The Practice Theory of International Relations

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Departement of Political Sciences, Payame Noor Univerity

2 Department of IR, AllamehTabataba University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Introduction

Practice theory was developed after the rise of practice turn in the social sciences and its subsequent arrival in the discipline of international relations in the first decade of the 21st century. There exist controversies and disagreements about the nature and identity of practice theory in international relations. While it is believed to be a developed form of constructivism or the so-called New Constructivism, some treat practice theory as having unique nature and identity, hence distinct from constructivism. This continues to be an important theoretical issue in the current theoretical debates in international relations. In a bid to investigate the issue, the present article primarily intends to explain and appraise international relations practice theory in order to elucidate its nature, identity, and theoretical contribution. The article tries to answer the key questions: What is the nature and identity of practice theory that makes it different from constructivism? and what is the main theoretical contribution of practice theory in international relations?

 

Method

The qualitative mixed method is used to achieve the purpose of research, namely explaining the nature, identity, and theoretical contribution of practice theory. Meta-analysis, critical reading, and qualitative comparative methods are employed to deduce and extract the precepts and premises of practice theory. On the one hand, the methods of meta-analysis and critical reading are applied to the key texts of practice theory, and on the other hand the qualitative comparative method is used to single out the characteristics of practice theory that distinguish it from constructivism.

 

Findings

Practice theory is the outcome of practice turn in international relations. As a concept, practice turn signifies three themes and topics: a) the tendency and interest of many scholars and theorists to study international practices; b) the remarkable similarities existing among such researches and researchers, which makes it justifiable to consider them as members of an inclusive theoretical family and movement at the macro-level; and c) the theoretical, conceptual, and analytical novelty and new achievements in the discipline of international relations. Practice turn in international relations actually refers to a series of theoretical analyses and a variety of theorizations revolving around international practices. In this way, different practice theories in international relations are developed as a result of analyzing unconscious background dispositions and tendencies originated from practice.

Practice theory shall not be considered a unified and integrated grand theory in the conventional sense; instead, it is a pluralistic research program and theoretical tendency that consists of different approaches of the same family coalesced into a single group with a focus on the central concept of practice. What links these multiple approaches is their emphasis and focus on studying international practices considered as existential adhesive of the world of international relations. Such theoretical approaches analyze the actions and practices of actors in the international arena from neither the individualist nor the structuralist standpoint. Instead, they view the practices of international actors as a chain of actions, and analyze them from the perspective that embodies both opportunities of action available for actors and the impact of social structures.

Therefore, practice theory should not be considered as a novel reformulation of constructivism, despite the fact that some proponents of constructivism have tended towards practice theory and contributed to its formulation, propagation, and development or some of them have attempted to introduce practice theory as a new generation of constructivism. As a dissident theory that does not conform to the mainstream, practice theory is grounded on the meta-theoretical foundations different from those of constructivism, thus going beyond that.

First, practice theory puts practice at the center of analysis and theorization of international relations, treating it as the explanans and the independent variable. In constructivism, however, practice is considered as the explanandum and the dependent variable, thus having a complementary role and an auxiliary function. International practices are thus studied only laterally and just to fulfill the main purpose of constructivism.  Second, practice theory does not involve dualism, so the dichotomies of reality/mind, theory/practice, structure/agency, constitution/causation, and materialism/ideationalism are all dissolved in practice theory. Third, practice theory replaces essentialism with relationalism while the conventional form of constructivism is an essentialist theory in a minimal sense.

 

Results

A set of common suppositions and premises unifies and identifies multiple theoretical approaches under the label of practice theory. The important precepts and premises of practice theory are as follows. First, ontologically speaking, practice theories are not essentialist but relational and trend-focused. Second, knowledge is embedded in practice. Knowing and doing do coincide. Third, knowledge acquisition through learning is essentially and basically collective and communal. Fourth, practices have a materialistic dimension. Bodies, material artefacts, and technologies are the main carriers of practice. Fifth, the international order is understood on the basis of plurality, multiplicity, and diversity; there always exist various, diverse, and intercrossed orders. Sixth, the nature of the world is performative, actional, and practice-based; the world always depends on practice. Seventh, theorists of practice theory prioritize the empirical, aiming at re-adjusting and reformulating the relation between theory and practice.

The important criticisms of practice theory can be listed as follows. First, practice theory brings no innovation, added value, or new achievement to international relations. Second, practice theory lacks a unified logic and an internal cohesion. Third, practice theory cannot overcome the ontological dichotomies of materialism/ideationalism, rational/practical, structure/agency, and continuity/change. Fourth, practice theorists do not unanimously agree on the ontology of practice theory. Fifth, there is no single definition of practice in international relations that is unanimously agreed upon among all practice theorists. Sixth, practice theory faces with epistemological discrepancies and inconsistencies due to the diversity and plurality of its theoretical approaches. Seventh, practice theory reduces the background knowledge of actors, hence practices, to the mere level of habits. Eights, practice theory ignores the constitutive role of rules in the formation of practice, thus confusing action and practice. Ninths, it is not clear whether the goal of practice theory is to analyze practices themselves or to treat them as tools in the analysis of the IR. Tenth, the philosophical anti-realist stance of practice theory limits its theoretical and analytical domain, thus reducing its explanatory power in studying international phenomena.

Practice theory makes four philosophical, theoretical, and methodological contributions to the discipline of international relations, which distinguishes it from constructivism. First, practice theory overcomes and surpasses the fixed and taken-for-granted philosophical dichotomies in international relations. Second, it leaves behind the integrated grand theorization as well as the armchair analysis characterized by abstraction and text-based so that it can focus on the empirical theory and analysis. Third, it contributes to the analysis and explanation of change in international relations. Finally, practice theory studies the world of international relations and international phenomena as they occur in practice.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Bueger, C., & Gadinger, F. (2021). International practice theory. Translated by Seyed Jalal Dehghan Firoozabadi & Mandana Sajjadi, Tehran: TISRI Publication (In Persian)
  2. Dehghani Firoozabadi, Seyed Jalal and Sajadi, Mandana. 2021. Introduction by translators, in Bueger, Christian and Gadinger Frank, International Practice Theory: New Perspectives, translated by Seyed Jalal Dehghani Firoozabadi and Mandana Sajjadi, Tehran: TISRI Publication. (In Persian)
  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.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics