This forum opens a debate that is long overdue: for far too long, the fields of international political sociology (IPS) and international political economy (IPE) have been standing apart. Discussions take place in different conference sections, in different networks that publish in different journals. Yet, this divide is surprising given that the two fields share similar trajectories, theoretical concerns, problématiques, and conceptual challenges. This forum starts exploring this shared terrain: we believe that there is no a priori reason to separate the sociocultural, the political and the economic when we aim at making sense of the world in any meaningful way. We propose that bridging the IPE-IPS divide has tremendous potential for the development of a socio-political economy analysis that, we believe, has two benefits. First, it allows for the opening of new empirical terrains or deepening and widening existing ones. Second, bringing IPE/S back together creates reflexive spaces for more holistic, embodied and contextualised conceptual innovation. The contributors to this forum show each in their own way such empirical and conceptual added value of moving beyond the IPE and IPS divide in order to develop what we call here a socio-political economy of the globe. They focus on various issues, such as the transformation of capitalism from an oil- to a data-dependent accumulation regime with the rising of the so-called 'digital age' (Chenou); the profound social, economic and political transformation triggered by urbanisation in the development world (Elias, Rethel and Tilley); emerging global risks and the neglected role of the insurance industry (Lobo-Guerrero); regional development-security nexuses (Lopez Lucia); and business power in climate change diplomacy (Moussu).
Kessler, O.: Introduction. - S. 303 Werner, W.: The use of law in international political sociology. - S. 304-307 Klabbers, J.: Counter-disciplinarity. - S. 308-311 Kratochwil, F.: International law and international sociology. - S. 311-315 Onuf, N.: Old mistakes: Bourdieu, Derrida, and the "force of law". - S. 315-318 Liste, Ph.: The politics of (legal) intertextuality. - S. 318-321
The rise of radical right-wing leaders, parties, movements, and ideas have transformed not only domestic political landscapes but also the direction and dynamics of international relations. Yet for all their emphasis on nationalist identity, on "America First" and "Taking Back Control," there is an unmistakable international dimension to contemporary nationalist, populist movements. Yet these movements are also often transnationally linked. We argue that a constitutive part of this globality is the New Right's (NR) own distinctive international political sociology (IPS). Key thinkers of the contemporary NR have, over several decades, theorized and strategically mobilized globalized economic dislocation and cultural resentment, developing a coherent sociological critique of globalization. Drawing on the oft-neglected tradition of elite managerialism, NR ideologues have borrowed freely from Lenin and Schmitt on the power of enmity, as well as from Gramsci and the Frankfurt School on counterhegemonic strategies. Against the temptation to dismiss right-wing ideas as "merely" populist and by implication as lacking in ideological and theoretical foundations, we are faced with the much more challenging task of engaging a position that has already developed its own international political sociology and incorporated it into its political strategies.
AbstractThis paper asks how international political sociology (IPS) can articulate its criticality so that it can continue to engage with lineages that privilege processes and practices emerging from the always fluid and multiple entanglements of fragments without resorting to totalizing logics. IPS and IR more generally have experienced an intensified interest in situated and micro analyses. Engaging the fragmentation of the international, however, has gone hand in hand with pulls towards thinking big and wholes as a condition for critical analysis. We share the position that critical thought needs a conception of the structural if it does not want to remain locked in simply describing un-connected fragments of life. However, the challenge is to do so without making the meaning of fragments derivative of conceptions of wholes that reinsert horizons of totalization. Drawing on Deleuzian thought, the paper opens towards a conception of the structural and its relation to fragments that embraces heterogeneity, multiplicity, and fluidity with the express intent of vacating lingering totalities and foregrounding creativity in life. In a context of fragmenting international relations, we see re-engaging the question of how to separate structural thought from horizons of totalization as a contribution to ongoing debates on the nature and limits of critique.Cet article étudie la manière dont la criticité de la sociologie politique internationale (SPI) peut être articulée afin de continuer à impliquer des lignes qui privilégient les processus et pratiques émergeant d'intrications de fragments toujours plus fluides et multiples sans avoir recours à des logiques totalisantes. D'une manière plus générale, l'intérêt porté aux analyses ciblées et aux micro-analyses dans la SPI et dans les relations internationales s'est intensifié. L'implication d'une fragmentation de l'international est cependant allée de pair avec des enclins à penser grand et à adopter une vision d'ensemble qui conditionnent l'analyse critique. Nous partageons l'avis qu'une conception du structurel est nécessaire à la pensée critique pour éviter qu'elle ne se cantonne à décrire des fragments de vie déconnectés. Le défi est toutefois de le faire sans faire dériver la signification des fragments des conceptions d'ensemble qui réintroduisent des horizons de totalisation. Cet article puise dans la pensée deleuzienne pour s'ouvrir sur une conception du structurel et de sa relation avec les fragments qui englobe l'hétérogénéité, la multiplicité et la fluidité avec l'intention expresse d'évacuer les totalités persistantes et de mettre la créativité au premier plan de la vie. Dans un contexte de fragmentation des relations internationales, nous voyons le réengagement de l'interrogation sur la manière de séparer la pensée structurelle des horizons de la totalisation comme une contribution aux débats actuels portant sur la nature et les limites de la critique.En este artículo se plantea cómo la sociología política internacional (SPI) puede articular su criticidad para poder seguir interactuando con los linajes que privilegian los procesos y las prácticas que surgen de los cambiantes y múltiples entrelazamientos de fragmentos sin recurrir a lógicas totalizadoras. En términos más generales, la SPI y las RR. II. han adquirido un interés más profundo en los análisis situados y los microanálisis. La fragmentación de lo internacional, por su parte, ha ido acompañada de las presiones para pensar en grande y en conjunto como condición para el análisis crítico. Consideramos que el pensamiento crítico necesita una concepción de lo estructural para no quedarse encerrado en la simple descripción de fragmentos de la vida que no están conectados. Sin embargo, el desafío es lograr esto sin que el significado de los fragmentos derive de ideas integrales que reinserten perspectivas de totalización. A partir del pensamiento deleuziano, el artículo se abre hacia una concepción de lo estructural y su relación con los fragmentos que abarca la heterogeneidad, la multiplicidad y la variabilidad con el claro objetivo de dejar de lado las persistentes totalidades y dedicar especial atención a la creatividad en la vida. En este marco de fragmentación de las relaciones internacionales, creemos que volver a plantear la cuestión de cómo separar el pensamiento estructural de las perspectivas de totalización supone un aporte a los debates actuales sobre la naturaleza y los límites de la crítica.
