Bringing the outside in: The limits of theoretical fragmentation and pluralism in IR theory
| Published date | 01 February 2019 |
| Date | 01 February 2019 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0263395718815784 |
| Subject Matter | Special Section Articles |
Issue-article2019
Special Section Article
Politics
2019, Vol. 39(1) 64 –81
Bringing the outside in:
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
The limits of theoretical
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263395718815784
DOI: 10.1177/0263395718815784
journals.sagepub.com/home/pol
fragmentation and pluralism
in IR theory
Colin Wight
The University of Sydney, Australia
Abstract
This article explores the current state of the discipline of International Relations(IR) and assesses
the prospects for integration of new voices to the global conversation. The article argues that
the current state of theoretical fragmentation that infects the discipline will be a severe barrier
to the introduction of alternative visions of IR. Two factors explain the source of this problem.
First is the dominant understanding of epistemology, which not only misunderstands the place of
epistemology in the research process but also helps reproduce a social structure of fragmentation.
Second, I briefly explore the dynamics of that disciplinary structure and argue that when combined
with the approach to epistemology the two become mutually reinforcing, limiting the possibilities
of a form of pluralism that can incorporate alternative voices unless they give up what it is that
makes them different.
Keywords
disciplinary structure, epistemology, ontology, theory
Received: 3rd December 2017; Revised version received: 15th August 2018; Accepted: 30th September 2018
Introduction
The idea that International Relations (IR) is a western dominated, some might say
Eurocentric, enterprise has long been accepted (Acharya, 2011; Hobson, 2012; Tickner,
2013). This has led to calls to broaden the scope and vision of the discipline by providing
space for alternative voices to contribute to the conversation. What is the value of a subject
that studies IR if it steadfastly refuses to be genuinely international? As the world has
become increasingly interconnected, a western vision of IR looks increasingly out of time
and place. Yet even though the discipline, on the surface at least, seems open to alternative
Corresponding author:
Colin Wight, Department of Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney, Room 422,
Social Science Building, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Email: colin.wight@sydney.edu.au
Wight
65
perspectives and voices, the possibility of non-western voices joining the conversation is
severely limited by particular structural impediments. Most of these are well known. The
centres of expertise surrounding IR tend to be located in western universities. These cen-
tres of excellence control the major journals and set the standards by which admission to
the conversation is granted. In addition, English is the language of science, which means
that those beyond the west are forced to use a language that is not their own. What is
deemed interesting and/or important is governed by those exercising power in the field. I
could go on but, these barriers and more have already been much highlighted, and are
probably already well understood.
In this article, I want to concentrate my attention on two other structural factors that
affect how alternative voices are received within the discipline. These factors do not func-
tion as barriers to entry, but instead, force alternative voices to engage in the conversation
in a manner that negates the alterity that makes their contribution valuable. That is, they
can only join the conversation through the negation of their otherness. The subaltern can
only speak by ceasing to be the subaltern (Spivak, 1996). Underpinning this issue is the
problem of theoretical and methodological pluralism. IR has tended to move away from
what has been described as the ‘paradigm wars’ to what we might now call the ‘paradigm
peace’. Some have embraced this peace and have suggested that ‘isms are evil’ (Lake,
2011). Others have suggested that we need to move beyond paradigms and embrace ‘ana-
lytical eclecticism’ (Sil and Katzenstein, 2010). The problem is not with the paradigms,
or isms, themselves. Paradigms (isms) are nothing but the ways we talk about, think
about, and interact with our chosen subject matter. If the paradigms have impoverished
inter-theoretic debate, it is because of how we have employed them. And there is nothing
intrinsic to the paradigms themselves that demands we treat them in this way. Paradigms
to paraphrase Alexander Wendt (1992), are what we make of them. We have and continue,
to treat the paradigms in ways that produce certain kinds of pluralism. The question is not
whether to be for or against pluralism, it is what kind of pluralism we embrace, and which
type will be most conducive to allowing genuine alternative voices into the conversation
without forcing them to adopt pre-existing modes of discourse already circulating within
the field. I suggest that there are three versions of pluralism within contemporary IR and
that only one can help facilitate of a genuine opening up of IR to alternative voices.
