Search

the implications for the constructivist research agenda of the fact that IR scholars do not exist outside of the world they study, but form an essential part of it? This challenge is posed by constructivism itself: if the world is 'of our making,' as first generation constructivist Nicholas Onuf noted, then the social location and personal investments of scholars themselves must be included in constructivist accounts of world politics. The challenge is also posed by the nascent 'practice turn' in IR, which, drawing on the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, offers a conceptual language to explain the wider role and positioning of IR scholars in the 'field' of academic production. The issue this paper addresses, therefore, is whether this language is antithetical or complimentary to constructivism in its 'third generation' guise. The paper's aim is to lay out the challenge of reflexivity as it is posed to constructivism, and explore the interplay between these two responses: are they mutually complementary? Or does the challenge represent a potentially fatal one to constructivism?. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is there a distinct sociology of international relations? What are the innovative contributions of such a sub-discipline to our understanding of world politics? This paper will discuss contemporary, interdisciplinary thinking on the borders between sociol ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we do not enter the internal IR debates, e.g. by indulging in Realism-bashing, rehashing the "neo-neo debate" on absolute vs. relative gains (Keohane 1986) or by commenting on the contest between "middle-ground" and "radical" constructivism (Adler 1997). Instead, we intend to use the disciplinary space created by these debates by trying to tap the potential of genuinely sociological approaches. In the following, we use Pierre Bourdieu's work to elaborate a conflict typology, which we term "habitus-structure conflicts." We argue that this analytical framework is capable of yielding second and third order obser-vations (on this distinction, see Luhmann 1984). For example, it can be used to analyze con-flicts in world society as well as IR approaches to these conflicts with a view to uncovering their inherent symbolic violence and ideological implications. This analytical heuristic aims at overcoming conventional epistemological dichotomies - such as structure and agency, micro and macro, or structure and culture - and reconnecting analyses of social inequality and manifest conflict. Our framework assumes a connection between, on the one hand, power asymmetries in world society and the camouflage of these discrepancies, and, on the other hand, manifest conflicts, which we term "habitus-structure conflicts." Habitus-structure con-flicts are clashes between cultural patterns, which actors have internalized (habitus) and their environment, broadly defined as social constructs of all types, including social hierarchies, institutions, or the habitus of other actors. We proceed in three steps: we first provide some background to our typology of habi-tus-structure conflicts by introducing relevant parts of the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, in-cluding its epistemological base, methodological implications and terminology. We then elaborate the analytical heuristic of symbolic violence and habitus-structure conflicts. The concluding part attempts to present some tentative thoughts on how this heuristic can be applied to conflict constellations in contemporary world society. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Great power status is an essentially contested concept, despite the commentaries of some IR theorists. In this paper I examine materialist definitions of great power status and find them lacking. Also, an intersubjective understanding approach to great power status fails at least insofar as no one can agree who a great power is, in at least some of the cases out there. After examining the literature I discuss how narratives influence foreign policy decision making and how a state's identity leads it to adopt certain policies - in this case, the pursuit of great power status. I extend this from a relational-identity perspective to a relational-power perspective, and seek to bring ideational studies and realism closer together. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By drawing from some texts on the political situation during the Cold War, the paper assesses the special perspective Parsons takes on this classical IR theme. As will be shown, Parsons approaches this issue from two perspectives. On the one hand, he refe ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Latin American countries do not define their security agenda. In fact the regional presence of the United States conditions the security agendas of the countries in the region and their capacity to establish autonomous national policies on the global , regional and sub regional spheres. Nevertheless the regional integration process in the southern cone and the international role that Brazil has been signaling it would like to play since the transition to democracy have allowed the governments of Brazil and Argentina to define some strategic orientations. During the last fifteen years the civil authorities have established some defense and security policies in the absence of direct intervention on the part of the armed forces, in contrast to previous periods. In this paper we shall analyze the conceptual sources incorporated by the political elite in both Argentina and Brazil and the means and resources available for decision making in the security sphere in these countries . We shall investigate the process of securitization in the regional context taking