Search

This paper seeks to enhance theory on inter-organizational relationships in international development by drawing from the perspectives of two French social theorists ? Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu. In particular, I focus on interactions between non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and their international funders. Drawing from Foucault, Bourdieu, and my own field research, I show that the activities of NGOs are highly circumscribed by internationally accepted norms and social structures, and yet are also capable of causing fundamental change in the thought and practice of development. The purpose of this paper is to set down a theoretical foundation for this argument. From Foucault, I borrow the concepts of discourse and power/knowledge, and apply them to common understandings of the terms development. This part of the paper is not theoretically new as there exist a number of Foucauldian studies on development. I draw from and synthesize a few such studies, paying particular attention to the role of power relations between NGOs and funders in influencing NGO planning procedures and action. The work of Foucault is particularly useful in uncovering core assumptions about development processes and NGO-funder relations, and in demonstrating how these assumptions constrain what NGOs do. Bourdieu’s work, like that of Foucault, is also helpful in understanding how NGO-funder relations are created and constrained. But Bourdieu also theorizes about how it is possible for practices and relationships to change over time, albeit slowly and at the margins. Using Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus and capital I develop a model of organizational relationships in which different kinds of resources are exchanged between NGOs and funders. I argue that while these patterns of exchange constrain planning practices in specific ways, they simultaneously open up new avenues for change. In brief, this paper seeks to relate theoretical insights from Foucault and Bourdieu to the study of NGO-funder relations in international development. Sample References: Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. Algeria 1960. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferguson, James. 1990. The Anti-Politics Machine: Development, Depoliticization, and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Foucault, Michel. 1980. Two Lectures: 7 January 1976, 14 January 1976. In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, ed. C. Gordon, 78-108. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, Michel. 1984a. Madness and Civilization. In The Foucault Reader, ed. P. Rabinow, 123-167. New York: Pantheon. Gardner, Katy, and David Lewis. 1996. Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern Challenge. London: Pluto Press. Harker, Richard, Cheleen Mahar, and Chris Wilkes, eds. 1990. An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu: The Practice of Theory. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Healey, Patsy. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes a sociological theory explaining the evolution of complex treaty regimes in the security field. In a legal world where tensions exist between treaty regimes, it asks: How do international law practitioners harmonize legal rules when overlapping jurisdictions exist with competing claims to solve an issue-specific problem? The article first shows how political scientists have analyzed the causes and effects of "regime complexes" and how their analyses can be applied to the study of legal fragmentation in the field of nonproliferation, where a global regime coexists alongside prior treaty regimes, in particular, the transatlantic regime crafted by the United States and the Western European states. Second, the paper shows what field theories of international law inspired by the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu can add to the analysis of regime complexes. It also shows that Bourdieuan analyses of international law need to be complemented by a hermeneutic analysis of legal interpretation in order to explain how regime complexes evolve toward fragmentation or harmonization of treaty rules. It shows that the interpretive quality of the constitutive treaties of each regime (whether they are clear, ambiguous, or opaque) explains which legal rules survive and which ones disappear when new treaties with overlapping jurisdiction are introduced. It demonstrates this thesis by using the case of nuclear proliferation from 1950 to 1975, with original archival fieldwork conducted in the private papers of Jean Monnet and his American and European collaborators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can the political sociology of Pierre Bourdieu be adopted by International Relations (IR) scholars? Bourdieu himself was reluctant to think so. This paper argues that IR can indeed benefit from using Bourdieu's thinking tools, but it requires a reading of Bourdieu, which favours process over stasis. While IR in general has largely assumed the existence of fields and the definition of powerful actors, a Bourdieusian analysis can turn these assumptions into empirical questions. Further, Bourdieu can draw attention to the production process of taken-for-granted understandings through a focus on the mobilization of capital in fields under profound change. The paper illustrates these points with examples from the case of European security after the Cold War, where the field-specific types of capital were re-valued and allowed access for new types of agency. Military, scientific and social capital was mobilized in 'doxic battles', set boundaries around the European security field, and determined its hierarchy. This challenged the self-evidently powerful position of NATO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will borrow from the social theory of Pierre Bourdieu to analyse the social dynamics of the French foreign ministry during a period of dramatic change. The period from 1914 through 1928 witnessed important transformations. The international s ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite some recent turns towards constructivist theorising, the relationship between knowledge and power has been insufficiently understood in the WTO system. Conventional perspectives - conceptualising knowledge-as-property or in terms of institutionalised epistemic communities - have tended to uncritically objectify this central nexus and fail to adequately account for how power inheres within the dominant schemes and