First is a pluralism that accepts theoretical diversity yet insists that this theoretical
diversity has to be built on a bedrock of methodological unity (King et al., 1994). Second
is the kind of pluralism that advocates letting a thousand theoretical flowers bloom. A
type of ‘anything goes’ pluralism (Jackson, 2011; Jackson and Nexon, 2013). Third, is
what has been described as an ‘engaged pluralism’ (Lapid, 2003). I prefer the terminology
of an ‘integrative pluralism’ because we need to go beyond a mere engagement with the
other, and towards a situation in which we genuinely integrate their insights into the sub-
stantive knowledge base of the field. For the sake of clarity, we can refer to these differing
understandings of pluralism as modes of politics. Hence, the idea of pluralism constructed
on a form of methodological monism can be likened to political absolutism. We can
employ many theories in our inquiries as long as we all remain committed to the one
scientific method (generally positivism). The ‘anything goes’ form of pluralism is equiva-
lent to ‘apartheid for paradigms’, or ‘apartheid pluralism’ (Wight, 1996). The third, ‘inte-
grative pluralism’, is closest to a form of multiculturalism.
Current theoretical debate in the discipline does not seem conducive to this integrative
form of pluralism. Theories seem to function as identity markers within a social system
suffused by battles over resources and power. Understanding the different forms
66
Politics 39(1)
of pluralism is essential in terms of opening up space for global voices to enter the IR
conversation. If mainstream, mainly Western, dominated IR theory struggles to listen to
alternative voices from within its own limited inter-paradigmatic frameworks, then there
is little chance that it will be open to non-western voices. In addition, if non-western
global voices enter the terrain on the terms already set by the fragmentation of the ‘isms’,
then opportunities for serious dialogue will be limited. Given the potential for non-west-
ern voices to reconfigure IR theory along new and interesting lines, it would be a disaster
if those voices adopted the frameworks that have stymied serious cross theoretical debate
thus far. Indeed, the current theoretical landscape that confronts new entrants to the disci-
pline might be one factor that increases their exclusion. Those global voices will have a
greater potential of not repeating the mistakes of the past if they have a sophisticated
understanding of the structural configuration that has produced ‘isms inertia’.
The piece is structured in the following manner. First, I provide more flesh on my
arguments concerning the different forms of pluralism within the discipline. I also, in case
there is any doubt, suggest that only ‘integrative pluralism’ can provide a space where
alternative voices might make a genuine contribution to IR. Second, I turn my attention
to epistemology and provide a critique of the dominant understandings of it in the disci-
pline. My point is here to suggest that the dominant way the discipline treats epistemol-
ogy is a serious barrier to the ‘integrative pluralism’ I suggest is essential to opening up
IR to non-western voices. Indeed, the way the discipline uses and understands epistemol-
ogy forces us to embrace either ‘absolutist pluralism’ or ‘apartheid pluralism’. Third, I
highlight the structure of disciplinary politics, which helps explain why the constant
abuse and misuse of epistemology, is so tenacious, despite the fact that most agree with
the assessment. The point is that the discipline is structured in such a manner that for
individuals the benefits of continuing to misuse epistemology far outweigh the collective
benefits of rejecting this misuse. Collectively, the discipline would be much improved by
moving beyond contemporary understandings of epistemology. But individually, the
power structures of the field disciplines any attempt to step outside this understanding. I
will admit that I do not know how to move beyond this impasse, but the first step has to
be highlighting it.
A plurality of pluralisms
Since its inception at the end of World War I (WWI), the discipline of IR has seen a steady
increase in the number of competing theoretical perspectives. Such has been the pace of
this growth since the mid-1980s that it is probably an impossible task to catalogue them
...
To continue reading
Request your trial