A New Institutionalism? The English School as International Sociological Theory
| Author | Laust Schouenborg |
| Published date | 01 March 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117810396992 |
| Date | 01 March 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
A New Institutionalism?
The English School as
International
Sociological Theory
Laust Schouenborg
The New School, New York, USA
Abstract
In this article I engage with the theoretical opening provided by Barr y Buzan’s From International
to World Society? I present an argument for five functional categories, which should be able to
encompass all the institutions identified by English School scholars throughout history. Their
introduction should point the way towards a sounder analytical framework for the study of
what Buzan believes should be the new subject of the discipline of International Relations (IR).
This subject is defined as second-order societies, meaning societies ‘where the members are not
individual human beings, but durable collectivities of humans possessed of identities and actor
qualities that are more than the sum of their parts’, and where the content of these societies, and
the key object of analysis, is primary institutions. The purpose of the five functional categories is
to break down this ‘social whole’ and provide a set of lenses through which to potentially analyse
international societies throughout history.
Keywords
constructivism, English School, functional differentiation, international society, primary institutions,
sociology
When The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics was first published in
1977, Michael Mandelbaum commented: ‘Bull has written that rarest of books: It is not
the last, but the first word on its subject’.1 Something similar could be said of Barry
Buzan’s From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social
Structure of Globalisation.2 Although it is not the first word on its subject, it is the first
word of a new chapter in the international society debate. No one is more cognisant of
this than Buzan, who in his conclusion remarks that the book is meant as ‘an opening
rather than a closing’.3
Article
Corresponding author:
Laust Schouenborg, The New School, 6 East 16th Street, New York NY 10003, USA.
Email: Laust.schouenborg@gmail.com
International Relations
25(1) 26–44
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0047117810396992
ire.sagepub.com
Schouenborg 27
In this article I will attempt to respond to this opening by critically engaging with the
conceptual debate instigated by Buzan, specifically the central concept of primary insti-
tutions. In doing this I present an argument for five functional categories, which should
be able to encompass all the institutions identified by English School scholars through-
out history. Although I am keen to stress that my conceptualisation of the five functional
categories is only a first attempt, their introduction should point the way towards a
sounder analytical framework for the study of what Buzan believes should be the new
subject of the discipline of International Relations (IR). This subject is defined as
second-order societies, meaning societies ‘where the members are not individual human
beings, but durable collectivities of humans possessed of identities and actor qualities
that are more than the sum of their parts’,4 and where the content of these societies, and
the key objects of analysis, are the primary institutions that define international social
life. The purpose of the five functional categories is to break down this ‘social whole’
and provide a set of lenses through which to potentially analyse international societies
throughout history.
Some might object that the proper subject of IR should be our present international
society and the problems it faces. This is, for example, the view found in Robert
Keohane’s agenda-setting address to the International Studies Association,
‘International Institutions: Two Approaches’, where he argued that we should study
international institutions for the purpose of furthering the cause of international coop-
eration in the contemporary world.5 This is indeed in line with the traditional way of
approaching our discipline – namely as generating prescriptions for foreign policy.
However, if one is interested in a sociological and − dare I say? − scientific rather than
a normative approach to the discipline, there is no era of history that is a priori more
interesting than another. Furthermore, it becomes important to clarify how IR can con-
tribute to sociology rather than just be subsumed within it. This is where the idea that
we are looking at second-order societies, whereas sociologists are mainly looking at
societies made up of individuals, becomes a way of defining a new rationale/added
value for the discipline.
A second potential objection, this time emanating not from IR scholars but from soci-
ologists, is that functionalism, or structural functionalism associated with such writers as
Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton and Jeffrey Alexander and Paul Colomy (neofunctional-
ism), occupies an increasingly marginalised position within sociology. If this is so, why
try to export the idea/theory to the study of second-order societies? The short answer is
that what is exported is a ‘stripped’ form of functionalism with the explanatory elements
taken out. All functional theories within sociology have posited that social institutions
contribute to, and are indeed functionally determined by, certain broad societal goals hav-
ing to do with order and stability. And to a large extent the debates within the structural
functionalist camp are about to which degree these goals can be said to single-handedly
determine the content of individual institutions. Hedley Bull, in his classic study of order
in international society, was careful to point out that his was not a structural functionalist
argument.6 However, this does not seem very convincing when he simultaneously argued
that the institutions of war, diplomacy, the balance of power, the great powers and inter-
national law sustained three elementary goals of social life. In other words, they provided
for order. However, the functionalism I will introduce below is of a different kind, and
thus sidesteps the major criticism levelled at this theory, namely that its basic mode of
To continue reading
Request your trial