Search

This paper will examine the structure and agency debate within IR from two points of view (a) traditionalist narrative history as practised by historians and theorised by philosophers and (b) Weberian individualist sociology. It will argue that narrative as practiced by historians and theorised by philosophers and sociologists can help resolve the dichotomy of the two concepts and facilitate a unified conception of the different components of the human, social and material dimensions of international relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper takes within its scope the broad disciplines of Development Studies and International Relations both of which, I argue are predicated upon an implicit narrative of history that takes the state form as the locus of enunciation. That is within both broad realms of study, a narrative of history as the history of the state form, history as the history of the nation state, informs and motivates the methodologies, assumptions and categories of analysis of both disciplines. However, utilizing the arguments made within the field of postcolonial studies, this paper argues that both disciplines within the broader human sciences are also predicated upon an elision or writing out of European colonial history. Thus, from this perspective, it is the writing out of colonial history that makes each discipline and their implicit narrative of history organised around the state form possible. Recent developments within politics and sociology around the incidence of globalisation and the recent flurry of academic and popular writing around the existence of a ‘new’ form of imperialism have produced a discursive tug of war over the relevance and viability of the state form under neo-liberal globalisation. This paper argues that the confused nature of these debates stems in part from the absence of colonial history and an absence of theorisation about empire as a form of politics within the discipline of politics and IR (Hardt and NEgri notwithstanding). Subsequently, I argue that in order to yoke together within the same analytical field both European colonialism and the practice and politics of development in the Twentieth Century, a new theory of history is required, one that places colonial history and the form of empire squarely in the centre of our consideration of global politics, one that explores the connections between empire and the state form, one that theorises the history of capital together with the history of the European colonial project, one that teases out the axes of continuity between the 20th Century trajectory of development and the 19th Century colonial project. Yoking development together with colonialism in the same analytic field needs to be fore grounded by a methodology of inquiry that theorises historical continuity rather than narrative rupture. [364 words] ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Historical sociology," properly understood, is nothing more than the application of sociological frameworks to historical events. Proponents of an "historical sociology of international relations," however, often conflate "sociology" with a set of orientations favorable to particular theories and methods (such as constructivism and historical institutionalism) and antithetical to others (such as rational-choice). But nearly every major methodological approach found in international-relations theory has some cousin in historical sociology. Although some recent work by proponents of "historical sociology of international relations" recognizes the methodological diversity of the subfield of historical sociology, few proponents come to what I believe is the obvious conclusion: we should not be talking about an "historical sociology of international relations" but simply "historical international relations": the engagement of international-relations theories and puzzles with historical analysis. This not only allows us to better focus the issues involved in dialog between historical sociology and international-relations scholarship, but calls our attention to parallel "big issues" in both subfields surrounding inquiry into the development of various dimensions of modernity. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

History is our repository of information about the past, and, as such, offers explanations about the present. As a repository it has the special capacity to reveal the hidden facts of injustice. More indirectly, history is critical to the creation of ethnic groups and nations, given that shared past experience, or the perception of shared past experience, is the strongest rationale for the existence of the group. In addition, history texts, monuments, museums and other forms of public history provide a sense of stability and tradition that assist the legitimation of the existing regime. Beyond their role in group creation and legitimation, history and memory provide material for group myths that are a source of social cohesion because they supply operational codes and a system of ethics. Finally, history and memory are the containers for grievance. If grievances are not addressed, they can be a powerful tool of mobilization by political leaders. The capacity of historical memory to coalesce politicized groups cannot be understood fully without recognizing that simultaneously, historical memories play several critical roles in the lives of individuals. History is a way of recording and remembering traumas of past generations that have an emotional or physiological impact, and possibly a material impact, on their descendants. Trauma that has affected groups is repeatedly relived by the group, contributing to group identity while creating an ongoing sense of victimization. Because of the individual?s biological dependence on the group that supports it, the individual will identify with the group in order to receive what is offered to group members, absorbing cultural elements and a shared sense of the past. In addition, in the process of developing a consistent sense of self, people use historical material to select mental constructs by which to connect inner and outer experience. ..ASA-For all the above reasons, historical memories are deeply rooted in a society and are tenacious. Introducing a different history means challenging psychological and sociological patterns that are of long duration. The instrumental purposes historical memories serve society suggest that contentious history cannot be separated from politics and power relations. To the degree that the political life of a society remains contested, historical memory will be intertwined with that contestation. And yet the need to address the problem of contentious, chauvinist history is crucial for post-conflict reconstruction and the prevention of future conflict. Devotion to ?the truth? is a core aspect of a society?s dedication to justice, even if all acknowledge the difficulties in reaching ?the truth?. Establishing a basis of historical truth in a society places some limit on the possibilities for chauvinist leaders to distort the truth for political ends. A culture of historical debate makes it more likely that past injustices will be brought to light and will be addressed. Acknowledgement of the traumas of the past are a first step in mourning and are essential for individuals and the society as a whole to find healing and move forward. All these processes will assist in the development of a new narrative. At the same time, a rethinking of the past can enable intercultural understanding by helping groups remove their negative stereotypes and accept the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]