Abstract
Alexander Wendt has argued that theories of International Relations must have foundations in theories of both their principal units of analysis, State agents and the system structure. Such theories are imperative for the purpose of explaining State action (Wendt in International Organization, 41, 1987, p. 365). Similarly, invoking Kenneth Waltz (1986, p. 340), Justin Rosenberg advocates the need for delineating the modes for uniting the distinct theories of domestic politics and international relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The behavioral critique of Morgenthau's classical realism was primarily directed toward his claims of scientificity. His assertion that human nature is immutable and hence, could be visualized in terms of rationalist universality was severely critiqued by the proponents of behavioralism (Williams, 2007, p. 3). They attacked Morgenthau for his advocacy that a science of international politics can be developed by placing at its core, the variable of the fixed human nature (Brown, 2005, pp. 32 and 70). According to the behavioralist critique, Morgenthau's major shortcoming was that his conception of human nature was founded upon an a priori assumption. The behavioralists added that since no techniques were prescribed to quantify and verify human behavior, Morgenthau's approach was not founded on the positivist idea of science (Hollis & Smith, 1990, pp. 29–30).
- 2.
The reductionist approach focused on actor behavior and the mutual interaction among different actors such as the individual, the State and bureaucracy. The building of theories that is done through this, tends to be largely pivoted upon the explanations at the level of the individual or the units (Dougherty & Faltzgraff, 1997, p. 100). Drawing from his reading of Durkheim, Waltz describes the reductionist approaches as those which claim to understand the whole by knowing the attributes and interactions of its parts (Waltz, 1979, p. 18). In this manner, Waltz articulates a deep-felt dissatisfaction toward the employment of reductionist theories (Ibid., p. 60).
- 3.
The peace of Westphalia was a formal acknowledgement of a system of sovereign States (Spruyt, 1994, p. 27) and the culmination of almost a three hundred year-long revolutionary process of consolidation (Philpott, 2001, p. 77). Its evolution was not only influenced by the ideas of the Reformation, but also driven by the transformations in the structural ontology of techno-economic and socio-political institutions (Philpott, 1999, p. 569). However, it cannot be employed as a universal epistemological trope for explaining the nature of international relations.
- 4.
- 5.
For Lakatosian methodology of scientific research programmes, negative heuristic consists of those methodological rules that instruct the researchers as to what paths need to be avoided while in pursuit of their research programmes. Negative heuristic insists the researcher to avoid questioning of the inviolable assumptions which are the hardcore initial conditions defining the scope of the research programme (Lakatos, 1978, p. 48).
- 6.
Protective belt in the vocabulary of the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos is the auxiliary hypotheses that are articulated and invented by the researchers on the basis of their ingenuity. These auxiliary hypotheses form a protective belt around the hardcore theoretical assumptions of particular research programmes. They are constantly subjected to test, verification, adjustment and readjustment, or even replacement. In this manner, they perform the task of defending the hardcore theoretical assumptions of any research programme (Ibid.).
- 7.
According to Imre Lakatos, the methodology of scientific research programmes, constitute the core theoretical assumptions that determine the modes in which research is conducted. Abandoning of these hardcore theoretical assumptions would mean the giving up of the research programme itself. (Lakatos, 1970).
- 8.
In his book Against Method, philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend set out the concept of ‘epistemological anarchism’. The central thesis of this conception according to Feyerabend is that science is essentially an anarchic enterprise and theoretical anarchism is more likely to encourage progress. Anarchism is perhaps an excellent medicine for epistemology and philosophy of science because there is no guarantee that certain rigid epistemological prescription would definitely lead to discovery. Hence, scientists must appear to the systematic epistemologist like an unscrupulous methodological opportunist, who should be ready to adopt multiple methodological paths in their pursuit of science (Feyerabend, 1993, pp. 9–12).
- 9.
Weak State is a State that is low in capacity, in so far as its ability to carry out its objectives with adequate societal support is concerned (Nordlinger, 1987, p. 369). A Weak State suffers from low levels or absence of vertical and horizontal legitimacy. The absence of vertical legitimacy means that substantial segments of the population do not accord loyalty to the State and its rulers. As a consequence of this, the decisions of the rulers do not elicit habitual compliance. The absence of horizontal legitimacy is concerned with the definition and role of the political community. The political community here does not manifest as a singular cohesive entity that is driven by a monovalent conception of interest. Rather, there are several communities and categories whose competing interests shape the nature of politics and authority structures (Holsti, 1996, pp. 104–106).
- 10.
State capacity means the ability of the State to develop and implement policies in order to provide collective goods such as security, order and welfare to its citizens in a legitimate manner without being hindered by internal and external factors (Paul, 2010, p. 5).
- 11.
Regime legitimacy is considerably associated with the presence of proper norms and institutions of democracy (Migdal, 1988, pp. 4–5).
- 12.
For R.D. Laing, the predicament of ontological security is a precarious existential crisis experienced by individuals when they feel a strong need to demonstrate their presence in the world as a real, whole and a live entity. In a temporal sense, it is the imperative to exhibit oneself as a continuous person (Laing, 1960, p. 39). For Anthony Giddens, ontological security implies toward the possession of an ability, both at the level of the ‘unconscious as well as practical consciousness, to explore answers to all fundamental existential questions that individuals tend to encounter on a regular basis (Giddens, 1991, p. 47).
References
Abrams, P. (1982). Historical Sociology. Cornell University Press.
Alavi, H. (1972, July–August). The State in Post-Colonial Societies: Pakistan and Bangladesh. New Left Review (74), 59–81.
Anievas, A., Nis, K., &, ancioglu. (2015). How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism. Pluto Press.
Anievas, A., & Matin, K. (2016a). Introduction: Historical Sociology, World History and the Problematic of the International. In A. Anievas and K. Matin (Eds.), Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development in the Longue Duree (pp. 1–16). Rowman & Littlefield.
Anievas, A., & Matin, K. (2016b). Historical sociology and world history: Uneven and combined development over the longue durée. Rowman & Littlefield.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books.
Axelrod, R., & Keohane, R. O. (1985). Achieving Cooperation Under Anarchy: Strategy and Institutions. World Politics, 38, 226–254.
Ayoob, M. (1984). Security in the Third World: The Worm About to Turn? International Affairs, 60(1), 41–51.
Ayoob, M. (1991). The Security Problématique of the Third World. World Politics, 43(2), 257–283.
Ayoob, M. (1995a). The New-Old Disorder in the Third World. Global Governance, 1(1), 59–77.
Ayoob, M. (1995b). The Third World Security Predicament. Lynne Rienner.
Ayoob, M. (1997). Defining Security: A Subaltern Realist Perspective. In K. Krause & M. C. Williams (Eds.), Security Studies: Concepts and Cases (pp. 121–147). University of Minnesota Press.
Ayoob, M. (1998). Subaltern Realism: International Relations Meets the Third World. In S. G. Neuman (Ed.), International Relations Theories and the Third World (pp. 31–49). St. Martins Press.
Barnett, M. (2002a). Historical Sociology and Constructivism: An Estranged Past and a Federated Future? In S. Hobden and J. M. Hobson (Eds.), The Historical Sociology of International Relations (pp. 99–119). Cambridge University Press.
Barnett, M. (2002b). Radical Chic? Subaltern Realism: A Rejoinder. International Studies Review, 4(3), 49–62.
Berry, C. J. (1997). Social Theory of the Scottish Enlightenment. Edinburgh University Press.
Bhambra, G. K. (2007). Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhambra, G. K. (2010). Historical Sociology, International Relations and Connected Histories. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 23(1), 127–143.
Bilgin, P. (2008). Thinking Past ‘Western’ IR? Third World Quarterly, 29(1), 5–23.
Blaney, D. L., & Inayatullah, N. (2000). The Westphalian Deferral. International Studies Review, 2(2), 29–64.
Blaney, D. L., & Inayatullah, N. (2016). The Stakes of Uneven and Combined Development. In A. Anievas & K. Matin (Eds.), Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development in the Longue Duree (pp. 238–249). Rowman & Littlefield.
Bo Kaspersen, L., Strandsbjerg, J., & Teschke, B. (2017). Introduction-State Formation Theory: Status, Problems and Prospects. In L. B. Kaspersen & J. Strandsbjerg (Eds.), Does War Make States? Investigations of Charles Tilly’s Historical Sociology (pp. 1–22). Cambridge University Press.
Bromley, S., & Brown, W. (2004). The Subject and Scope of International Studies. In W. Brown, S. Bromley, & S. Athreye (Eds.), A World of Whose Making? Ordering the International History, Change and Transformation (pp. 1–14). Pluto Press.
Brown, W. (2004). Characterising International Order. In W. Brown, S. Bromley, & S. Athreye (Eds.), A World of Whose Making? Ordering the International History, Change and Transformation (pp. 483–522). Pluto Press.
Brown, C. (2005). Understanding International Relations (3rd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Buzan, B. (1983). People, states and fear; The national security problem in international relation. The University of North Carolina Press.
Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2001). Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It. Milennium: Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 19–39.
Calhoun, C. (2003). Afterword: Why Historical Sociology?. In G. Delanty & EnginIsin (Eds.), The Hand Book of Historical Sociology (pp. 383–393). Sage.
Carrithers, D. (1995). The Enlightenment Science of Society. In C. Fox, R. Porter, & R. Wokler (Eds.), Inventing the Human Science: Eighteenth Century Domains (pp. 232–270). University of California Press.
