Confessions of a Sociolator
| Author | Justin Rosenberg |
| Published date | 01 January 2016 |
| Date | 01 January 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0305829815619778 |
| Subject Matter | Special Comment |
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
2016, Vol. 44(2) 292 –299
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829815619778
mil.sagepub.com
1. Patricia Owens, ‘Method or Madness? Sociolatry in International Thought’, Review
of International Studies 41, no. 4 (2015): 655–74. Owens’ article is part of a forum on
‘Historicising the Social in International Thought’. See also, Jens Bartelson, ‘Towards a
Genealogy of “Society” in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 41, no. 4
(2015): 675–92; and Martin Weber, ‘On the History and Politics of the Social Turn’, Review
of International Studies 41, no. 4 (2015): 693–714.
Confessions of a Sociolator
Justin Rosenberg
University of Sussex, UK
Abstract
Following recent critiques of ‘the social’ in international theory, this text revisits a contribution
the author made to ‘the social turn’ in 1994. While C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination
appears to survive the recent critiques, the passage of time has nonetheless revealed a quite
different weakness in the author’s use of it: namely, its neglect of ‘the international’ as an object of
theory. This neglect, which is indeed common to almost all ‘social theory’, is now being corrected
in the growing literature on ‘uneven and combined development’.
Keywords
C. Wright Mills, social theory, uneven and combined development
One of the most stimulating recent developments in radical International Relations think-
ing is the appearance of a spirited critique of ‘the social turn’ in international theory.1 Led
by Patricia Owens, this critique argues that attempts to ground ‘the international’ in a
wider ontology of ‘social’ structures and relations (attempts which range from construc-
tivism through scientific realism to Marxism in all its varieties), court an enormous dan-
ger. Even if their own intentions are critical, these advocates of a ‘social turn’ have been
importing a nomenclature whose centre of gravity lies in the emergence of reactionary
Corresponding author:
Justin Rosenberg, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RH, UK.
Email: j.p.rosenberg@sussex.ac.uk
619778MIL0010.1177/0305829815619778Millennium 44.2Rosenberg
research-article2015
Special Comment
To continue reading
Request your trial