into account the interaction between endogenous and exogenous variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past several years, there has been much debate within the International Relations community about whether or not security studies should be expanded to include threats to the state originating from non-military sectors. I argue that whether we, as students of security studies, should expand the definition of security or not is a moot point; state leaders already are articulating a broader definition. In this paper, I first outline a theory of security as an institution defined by the discourse of state officials. I then bring in insights from sociology?s new institutionalism to identify mechanisms for the adoption and diffusion of innovations to the institution of security. Finally, using logistic and negative binomial regression analysis, I examine the case of HIV/AIDS and security, identifying states that are most likely to articulate HIV/AIDS as a security issue and those states least likely to adopt this innovation to the definition of security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Debates in security studies in the U.S. and Europe have drifted almost completely apart. In Europe it is common to present the theoretical landscape in terms of, say, critical security studies, the Copenhagen School, traditionalism and feminism. In the U.S. it is more common to see the major debate within security studies as being the one between offensive realism and defensive realism! Previously, almost all theoretical inventions in IR were made in the U.S. Currently, distinct theories are widely associated with places like Aberystwyth (Critical Security Studies), Paris (Bigo’s Bourdieu-inspired work) and Copenhagen (securitization). The new European approaches differ not only from security studies in the US, they also stand apart from most work done in other parts of the world. Are these theories peculiarly ‘European’ and if so, why? The paper aims at explaining the emergence of these European security theories. The explanation draws partly on the political context in the different regions, and partly on features of the intellectual fields, International Relations and Security Studies. The theories are also assessed briefly as to their relevance and usefulness. To what extent are they bound to local, European problems or relevant to the issues that are addressed elsewhere and vice-versa for the theories that flourish in the U.S. and the periphery respectively? Can they travel to the other parts of the world in a helpful role? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines how secondary states experience unipolarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is the first step in a multi-year project to investigate the concept and dimensions of the purported “crisis” of global governance, the existence of which is commonly asserted but less commonly examined in detail. The purpose of this paper is ..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]

In any small group, members occasionally disagree with each other and then find some way of moving past that episode: e.g., forgiving each other, agreeing to put the problem behind them, or bracketing the dispute until later. These types of ?repair processes?, as they are called in micro-sociology, are typical not only of groups of individuals but of groups of states, notably alliances. In this regard, it is striking that although disputes have often been studied in particular alliances (especially NATO), very little work has been done on alliance repair processes. My argument in this paper is that these processes cannot adequately be described solely by reference to instrumental or strategic considerations; instead, they are distinguished from each other, and triggered, by group norms about permissible and impermissible interaction sequences. To this end, I develop several stylized repair processes and model the branching relations between them. The model is illustrated by two specific cases of serious disputes, and their repair, involving members of the Atlantic alliance: the Suez crisis of late 1956 and the Iraq crisis of early 2003. The paper concludes with reflections on whether the repair processes could have existed in earlier eras marked by different norms of great power interaction. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although there have been efforts to conceptualise institutional change in international relations theory - above all with regard to regime formation and demise - (e.g. Aggarwal 1983, Finnemore/Sikkink 1998, Gehring 1990, E. Haas 1975, P. Haas 1993, Keohane 1982/1984, Young 1982/1991, Young/Osherenko 1993), these efforts lack in richness and systematics. There are at least two reasons for this: first, the very concept of 'regime' or 'institution' implies a certain stability and stasis, so that the analysis of change and dynamics tends to be neglected, especially in view of a widespread preoccupation with 'equilibria'. Second, 'institution' at international level is still often equated with 'cooperation', and development of the regulative and normative content of the institutions is considered of secondary importance.The paper will therefore integrate insights from the comparative politics, economic and sociological literature dealing with domestic institutional change into international relations theory. Three distinct approaches to institutional change will be elaborated (Powell/DiMaggio 1990, Hall/Taylor 1996, Thelen 2002): a) a functionalist / utilitarian approach which traces institutional change to changes in the demand for problem solutions (neoliberal institutionalism, rationalist regime theory); b) a power-distributional approach that attributes institutional change to shifts in the balance of power or to changes in preferences of the most powerful actors (neo realism); and c) a cultural-sociological approach which highlights the role of transformations in wider cultural scripts defining legitimacy and appropriateness for institutional change (cognitive regime theory, constructivism). Beyond these three distinct approaches, there is a body of literature that bridges these approaches and sees institutions change as result of functional, power-distributional, and cultural processes, and which particularly deals with path dependence.The paper adopts this latter view and conceptualises the analysis of regime change in three steps. First, students of institutional/ regime change need to inquire about the results of change (What aspects of the institution changed?) and hence need to identify phases of institutional change with regard to a ?baseline' and dimensions of change (scope/ depth). Second, the process of institutional change (How did the institution change?) needs to be looked at, identifying the paths, critical junctures, and sequencing of institutional change. While the first two steps are largely descriptive-analytic ones, the third one tackles the causation of institutional change (Why did the institution change?). A framework of independent (and highly interdependent) variables is developed that includes as drivers of institutional change: functional advantages; legitimacy patterns; (exogenous) knowledge and ideas; (endogenous) institutional learning; institutional 'nesting' und interaction; co-evolution with the non-institutional environment. Power is seen as an intervening variable that impacts on many of the other variables; external shocks are assumed to be occasions rather than genuine causes of change. This conceptual framework of institutional/ regime change is illustrated by examples from the realm of international biodiversity politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various theorists of international relations have engaged in the process of de-naturalizing nearly every epistemological concept within the discipline. The concept of time, however?the temporality that informs IR?s theorizing of international politics?remains outside the boundaries of analysis. This paper analyzes the temporal conceptions that inform and orient IR analysis in an attempt to demonstrate how IR?s particular conception of temporality privileges those forms of analysis that attempt to make time-less claims that apply across history. This paper will utilize the insights of those who have already engaged in this process in sociology?William Sewell and Andrew Abbott?and extend this critique to the particulars of IR theory, demonstrating how IR theory is informed by a linear notion of time that shapes and constrains our epistemological commitments. In the end, this paper will offer possible alternative formulations that would more effectively take into account the multiplicity of temporal experience that exists in practice, rather than rely on the a-temporal, backward view of the analyst. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A broad array of approaches emerging out of the Third Debate in international relations could be broadly understood to be constructivist. They share a critique of social scientific methods that assume a fixed and objective world, as well as an assumption that international relations is constructed, and thus changeable. Despite the initial ?celebration of difference,? constructivism has since acquired a more narrow meaning, accompanied by debates that more clearly demarcate constructivism, post-structuralism, Critical Theory, etc. This paper will explore the emergence of the demarcations and the ideas that distinguish various constructivisms, including that between construction and performativity, construction and deconstruction, conventional and critical constructivism, and the influence of the philosophers or social theorists such as Wittgenstein, Habermas, Foucault and Derrida. The paper will analyse what is at stake, both positively and negatively, in these acts of boundary construction. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As constructivists and other advocates of constitutive theories have often noted, the natural world is very different from the social one. Our ideas about the social world not only reflect that world, but help shape and create it; we are part of the reality we try to describe and explain, not external to it, and we therefore have the potential to alter the reality a theory is merely intended to describe or explain. Our theories about the social world may thus become self-fulfilling prophecies or autogenetic in character. And yet while constructivists often make this point in epistemological debate, there have been relatively few attempts so far to address its empirical implications. With that objective in mind, this paper examines three prominent IR theories – the democratic peace theory, the interdependence equals peace thesis and the ‘clash of civilizations’ thesis – arguing that each has a self-fulfilling character rather than being true or false in any objective or timeless sense; each is, to paraphrase the now time-honored expression, what the relevant actors make of it. The paper also probes the processes by which theories become self-generating, stressing the role of opinion entrepreneurs in fashioning explanatory and predictive theories which become popularized – usually because they seem to fit the nature of the times in some way - so that people begin to believe that a theory explains reality in a naturalistic sense and that its predictions are therefore bound to hold. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that metageographical distinctions (Lewis and Wigen 1997) ? whether they are taken to refer to something actually existing, or are taken to be ideologically laden power tools ? serve as nodes in relational conceptual networks that form, allow, or authorize certain types of knowledge. Thus, North-South, the West, or the Orient, tie a range of other concepts such as civilization, globalization, universalism, and particularism together in a relational network of meaning. In other words, these concepts derive their meaning from their position in this network, and cannot stand alone. More concretely, why and how do social scientists and historians have the idea that the social world contains something called the West? I argue that it is because several domains of knowledge production ? in this paper I examine IR and anthropology ? cannot do without it. This is not a functionalist argument ? ?the West? does not exist because IR and anthropology needs it. Instead, these disciplines could develop precisely because the concept of the West was formed ? it became a node to which other concepts could be connected and given meaning. IR and anthropology have since been involved in reproducing the concept of the West as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for knowledge production in their respective fields. The knowledge that the concept of the West has thus allowed, or helped form, feeds into another conceptual network, formed around the metageographical distinction North-South. Using a historical sociology of concept formation, this paper seeks to critically understand the metageographical logic of knowledge production in IR and anthropology. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of ‘deviance’ and regimes in the international community has tended to treat such actors as ‘aberrations’ or ‘outcasts’, as the terms suggest. Behind this notion is the assumption of a single international community, united under a common normat ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As David Held observes: “There is nothing more central to political and social theory than the nature of the state, and nothing more contested.” "The state" is routinely defined and employed to suit the normative and/or empirical ends of scholars and pra ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study that argues that hegemonic and counter-hegemonic influences are not bounded within traditional units of analysis, categories or spatial arenas. It conceptualizes conflicts arising through indigenous resistance to resource extraction and export, particularly the case of oil. The research permits an exploration of the interactive relationship between micro- and macro-level developments.

Presents the properties of various social systems which can be used in studying and determining their broadly defined security. Information on the various interpretations of the term security; Details of how the core scheme of security can be extended in various directions; Reasons for the reconceptualization of security; Discussion of security studies and systems analogies and metaphors.

This paper has two major objectives. First, it explores the extent of coverage given to the topic genocide in contemporary social science texts. This follows the previous work of Fein (1979) in which she found social science texts were giving inadequate ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper explores the relevance of the everyday as the focus of an ‘analytique’ of technocratic practices in the sociology of bureaucratic organisations, drawing from the fieldwork conducted by the author among European Union bureaucracies. It builds on ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Variants of evolutionary state theory, or institutionalist theory, have become increasingly popular in disciplines ranging from geography, sociology to political economy to neo-classical economics. Evolutionary institutionalists stress the importance of the law, institutions and culture in shaping and direct market relationship. Markets are embedded in cultures and institutions and coordination and control among parties involved in economic exchange emerges as distinct responses to societal conditioning. Despite its increasing popularity, there is no distinct international relations institutionalist theory. The paper presents five principles and a theoretical framework which aims to integrate an evolutionary institutional state theory into a theory of International Relations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nature and conditions of the internationally relating self are of paramount importance when seeking to understand how it is that we 'know' the world. My intention in this short paper is to offer some thoughts about what it might mean to move towards something like a travelling epistemology for IR scholarship. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historiographical and sociology of science interpretations of IR have sought to account for how authoritative knowledge about international relations is produced from within the discipline itself, thus introducing a considerable degree of sociological reflexivity into the field that has enhanced understanding of how and why IR theorizing has evolved as it has. However, sociological reflexivity has yet to be met with sufficient self-interrogation within Western, hegemonic IR concerning how academic?being-in the-world? itself affects the ways in which scholars make sense of the world around them. Making use of contemporary sociological discussions of everyday life, as well as insights derived from feminist and postcolonial scholarship, this paper provides a more detailed examination of everyday academic life in Western IR. In doing so, it sheds light on the types of knowledge produced by all variants of hegemonic IR as well as attempting to explain the field?s incapacity to engage with worldviews and ways of knowing distinct from its own, unless they are previously reterritorialized and reinscribed within the social canons of first world academia. