Social closure and the reproduction of stratified international order
| Published date | 01 March 2022 |
| DOI | 10.1177/00471178211010325 |
| Date | 01 March 2022 |
| Author | Tristen Naylor |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178211010325
International Relations
2022, Vol. 36(1) 23 –39
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178211010325
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
Social closure and the
reproduction of stratified
international order
Tristen Naylor
London School of Economics
Abstract
This article investigates how the means by which actors compete for position in the management
of international society stratifies international order. Advancing scholarship on hierarchies, it
applies a theory of social closure to examine two status groups, The Family of Civilised Nations and
the G20, arguing that stratification is reproduced by a dynamic interplay of top-down collectivist
exclusion on the part of superiorly positioned actors and bottom-up mimicry performed by
those inferiorly positioned. As such, the same means of closure which used the Standard of
Civilisation to exclude outsiders from the Family of Civilised Nations in the past stratifies non-
state actors today, particularly international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) seeking to
play a role in-the G20. This article offers amendments to closure theory in International Relations
(IR), demonstrating its utility for analysing contemporary international politics, engaging in trans-
historical analysis, and in incorporating non-state actors into enquiry.
Keywords
G20, hierarchy, social closure, standard of civilisation, status, stratification
Introduction
Processes that historically stratified international society continue do so in the contem-
porary international domain. Specifically, a dynamic interplay between superiorly and
inferiorly positioned actors perpetuates stratification as they compete for position in the
management of international society. Historically this process played out as actors vied
for position within international society as it globalised; today it finds expression as
actors compete for influence within global governance.1 What follows applies social
closure theory to capture this dynamic and explore its implications.2
Corresponding author:
Tristen Naylor, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
Email: t.naylor@lse.ac.uk
1010325IRE0010.1177/00471178211010325International RelationsNaylor
research-article2021
Article
24 International Relations 36(1)
While the concern here generally is with hierarchies, relationships between actors in
relative positions of super- and sub-ordination, I follow McConaughey, Musgrave and
Nexon, Edward Keene and Carsten-Andreas Shultz in placing stratification at the centre
of the conceptual framework rather than hierarchy.3 Stratification allows us to account
for multiple types of ranked orders at once, acknowledging that authority derives from
several forms of hierarchy, not just those defined as being based on authority relation-
ships.4 This stems from Max Weber’s foundational work on stratification, providing a
multi-dimensional understanding of power as deriving from class, status, and authority,
which both Keene and Shultz place centrally in their importations of Weber into IR.5
Conceptually, stratification also prompts us to think about relative positions of groups in
international social order, rather than individual actors, as is more typically the case in
hierarchies scholarship.6 Doing so allows us to emphasise the relational nature of status
ascription beyond merely acknowledging that status is inter-subjectively ascribed based
on unit-level attributes, but also on system-level group relationships.7 Status, in other
words, is not just about what you have and who you are, but also who you hang out with.
In assessing the state of hierarchies scholarship, Ayşe Zarakol asserts that this work
can best advance by focusing on two topics: the origins and nature of hierarchies, and
actors’ behaviours within them.8 Meanwhile, Shultz has demonstrated how a neo-Webe-
rian account of stratification, by way of a theory of ‘social closure’, particularly helps
advance the latter of these two research programmes.9 What follows builds upon the
theorisation produced by Shultz by asking two empirical questions: first, how does clo-
sure – the means by which superiorly positioned actors attempt to occlude others and
monopolise advantages for themselves and, conversely, the means by which the ostra-
cised try to overcome their marginalisation – actually play out amongst actors competing
for position in ranking status groups? And, second, has it changed over time? While
engagement with closure theory in IR has produced a rigorous theoretical framework and
demonstrated its application in historical contexts, we lack both a contemporary applica-
tion of the theory and any trans-historical analysis to comparatively assess closure’s
effects across time. This article fills these gaps, articulating a twin dynamic in the repro-
duction of order, in which stratification is perpetuated by both top-down collectivism on
the part of superiorly positioned actors and a bottom-up mimicry performed by inferiorly
positioned actors seeking to improve their standing (and thereby increase the likelihood
of advancing their interests). Stratification is thus not just a result of the impositions of
the superiorly positioned and advantaged, it is also partly a function of behaviours of the
inferiorly positioned.
This single framework facilitates examination of enduring practices of stratified
ordering in the international domain across time. I argue that the same means of social
closure which used the Standard of Civilisation to produce what Keene calls the ‘charmed
circle’ of the so-called Family of Civilised Nations in the past, positioning those ascribed
as unworthy as being ‘uncivilised’ lessers, stratifies non-state actors today, such as inter-
national non-governmental organisations (INGOs) seeking to play a role in international
society’s management by way of the G20 engagement process.10 From above, this is
achieved via two specific forms of collectivism: legal-collectivism (i.e. the ascribed lack
of sovereignty) and collectivist stereotyping (i.e. the perceived lack of desired attrib-
utes). Moreover, I argue that occluded actors attempt to enhance their position in the
To continue reading
Request your trial