![]()
Implicitly, the role and nature of (meta-)theorising in IR has for large parts driven the internal dynamics and debates within this discipline (Freire, 2013: 272). Including the three (or four) great debates in introductory classes of IR, for instance, is, despite their often-acknowledged mythical character (Kristensen, 2015), still commonplace and in various ways continues to define the historical structure and self-understanding of an ever more complex field of study (see for instance Schmidt, 1998: 4–10). Especially after the end of the Cold War it became clear that the ever-broader conception of what constitutes the theoretical space in IR led to an increase of modes of theorising at a speed hitherto unknown (Halliday, 1995: 740–1; Dunne et al., 2013: 412). With this proliferation came fierce disputes and antagonisms as the different camps and ‘-isms’ seemed to drift further and further apart (Kristensen, 2015: 12). A sense that IR is disintegrating into a diversity (often styled as ‘cacophony’ – see for instance Lapid, 1989: 237; Hermann, 1998: 606; Lake, 2011: 478) that stymies theoretical and empirical ‘progress’ prevailed in many accounts (for instance Wallace, 1996). Some of the exchanges were openly hostile and dismissive of each other and, in some instance, (meta-)theorising as such; the battles about the limits of legitimate IR (meta-)theorising (and therefore legitimate IR scholarship) defined most of the 1990s and early 2000s (Jackson and Nexon, 2013: 543; see also Cox and Sjolander, 1994: 3–4 and Zalewski, 1996: 340–1).
The role and meaning of ‘theory’
Even now, well into the 21st century, debates about the central role, nature and future of (meta-)theorising in IR are far from agreed on. This is already visible in the terminologies in which many debates and contributions are framed. The lines between ‘theory’ and ‘meta-theory’ are already often blurred within and across publications, suggesting a lack of conceptual clarity of the dividing lines between them. As this study is concerned with meta-theory, it seems vital to first of all establish clearly what such a focus entails and how ‘meta-theory,’ for the purpose pursued here, can be distinguished from ‘theory.’ To begin with, ‘meta-theory’ is here understood as any endeavour which seeks to understand, outline and/or assess the most basic conditions, assumptions and building blocks that underwrite any attempt to develop conceptual toolsets to engage with empirical circumstances. It seeks to formulate and illuminate the conditions under which and in reference to which empirical circumstances in general can be studied. Concretely, meta-theory involves the reflection on and formulation of positions that outline the most basic assumptions about the nature of knowledge and knowledge formation (epistemology), the most basic understanding of the nature of and relations between that which needs to be studied (ontology) and the basic structure that should frame any pursuit of knowledge about that which needs to be studied (methodology).
While this understanding of meta-theory can be delimited quite easily, its relation to ‘theorising’ requires a more differentiated treatment. On the one hand, ‘meta-theorising’ is, as the term itself suggests, a form of ‘theorising,’ if by theorising we understand any endeavour that incorporates abstract reflections on the conceptual and analytical conditions of analysis. On the other hand, ‘meta-theorising’ needs to be distinguished from the attempts to formulate analytical frameworks concerned with the study of particular problem sets (e.g. theories of war, theories of international politics, theories of economic development). Theorising in the latter sense is basically concerned with devising a set of tools that aim at reducing the complexity of empirical circumstances in order to study particular phenomena.
This multitude of uses and meanings of the words ‘theory’ and ‘theorising’ is openly visible in ongoing debates and contributions. While the recent special issue in the European Journal of International Relations in 2013 (entitled ‘The end of IR theory?’) demonstrates quite clearly that theoretical issues and debates are as alive and lively as ever, Dunne et al. (2013: 406) quite rightly point out in their editorial introduction that “the definition, role and function of theory is one of the most highly contested issues.” They identify at least five of these modes of theorising (explanatory, critical, normative, constitutive and theory as a ‘lens’); Guzzini (2013), in the same special issue, develops a fourfold conceptualisation of engaging with IR theory (normative, meta-theoretical, ontological and empirical) while Jackson and Nexon (2013) split theoretical engagements in IR into a tripartite framework (paradigm wars, great debates and middle-range theories).
Whatever typology of theoretical scholarship one follows, “it is clear [that] the discipline works with multiple accounts of theory…” (Dunne et al., 2013: 412). This diversity of understandings, which is by no means a recent development (Zalewski, 1996: 341), of what constitutes ‘theory’ and ‘theorising’ in IR seemingly only adds to the ‘cacophony’ of debates and approaches; not only are the disagreements of a substantive nature but also of a practical and indeed normative kind (Smith, 1997: 30), i.e. they do not just concern the substance of theorising but also the way(s) in which theorising is done and the ends for which it is pursued.
Given these multiple and sometimes contradictory uses of the terms ‘theory’ and theorising,’ it seems prudent to establish clearly the ways in which they will be used in this contribution. In order to do so, this study differentiates between ‘theorising,’ ‘Theorising’ and ‘meta-theorising.’ When we talk about ‘theorising’ (with a lowercase ‘t’), we refer to the most unspecific activity of the three; ‘theorising’ is all activity that is concerned with or engages in abstract conceptual reflection. As such it subsumes both ‘Theorising’ and ‘meta-theorising.’ ‘Theorising’ (with a capital ‘T’) describes a narrower activity and aligns with the second use mentioned above, i.e. the pursuit of developing analytical frameworks to study particular problem sets. Finally, ‘meta-theorising’ describes a form of ‘theorising’ which is further removed from empirical circumstances and remains, as mentioned above, concerned with epistemological, ontological and methodological questions informing all forms of ‘Theorising.’
