Political Sociology, 15, 313–337.
  45. Polyakov, M. (2012). Practice Theories: The Latest Turn in Historiography?, Journal of the Philosophy of History, 6(2), 218-235.
  46. Pouliot, V. Cornut, J. (2015). Practice theory and the study of diplomacy: A research agenda, Cooperation and Conflict, 50(3), 297 -315.
  47. Pouliot, V. (2008). The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities, International Organization, 62 (2), 257–288.
  48. Pouliot, V. (2010a). International Security in Practice: The Politics of NATO–Russia Diplomacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Pouliot, V. (2016). International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Reus-Smit, C. (1999). The Moral Purpose of the State: Culture, Social Identity, and Institutional Rationality in International Relations, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  51. Ringmar, E. (2014). The search for dialogue as a hindrance to understanding: Practices as interparadigmatic research program, International Theory 6(1), 1–27.
  52. Schatzki, T., Cetina, Karin, K., Von Savigny, E. (eds). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, London: Routledge.
  53. Sundaram, S., Thakur, V. (2021). A pragmatic methodology for studying international practices, Journal of International Political Theory, 17(3), 337 –355.
  54. Walter, T. (2019). The road (not) taken? How the indexicality of practice could make or break the New Constructivism, European Journal of International Relations, 25(2), 538-561.
  55. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار