Eclecticism or exclusivity? The (critical) pragmatist ethos of (intersectional) analytic eclecticism
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0020702020954552 |
| Author | Jessica Peet |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Scholarly Essay |
Scholarly Essay
International Journal
Eclecticism or
2020, Vol. 75(3) 420–432
! The Author(s) 2020
exclusivity? The (critical)
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0020702020954552
pragmatist ethos of
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijx
(intersectional) analytic
eclecticism
Jessica Peet*
Abstract
Eclecticism in International Relations (IR) claims to reject the rigid boundaries set by
various theoretical traditions, yet, in practice, it falls short of moving the field “beyond
paradigms” and tends to produce analytical exclusivity rather than eclecticism. This
exclusivity is the result of Sil and Katzenstein’s investment in tenets of American prag-
matism. These tenets favor consensus and universalism, leading to the reproduction and
exclusivity of the theoretical status quo. Dissolving paradigmatic boundaries requires a
more critical form of pragmatism. Drawing on the common origins of feminism and
pragmatism paired with the contemporary feminist concept of intersectionality, this
essay proposes a critical pragmatist ethos and an intersectional analytic eclecticism.
This can produce a more inclusive form of analytic eclecticism and render visible the
power dynamics that shape experiences as well as academic scholarship. Only when
analytic eclecticism is informed by intersectionality and a critical pragmatism might it
actually move IR “beyond paradigms.”
Keywords
Intersectionality, feminism, pragmatism, analytic eclecticism, international relation
theory, disciplinary sociology
*During the submission process for this article, Dr. Jessica Peet died. Edits to the essay for review and in
response to reviews were made by Professor Laura Sjoberg on Dr. Peet’s behalf.
Correspondence to: Laura Sjoberg
Email: sjoberg@ufl.edu
Peet and Sjoberg
421
International Relations (IR) has been—and continues to be—largely dominated by
paradigm-bound research. Depending on one’s perspective, this can be beneficial—
as it leads to the refinement of theories and creates professional identities—or
detrimental—as it can lead to increased competition and stifle innovation. In nei-
ther case, however, is the primary focus on the utility of the research being pro-
duced. Even when paradigm-bound scholarship is focused towards producing
policy-relevant research, researchers may be tempted to “black box” phenomena
that are not easily accounted for in their chosen paradigmatic model. Given the
increasingly globalized and interconnected international system, where many issues
are simultaneously both global and local, such rigid approaches are inadequate at
best, and inaccurate at worst.
Enter analytic eclecticism. Analytic eclecticism1 is a complementary approach to
such paradigmatic research. It does not look to replace traditional paradigms or to
synthesize existing approaches into one.2 Rather, its combinatorial logic refuses
“to carve up complex social phenomena solely for . . . a particular style of analysis,”
instead choosing to relax paradigmatic assumptions for selective integration of
concepts and causal mechanisms from different theoretical traditions.3 Though
analytic eclecticism sacrifices theoretical sophistication and parsimony, it gains a
more accurate, necessarily complex, multicausal story of real-world problems. Not
only does this increase our understanding of contemporary issues, it provides tools
to better diagnose and solve similar problems.
Sil and Katzenstein are not the first to suggest a combinatorial approach to
political analysis. However, they are unique in their “efforts to create a more
coherent and systematic understanding of what constitutes analytic eclecticism.”4
They are not proposing a set of core assumptions or causal mechanisms—the
hallmarks of paradigm-bound scholarship—but instead list three general criteria
that, when met, designate research as eclectic: open-ended formation of research
problems, middle-range theorizing, and pragmatism.5 While all three elements are
important, I will focus my discussion on their ethos of analytic eclecticism:
pragmatism.
Pragmatic engagement is a distinguishing feature of eclectic research.6 Sil and
Katzenstein highlight “the late nineteenth and early twentieth century writings of
American philosophers, most notably ‘the canonical trinity of John Dewey,
1.
Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms: Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World
Politics (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010a); Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein, “Analytic
eclecticism and the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research
traditions,” Perspectives on Politics 8, no. 2 (2010b): 411–431.
2.
Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms, 3.
3.
Ibid.
4.
Ibid., 2
5.
The first two criteria, and analytic eclecticism more generally, are explained in greater detail in Fred
Chernoff, Jeremie Cornut, and Pat James, “Analytic eclecticism and international relations:
Promises and pitfalls,” International Journal 75, no. 3 (2020).
6.
Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms, 19.
422
International Journal 75(3)
Charles Peirce, and William James,” along with neopragmatists such as Richard
Rorty and Hilary Putnam.7 Though pragmatist philosophy is diverse, Sil and
Katzenstein see a common set of tenets that provide a foundation for their analytic
eclecticism.
The first tenet relates to consensus, focusing on the “aversion to excessively
abstract or rigid foundational principles” in favour of “building a tentative con-
sensus on ‘facts’ that can be deployed to cope with contemporary problems.”8 The
second tenet relates to knowledge production and the grounding of philosophy,
suggesting “that knowledge claims, however produced and defended, are always in
need of reconsideration and reconstruction on the basis of engagement with the
experience of actors seeking to cope with real-world problems.”9 The third tenet
speaks to the social and discursive aspects of knowledge production. Taking aim at
the barriers that separate academic debate and public discourse (and hinting at
universalism), emphasis is placed on the “process of dialogue and reflection within
a more open [i.e., universal] community in which participation and deliberation are
counted upon to legitimize whatever consensus emerges in relation to specific
problems.”10 The final tenet relates to pragmatism’s open-ended ontology,
highlighting how in social environments “the ‘self’ is constructed and reconstructed
in continuous dialogue with others.”11 This concept holds appeal for eclectic schol-
arship because it suggests that “how and why some agents choose to reproduce,
while others redefine or transform existing material and ideational structures are
questions of empirical inquiry that cannot be settled by fiat.”12 While Sil and
Katzenstein recognize that their distillation of pragmatic thought into four
tenets “may appear oversimplified to philosophers of pragmatism,” they argue
that these tenets “capture the ways in which analytic eclecticism represents a
kind of pragmatist inquiry.”13
In theory, armed with these pragmatic assumptions, analytic eclecticism puts no
boundaries on the paradigms from which it draws logics and mechanisms. In
practice, however, Sil and Katzenstein limit their discussion to the dominant
triad of realism, liberalism, and constructivism, despite acknowledging that
other approaches exist. They state, “analytic eclecticism is minimally operational-
ized as analysis that extracts and recombines elements of theories embedded in the
three major paradigms in the process of building complex middle range causal
stories for important matters of policy and practice.”14 Sil and Katzenstein advo-
cate an inclusive eclectic approach, yet their working eclecticism remains exclusive.
While this framework may retain some benefits, it undermines one key goal of
7. Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein, “Analytic eclecticism and the study of world politics,” 417.
8. Rudra Sil and Peter Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms, 47; Sil and Katzenstein, “Analytic eclecticism
and the study of world politics,” 417.
9. Sil and Katzenstein, “Analytic eclecticism and the study of world politics,” 417.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., 417–418.
13. Ibid., 418.
14. Sil and Katzenstein, Beyond Paradigms, 37; emphasis added.
Peet and Sjoberg
423
analytic eclecticism: to liberate scholarship from artificially imposed, but thor-
oughly policed, paradigmatic boundaries.
Analytic eclecticism holds significant promise for IR. However, as it is currently
conceptualized, analytic eclecticism falls short of resulting in eclectic research.
Instead, it has the opposite effect, reinforcing the hold of mainstream paradigms
on the field. Why does analytic eclecticism fall short of its emancipatory promise?
In this article, I trace this contradictory effect to the pragmatist ethos underlying
analytic eclecticism.
The internal contradiction begins with the pragmatist tenets Sil and Katzenstein
lay out. These tenets rely on a popular—but uncritical—understanding of prag-
matism, one...
To continue reading
Request your trial