Cerny, P. G. (1990). The Changing Architecture of Politics: Structure, Agency and the Future of the State. Sage Publications.
Chakravarty, D. (2000). Provincialising Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, P. (1997). Our modernity (No. 1). Rotterdam & Dakar: Sephis.
Clark, I. (2005). Legitimacy in International Society. Oxford University Press.
Dean, M. (1994). Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology. Routledge.
De Carvalho, B., Leira, H., & Hobson, J. M. (2011). The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your TeachersRowman Still Tell You About 1648 and 1919. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 735–758.
Dougherty, J. E., & Faltzgraff, R. L. (1997). Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehenssive Survey (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. Verso Books.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. University of California Press.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1985). The Nation-State and Violence. Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press.
Griffin, L. J. (1992). ’Temporality, Events and Explanation in Historical Sociology: An Introduction. Sociological Methods & Research, 20, 404–427.
Griffiths, M. (1992). Realism, Idealism and International Politics. Routledge.
Gross, L. (1948). The Peace of Westphalia: 1648–1948. American Journal of International Law, 42(1).
Guzzini, S. (2013). Theorising International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3).
Habermas, J. (1998). The European Nation-State on the Past and Future of Sovereignty and Citizenship. Public Culture, 10(2), 397–416.
Harding, S. (2008). Sciences from Below: Feminisms, Postcolonialities and Modernities. Duke University Press.
Held, D. (1995). Democracy and Global Order. Polity Press.
Hirst, P. (2001). War and power in the twenty-first century: The state, military power and the international system. Polity Press.
Hobden, S. (1998). International Relations and Historical Sociology. Routledge.
Hobson, J. M. (2000). The State and International Relations. Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J. M. (2002a). What’s at Stake in Bringing Back Historical Sociology to International Relations? Transcending Chronofetishism and Tempocentrism in International Relations. In S. Hobden & J. M. Hobson (Eds.), The Historical Sociology of International Relations (pp. 3–41). Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J. M. (2002b). Two Waves of Weberian Sociology in International Relations in International Relations. In S. Hobden & J. M. Hobson (Eds.), The Historical Sociology of International Relations (pp. 63–82). Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J. M. (2004). The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Cambridge University Press.
Hobson, J. M. (2007). Is Critical Theory only for the White and for Western Imperialism? Beyond Westphalian Towards a Post-Racist Critical IR. Review of International Studies, 33(1), 91–116.
Hobson, J. M. (2011). What’s at Stake in the Neo-Trotskyist Debate? Towards a Non-Eurocentric Historical Sociology of Uneven and Combined Development. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 40(1), 147–166.
Hobson, J. M. (2016). Navigating Non-Eurocentrism and Trotskyist Integrity in the New Trrotskyist IR of World History. In A. Anievas & K. Matin (Eds.), Historical Sociology and World History: Uneven and Combined Development in the Longue Duree (pp. 219–238). Rowman & Little Field.
Holis, M., & Smith, S. (1990). Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Oxford University Press.
Holsti, K. J. (1985). The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Allen and Unwin.
Holsti, K. J. (1996). The State, War, and the State of War. Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, R. (2000). The Global Covenant. Oxford University Press.
Kayaoglu, T. (2010). Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory. International Studies Review (12), 1933–217.
Keal, P. (2003). European Conquest and the Rights of Indigenous People. Cambridge University Press.
Keene, E. (2002). Beyond the Anarchical Society. Cambridge University Press.
Keohane, R. O. (1984). After Hegemony: Co-operation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.
Krasner, S. (1999). Sovereignty: Organised Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
Krasner, S. D. (2001). Rethinking the sovereign state model. Review of International Studies, 27(5), 17–42.
Krishna, S. (1993). The Importance of Being Ironic: A Postcolonial View on Critical International Relations Theory. Alternatives, 18(3), 385–417.
Krishna, S. (1999). Postcolonial Insecurities: India, Sri Lanka and the Question of Nationhood. University of Minnesota Press.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge University Press.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers: Volume 1 (eds., J. Worrall & G. Currie). Cambridge University Press.
Linklater, A. (1998). The Transformation of the Political Community. Polity.
Mann, M. (1986). The Sources of Social Power, Vol. 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge University Press.
Meek, R. (1976). Social Science and the Ignoble Savage. Cambridge University Press.
Migdal, J. S. (1988). Strong Societies and Weak States: State-Society Relations and State Capabilities in the Third World. Princeton University Press.
Mignolo, W. (1998). Globalisation, Civilization Processes and the Relocation of Languages and Cultures. In Cultures of Globalisation (Eds.), F. Jameson & M. Miyoshi (pp. 32–53). Duke University Press.
Mignolo, W. (2001). Coloniality at Large: The Western Hemisphere in the Colonial horizon of Modernity. New Centennial Review, 1(2), 19–54.