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature on governance recently has come under critique in both sociology and international relations, with governmentality proposed as an alternative. The argument is that governmentality reflects more aptly the power and "rationalities" involved in governing processes. This article argues that while the governmentality approach does access better the content and "mentalities" of governing processes, including global-level processes, it needs to acknowledge and theorize the gradations of eligibility for objectifying (achieving and enacting) government. Some types of "civil society" members and nonstate actors are better positioned to achieve the status of simultaneous object and subject of government-others, largely, remain subjects, depending on their positions within professional hierarchies and locations within inter-state power dynamics. Some nonstate actors are positioned better to define governmentality's content, and even manage the terms under which they themselves, as well as others, are produced as citizen-subjects. In our examinations of the mechanisms of power in governing processes, we need to consider nonstate actors' positions in global social contexts. The paper examines the global governance of mental health as a heuristic case-study, with special attention to processes of diagnosing eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa, in which the standard diagnostic code is spreading globally even though its recommended treatments are not working. The case illustrates that within governmentality processes, some actors remain decidedly more subjects than objects. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Are there long-term structural/historical conditions that alter the importance of the marginal, and the possibilities confronting those who find themselves there? By correlating the principle underpinning the political order, together with the dominant forms and sites of power, to the world-historical predominance of different forms of organization, this paper offers an explanatory account of how and why the meaning and impact of margins has varied across long historical time. Using broad-brush ideal types, the forms of organization are categorized into: "pre-modern"/imperial, "modern"/national-state-dominated, "post-modern". Various possibilities can follow from the findings. They offer, for example, an interpretation of the relative decline of lateral division of space as it functioned in national states' mutual non-interference through their recognition (at least in principle) of sovereign eachothers' autonomy. More broadly they provide a basis for a model of the marginal position with which to compare the way that marginality manifests itself at different times and places, and the possibilities that implies for those at the margin. Such a model can be employed to make an intelligent prognosis of what the future holds for the ever larger number of ?marginal? players on the international scene. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There have been many requirements that theorists have sought to satisfy in developing theories of IR, including explanatory criteria, an ability to predict, and some relevance to policy-making. The use of one form of conventionalism, a view that has received little attention in the social sciences, holds out much promise for solving many of these problems. This paper lays out some of the strengths of such an account of IR theory. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globalization, globality and globalism are some of the most commonly used nomenclatures within the various sub-fields of the social sciences and the humanities to address material as well as ideational aspects of global issues. This paper aims at looking at some literatures, particularly those within International Relations, International Political Economy and Sociology, in order to identify and mutually relate some of the key concepts and categories they adopt to address such matters. In so doing, the goal is to build a logical conceptual mapping of what is here termed as global relations; a multi-domain, multidimensional social manifestation. The argument is that a more formal, content specific conceptualization of global relations can help us properly address the various and complex global components of human action and intensions and their interactions. Finally, the case of religion as a global manifestation will be addressed as an example of how the concept of global relations can help us better understand different ways key global topics (and domains) are understood and dealt with within the various branches of social sciences. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article sets out a theory of differentiation derived from Sociology and Anthropology and argues that it can and should be applied to International relations (IR). Differentiation is about how to distinguish and analyze the components that make up any ..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]

"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]

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]

Theoretical concepts of culture plurality and identity in various disciplines - psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology etc. Theoretical synthese of these approaches and its application into international relations theory and practice. Value paradigm as a main methodological principle of cultural plurality study and its utilization in interpretation of practical problems of contemporary international relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]