The limits of historical sociology: Temporal borders and the reproduction of the ‘modern’ political present
| Author | Tom Lundborg |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066115575399 |
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
European Journal of
International Relations
2016, Vol. 22(1) 99 –121
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354066115575399
ejt.sagepub.com
E
JR
I
The limits of historical
sociology: Temporal borders
and the reproduction of the
‘modern’ political present
Tom Lundborg
Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Sweden
Abstract
This article develops a poststructuralist critique of the historical sociology of
International Relations project. While the historical sociology of International Relations
project claims to offer a more nuanced understanding of the state and the international,
this article argues that it lacks critical reflection on the notion of a common ground on
which ‘history’ and ‘sociology’ can successfully be combined. In order to problematize
this ‘ground’, the article turns to Jacques Derrida’s critique of attempts to solve
the history–structure dichotomy by finding a perfect combination of historicist and
structuralist modes of explanation. Exploring the implications of Derrida’s critique, the
article considers how the combination of ‘history’ and ‘sociology’ can be linked to
a sovereign politics of time, which reaffirms rather than challenges the limits of the
‘modern’ political present and its relationship to the past, as well as the future. In
response, it is suggested that a more radical critique is needed, one that seeks to disrupt
the ‘modern’ political present and the contingent ground on which it rests.
Keywords
Derrida, history, poststructuralism, sociology, sovereignty, time
Introduction
This article develops a poststructuralist critique of the historical sociology of International
Relations (HSIR) project. The primary aim of this critique is to explore the constitutive
Corresponding author:
Tom Lundborg, Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Box 27035, Stockholm, 10251, Sweden.
Email: tom.lundborg@ui.se
575399EJT0010.1177/1354066115575399European Journal of International RelationsLundborg
research-article2015
Article
100 European Journal of International Relations 22(1)
limits of historical sociology, as a theory and a method seeking to locate a series of
events that can be woven together to produce coherent patterns of history. Historical
sociology now comprises a heterogeneous body of literature, which includes a range of
different perspectives. While some stress the linearity of time and the progressive order
of history, others emphasize non-linearity and the uneven stages of history. However, in
this article, I shall argue that irrespective of the particular approach to historical sociol-
ogy that is adopted, there can be no easy escape from or solution to the problems that
emerge from assumptions concerning the existence of a separate ‘ground’ on which ‘his-
tory’ and ‘sociology’ are supposed to coexist. Any attempt to combine history and sociol-
ogy, it is argued, is vulnerable to a critique that questions the nature of this ground
— what it consists of, how it can be found, where it is to be found and who has the legiti-
mate authority to determine its presence and meaning. In order to critically engage with
these questions, this article draws on the work of Jacques Derrida and specifically his
early work on the history–structure dichotomy in Western thought and metaphysics.
For Derrida, the more we search for the origins of history, becoming and genesis, the
stronger our desire seems to be for a return to structure, a structure that can hold together
individual events and give them a sense of purpose, meaning and direction. However, a
structure can never provide history with a stable ground on which to study individual
events and the links between them. A structure is always marked by an opening that renders
it incomplete.1 The ‘ground’ of history, therefore, cannot be found in structure alone, but
only in the processes of constituting such a ground, that is, in the processes of grounding.
When taking Derrida’s deconstructive critique seriously, any attempt to make claims
about the past in relation to the present becomes deeply problematic. That is not to say
that we cannot or should not make any claims about the past. In fact, we do it all the time,
and without doing so, there would be no politics (or history) in the first place. At the
same time, it is important to recognize that there can be no stable or superior ground for
making such claims; as with all grounds, the ground of history is necessarily haunted by
its lack of self-presence and therefore always already deconstructible. In this respect, one
of the most serious shortcomings of the HSIR project is its tendency to gloss over the
problems inherent in assumptions of an already-constituted ground. Any attempt to chal-
lenge this project and push its limits must therefore begin with a thorough examination
of the problem of grounding, which is precisely what this article seeks to do.
The first section examines the limits of historical sociology as a ‘critical’ approach to
International Relations (IR), with special emphasis on the notion of an already-constituted
ground on which history and sociology are supposed to coexist. The second section turns
to Derrida’s deconstructive critique of the history–structure dichotomy and demonstrates
how it calls for a shift of focus from the ground to the grounding of history. The third sec-
tion explores the implications of Derrida’s critique for analysing historical sociology,
mainly by demonstrating how the latter can be linked to a sovereign politics of time that
relies on the inscription of ‘temporal borders’ — borders that are used in order to separate
the past from the ‘modern’ political present, and a future that is deemed worthy of being
aspired towards. In the fourth section, it is noted that the potential of a more ‘critical’
historical sociology is to be found in the more recent attempts to construct a non-Eurocen-
tric HSIR. While this approach demonstrates more critical potential than its predecessors,
it is argued that non-Eurocentric HSIR ultimately fails to address the problem of the
To continue reading
Request your trial