This differentiation now delivers the following tripartite structure: both ‘Theorising’ and ‘meta-theorising’ are instantiations of ‘theorising’; they differ, however, in their focus and purpose with ‘Theorising’ being occupied with the development of frameworks to study particular phenomena, and ‘meta-theorising’ investigating the epistemological, ontological and methodological assumptions and underpinnings of different forms of ‘Theorising.’1
While these differences in the usage of ‘theory’ and ‘theorising’ already create some confusion, it remains equally contested whether such theoretical diversity and disagreement is to be welcomed as an indication of the maturity of a complex academic discipline (Halliday, 1994: 1; Smith, 2013: 7; Turton, 2015: 149). Here, the opinions split over theoretical diversity providing room for fruitful dialogical encounters (Ferguson and Mansbach, 1991; Hermann, 1998) or, in fact, demonstrating a decaying and disintegrating tendency which, in the end, will lead to a decline of IR as a whole both in academia and practice (Holsti, 1987: 1; 2001: 73–80; Waever, 2013: 308). Whichever position one takes in this debate we have seen a factual increase in modes of theorising which now includes a variety of approaches with quite often incompatible assumptions.
The spectre of diversity in IR theorising
While the observation that IR is a diverse and fragmented discipline achieves almost universal consent from within the discipline itself (Holsti, 1987; Hermann, 1998; Walt, 1998: 35; Buzan and Little, 2001; Jones, 2002: 621; Burchill and Linklater, 2013: 2–5), the question on how to ‘deal with’ this fragmentation has been and remains deeply controversial (see for instance Kristensen, 2015: 19). Responses range from attempts to shift the emphasis from the philosophy of science (i.e. a focus on substantive disagreements) to the sociology of science (i.e. the practices underwriting communication and knowledge claims in IR (Kristensen, 2015)), to attempts to consolidate the discipline around central concerns or practices. These include for instance Sil and Katzenstein’s (2010) focus on mid-level eclecticism or Rosenberg’s (2016) attempt to re-orient IR around the problematique of the consequences of (societal) multiplicity. Finally, we also see calls for a dialogical encounter between existing theoretical ‘camps’ in order to foster a more pluralistic and multifaceted discipline (Snidal and Wendt, 2009: 4–5). Given this plethora of accounts on what constitutes theorising (concerning both ‘Theory’ and ‘meta-theory’) and to what extent the different modes currently practised are a sign of a healthy and fruitful pluralism or rather a sign of decay, the very way in which one starts writing a book length account, even if focused on meta-theorising specifically, is in jeopardy. The approach taken here breaks new ground in these protracted debates. The contribution that is sought here, however, is not intended to ‘settle’ these debates (a generally ill-fated and procrustean undertaking) or ‘simply’ to add another voice to existing controversies. Rather, it is interested in illuminating a so far broadly neglected aspect of the practice of meta-theorising – the ways in which substantive content is intertwined with forms of argumentation in order to break new ground in our understanding of and engagement with meta-theorising in IR.
With the particular focus on meta-theoretical debates in mind, this book is therefore not about ‘Theorising’ in IR. It is not interested in the specific explanatory, normative or constitutive frameworks that inform much of the standard ‘-isms’ in IR and as such it does not aim to contribute either to a refinement of existing ‘-isms’ or to an eclecticism which seeks to combine elements of existing ‘-isms.’ It is also not about the historical or substantive trajectory of the great debates or paradigm wars that constitute a large part of IR identity and history (see for instance Cox and Sjolander, 1994; Waever, 1996: 150; Schmidt, 1998: 21–4, Ashworth, 2002, Lake, 2013: 568–71). It is not interested in evaluating if these ‘debates’ and ‘wars’ ever took place or what they were about in order to retrieve their ‘real’ essence, or, indeed, to rekindle them in search for a new settlement of the issues they gave rise to. Rather, to put it positively, this book is centrally concerned with the role of diverse manners of argumentation in meta-theory, the concomitant intersectionality of form and content in meta-theorising, and its consequences for understanding and negotiating what is at stake when we investigate the most basic understandings of ‘ontology,’ ‘epistemology’ and ‘methodology’ that underwrite various Theories in IR.
If one, however, now thinks that meta-theory as such is the unifying framework in which all different forms of Theorising in IR could be brought together, a word of caution is necessary. In the same way we see continued disagreement and debate among forms of Theorising in IR, it is also the case that meta-theorising is characterised by “a state of chronic epistemological, normative, methodological and ontological contestation” (Wesley, 2001: 453). While it is widely accepted that meta-theoretical assumptions infuse all Theoretical endeavours (Neufeld, 1994: 12–3; Reus-Smit, 2013: 590), the field of meta-theory in IR is nevertheless as diverse and contentious as that of IR Theory. As Kal Holsti observed, concerning forms of theorising in IR generally: “Extreme epistemological and theoretical individualism reign, analytical problems proliferate, and the multiplication of theoretical purposes continues apace” (Holsti, 2001: 90). Since his contribution this multiplication and fragmentation along Theoretical and meta-theoretical lines has continued unabated – numerous approaches coexist, debates are fierce and far from conclusive (Monteiro and Ruby, 2009: 35). The question to be answered here is how to best understand, approach and negotiate this diversity; how to conceive of the various practices of meta-theorising and the resulting relations among meta-theories and between meta-theories and their audiences. It is the main contention of this book that a closer focus on and explicit development of the intersec...