systems of classification. This paper seeks to respond to these deficiencies by applying some of the conceptual tools designed by Pierre Bourdieu, specifically his twin notions of orthodoxy and heterodoxy within his broader theory of symbolic power. I argue that this analytical framework is particularly helpful in terms of anchoring our thinking about the boundaries of the arguing universe of the WTO, and by association, the techniques and mechanisms used to accumulate symbolic power by all WTO Members. The empirical basis for the argument is the West African cotton issue, an ambitious textbook case of Africa's desire to be integrated into the multilateral trading system, yet also receive reparations for past injuries. There are two major sets of arguments advanced. First, I critically examine how cotton became classified as 'an issue' in the WTO, one that necessitated dedicated political attention. I argue that the Africans began their campaign by constructing a novel 'competitive victim' frame to define themselves and the problem. This frame was effective in many respects, but also featured tensions that would later be unravelled and exploited by other actors. Within this, I discuss why certain arguments were used, such as the orientation towards competitiveness and justice-based demands centred on a compensation mechanism. Second, in order to assess the value of this African-led diagnosis and prognosis, one needs to analyse the subsequent management of the cotton problem by Northern actors. I argue that following the Cancún Ministerial in 2003, the US and the EU were disturbed by the trajectory of the cotton issue and sought ways to control the timing and scope of any outcome. What followed was the introduction of a counterframe which appeared to be logical, but was in fact ideologically: to divide the problem into a 'trade-related' component and a 'development-related' component. I argue that it is important to understand why and how this distinction was constructed, monitored, and institutionalised. Through attention to the relationship between symbolic power and institutional power, I suggest that the counterframe won over the original African frame, leading to a re-positioning of the demanders and a re-calibration of their expectations. In time, the question of US subsidies and competitiveness became only one element in a complex range of problems linked to African cotton. As the issue was further bureaucratised, I argue that the 'universal' definition on the cotton issue changed in an effort to shift the Africans from rights-based proponents (demanding equal application of the rules) to charity-based seekers (hoping for foreign assistance). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are a few scant remarks in Pierre Bourdieu’s work referring to the dynamics by which fields can come into being or disintegrate, for instance in relation to differentiation between the economy and politics, or between the secular and atemporal fields of power. For the most part, however, Bourdieu is content to study the dynamics pertaining to fields that already exist, whether it is the housing market, the political, academic or artistic fields. Moreover, even though there are allusions in Bourdieu’s work to the fact that certain fields are subordinate to others, the economy tends to be dominant in relation to politics, and the academic field is subordinated to that of politics proper, a systematic attempt to investigate how these relations between fields occur and how, as a consequence, some might be seen to be penetrated and even skewed by outside forces is lacking. This paper discusses the extent to which the theoretical tools provided by Boudieu in his conceptualisation of fields especially, but also with reference to habitus and practices, might be deployed to investigate the ways in which domestic political fields might be penetrated by and to a certain extent even skewed by the dynamics of the international field. This discussion will be anchored in an exploration of the empirical case of former Yugoslavia, its dissolution and the reconstitution of sovereign states in the (formerly) Yugoslav political space. Former Yugoslavia was a type of transnational space or field, where the distribution of political and economic rights at the local, republican and federal levels depended on a particular type of insertion in the international political and economic fields. The vulnerability of these sophisticated (and tenuous) equilibria became acute under the strains of restructuring global processes: the collapse of the communist regimes in Europe, the dissolution of the bi-polar security structure and neo-liberal globalisation. The preference of the Western European states for state-consecration by internationally recognised plebiscite as a way of arbitrating between competing territorial claims established nationalist principles as structuring principles in the new polities and accelerated the descent into war. This paper explores the possibility that this process is reversible and argues that successful post-war reconstruction entails the parallel reconstruction of non-nationalistic democratic politics and co-operative inter-state relations in Southeast Europe. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building on Pierre Bourdieu?s epistemological reflections, this paper argues that social scientific knowledge, especially theory, has an inherently metaphorical nature. Social science is a metaphor of reality. In the same way that a metaphor depicts something as if it were something else, any social theory necessarily portrays social life as if it had a logic it actually does not have in practice. In Bourdieu?s words, ?the logic of practice can only be grasped through constructs which destroy it as such.? This is the consequence of ?epistemocentrism,? the tendency of the scientist to construe the world as a spectacle rather than as a series of lived practices. Critically assessing the emerging notion of a ?globalization of threats? in contemporary security studies, this paper posits that in the business of developing knowledge about the social world, ?everything takes place as if.? The epistemological status of concepts such as ?global terrorism? is nothing more than a scholarly metaphor more or less aligned with the intersubjective realities experienced by social and political agents. Such epistemological vigilance against scientific reification rests on three methodological axioms that this paper will discuss. First, the currently emerging stream of metaphorical analysis should enlarge its scope beyond ontological issues of the linguistic construction of reality: metaphorical analysis must become an epistemological posture in the full sense of the term. Second, our methodologies should aim to combine objectivist and subjectivist hermeneutics so as to reconstruct, as much as possible, the socially constituted practical sense of agents. Third and related, postfoundationalism and its emphasis on induction should inform any analysis that takes the metaphorical nature of social science seriously. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper I discuss to what extent Pierre Bourdieu's political sociology might contribute to overcome analytical shortcomings in the study of nations and nationalism. Arguing that the debate between essen¬tialists and constructivists in this study field has grown somewhat flat, I will show that Bourdieu's analytical tools allow a compromise between these two approaches. More specifically, his concepts help us go beyond the simple constructivist paradigm and discuss how na-tions are constructed. It will further be shown that his concepts enable us to inte-grate micro-sociological aspects in a field that has so far been dominated by macro-sociological approaches. A brief discussion of Bourdieu's work on the formation of class and classification struggles will lay the basis for a more general debate on the social construction of nations. I will plead for a more thorough and coherent constructivist theory that closely follows Berger and Luckmann's model, and which accounts for interaction processes between human beings that produce social reality. The interaction proc-esses or struggles leading to the formation of groups in general and nations in par-ticular are both material and symbolic in nature. Consequently, I will define nations as power fields in which people confront, in a socially constituted space, their ideas about what constitutes the cultural boundaries of their nation. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article advances a call for greater reflexivity in International Relations (IR) to uncover various intellectual and political biases that may obscure the research process. Inspired by existing reflexive practices in IR and, in particular, Pierre Bourdieu's use of such a method, it argues that reflexivity matters for enhancing ethically grounded research, in terms of not only the choice of subjects to study, but also how specific problems are treated, and hence what kind of results can be expected. However, the argument also goes beyond the appeal to autobiographical reflexivity to embrace other dimensions. This includes attention to institutional forces that shape the agency of the scholar and, in turn, the complex relationship between the academy and the wider political world. In the most ambitious sense, the potential for reflexivity can also be conceived collectively in terms of activist intellectuals who seek to reward reflexive practices through dialogue and political intervention. The social space of international trade politics is taken as an empirical example. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the possibilities and limits of drawing on Pierre Bourdieu and his followers for thinking about international politics. Since this tradition has developed its own rather particular vocabulary it is necessary to introduce its basic concepts such as praxis, field, habitus, homologies and reflexivity. The discussion of these concepts makes it possible also to clarify the meta-theoretical position of the approach and the kinds of questions that can usefully be answered using it. This is then taken into the field of IR with the dual intention of showing how the approach and its related questions can usefully be unfolded in IR and how some of the most obvious difficulties involved in working with central Bourdieu inspired concepts at the level of international politics can be tackled (and have been tackled in the rapidly growing body of IR work drawing on Bourdieu). Further the question will be answered how this approach relates to other key approaches in IR, and primarily constructivist ones because they share both research questions and meta-theoretical assumptions with praxis approaches. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With its focus on the individual and the context in which security is experienced, the concept of human security addresses security in people’s life-world. In this life-world, people can be agents of their own security as choices that affect human securit ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, researchers in international relations and security studies have turned their attention to the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. However, applications of Bourdieu’s thoughts vary and no systematic way of applying his thoughts beyond th ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

My presentation will tackle a rather general issue. Its starting point will be the fact that what distinguishes Bourdieu and other sociologists most visibly from political scientists is that they take an overall perspective on society (or, in Bourdieuan terms, on the social space). Bourdieu is not a specialist for politics but he is a specialist for society as a whole, of which politics is but a part. So what he should be able to offer to political science is an idea about the place of politics within the overall structure of society. This expectation might be disappointed when we turn from national politics to world politics and from the idea of a national society to the idea of world society or of a global social space. Bourdieu´s theory, like that of other sociologists, refers to a national society. It entails a concept of the overall structure of national societies, but it doesn´t tell us how to conceive of a global social space. On this issue I will make a few suggestions. More specifically, I will argue on two different planes: first with reference to sociology in general and then with reference to Bourdieu. In sociology, I will suggest, there are at least three different possible concepts for a world societal structure: First, stratification, second, division of labor (or, in Bourdieuan terms, differentiation into fields), third, differentiation into a plurality of nation states or national societies. Each of these societal structures assigns a different role to world politics. I will then shortly discuss which of them might be favored by Bourdieu. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]