Mignolo, W. (2011). The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Duke University Press.
Mignolo, W. (2021). The Politics of Decolonial Investigations. Duke University Press.
Mignolo, W. D., & Walsh, C. E. (2018). On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Duke University Press.
Pellerin, H. (2012). Which IR Do You Speak? Languages as Perspectives in the Discipline of IR. Perspectives, 20(1), 59–82.
Morgenthau, H. (1973). The Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (5th ed.). Knoph.
Nordlinger, E. A. (1987). Taking the State Seriously. In M. Weiner & S. Huntington (Eds.), Understanding Political Development: An Analytical Framework. Little Brown.
Osiander, A. (1994). The States System in Europe: 1640–1990. Oxford University Press.
Paul, T. V. (2010). State Capacity and South Asia’s Perennial Insecurity Problems. In T. V. Paul (Ed.), South Asia’s Week States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament (pp. 3–30). Stanford University Press.
Philpott, D. (1999). Westphalia, Authority and International Society. Political Studies, 47(3), 566–589.
Philpott, D. (2001). Revolutions in Sovereignty: How Ideas Shape Modern International Relations. Princeton University Press.
Prakash, G. (1994). Subaltern Historiography as Postcolonial Criticism. American Historical Review, 99(5), 1475–1490.
Raj, K. (2007). Relocating Modern Science: Circulation and the Construction of Knowledge in South Asia and Europe, 1650–1900. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosenberg, J. (1994). The International Imagination: IR Theory and Classic Social Analysis. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 23(1), 85–108.
Rosenberg, J. (2000). The follies of globalisation theory: Polemical essays. Verso.
Saurin, J. (2006). International Relations as the Imperial Illusion; Or the Need to Decolonise IR. In B. G. Jones (Ed.), Decolonising International Relations (pp. 28–42). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers INC.
Seth, S. (2009). Historical Sociology and Postcolonial Theory: Two Strategies for Challenging Eurocentrism. International Political Sociology, 3(3), 334–338.
Singer, D. J. (1961). The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations. World Politics, 14(1), 77–92.
Skocpol, T. N. (1984). Sociology’s Historical Imagination. In T. N. Skocpol (Ed.), Visions and Method in Historical Sociology (pp. 1–21). Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol, T. N. (1985). Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research. In P. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer & T. Skocpol (Eds.), Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, B. S. (2012). On the History and Historiography of International Relations in Hand Book of International Relations. Sage.
Spruyt, H. (1994). The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton University Press.
Spruyt, H. (1998). Historical Sociology and Systems Theory in International Relations. Review of International Political Economy, 5(2), 340–353.
Strandsbjerg, J. (2017). The Space of State Formation. In L. Bo Kaspersen and J. Strandsbjerg (eds.), Does War Make States? Investigations of Charles Tilly’s Historical Sociology (pp. 127–153). Cambridge University Press.
Teschke, B. (2003). The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations. Verso.
Thompson, E. P. (1978). The Poverty of Theory and Other Essays. Merlin.
Tickner, A. B. (2003). Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third World. Milennium: Journal of International Relations, 32(2), 295–309.
Tickner, A. B. (2013). Core, Periphery and Neoimperialist International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 627–646.
Tickner, A. B., & Waever, O. (2009). International relations scholarship around the world. Routledge.
Tilly, C. (1984). Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. Russell Sage Foundation.
Toulmin, S. (1990). Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity. University of Chicago Press.
Waever, O. (2007). Still a Discipline After All These Debates? In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (eds.), IR Theories: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 288–308). Oxford University Press.
Wallerstein, I. (1979). The Capitalist World-Economy. Cambridge University Press.
Walker, R. B. J. (1997). The Subject of Security. In K. Krause & M. C. Williams (eds.), Critical Security Studies: Concepts and Cases. Minnesota University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1959/2001). Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Waltz, K. N. (1986). Reflections on theory of international politics: A response to my critics. In R. Keohane (Ed.), Neorealism and its critics (pp. 322–345). Colombia University Press.
Watson, A. (1992). The Evolution of International Society. Routledge.
Wendt, A. (1987). The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, 41(3), 335–370.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Wight, M. (1977). Systems of states. Leicester University Press.
Williams, M. C. (2007). Realism reconsidered: The legacy of Hans Morgenthau in international relations. Oxford University Press.
Wokler, R. (1987). Saint-Simon and the Passage from Political to Social Science. In A. Pagden (ed.), The Languages of Political Theory in Early Modern Europe (pp. 325–338). Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kumar H.M., S. (2023). Subaltern Realism and Historical Sociology: Transcending Chronofetishism and Tempocentrism. In: Decolonizing Grand Theories. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4841-3_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4841-3_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-99-4840-6
Online ISBN: 978-981-99-4841-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)