International Relations and Historical Sociology

Breaking Down Boundaries

Stephen Hobden

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9781138007185
• eBook ISBN: 9781134666782
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides an original analysis of recent work by key historical sociologists through the prism of International Relations. Stephen Hobden investigates the number of issues which overlap between the two disciplines by focusing on three main themes:
* the ways in which historical sociologists approach international relations in general and the concept of an international system in particular
* recent advances on the concept of the state as developed by Historical Sociology and their implications for International Relations
* the potential for productive dialogue between the two schools of thought.

1
INTRODUCTION

A ‘historical turn’ in International Relations?

An intense debate between contending approaches to the understanding of world politics has characterised the theoretical scene in International Relations¹ since the late 1980s. Various reasons can be proposed to explain this theoretical ferment: a ‘linguistic turn’ in many of the social sciences; dissatisfaction with the positivist approaches that have been dominant in the discipline; or a reaction to the rise of social movements concerned with sexism, racism and the environment. A further factor contributing to this intellectual tumult is the scale of the changes that have happened worldwide over the past decade. These have included the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the apparent discrediting of Marxism, and the impacts of globalisation. It is hard to argue with the view that ‘international theorists are now condemned to live in interesting times’ (Smith, S. 1992:490). The dominant theoretical framework of the discipline, Realism, has been singularly unsuccessful in offering guidance to explain these global developments. As a result there has been a splintering of the discipline. Although many have retained their loyalty to Realism (arguing that, despite its weaknesses, Realism still provides the best explanation of the ‘core’ issues of international politics, war and peace), others have sought alternatives.

Since the 1980s alternative approaches to International Relations theory have become more vocal. Such approaches have challenged the notion of what constitutes the core of the discipline, and the way in which it should be studied. Some have argued that the study of international politics alone is not sufficient, and must be combined with the study of international economic relations. This has led to a flourishing of the field of International Political Economy. Some have pointed to the gender bias of traditional International Relations theory and have sought to challenge the discipline using the many insights of feminist theorising. Some have sought to employ a revitalised Marxist approach based on the Frankfurt School to produce a Critical Theory of International Relations.

There have been other more direct reactions to the scale of changes occurring on the global scene. One reaction to the environment of uncertainty that prevails following the immutability of the Cold War period has been the rejection, by some theorists, of the view that there can be any foundations to knowledge. Many have become sceptical that grand theory can explain much. Indeed, they argue, it can actually reinforce an existing and unjust world (George 1994: Ch. 3).

For others there has been a turn to History, in particular to those approaches to History that seek to understand large-scale social change. For example, Scholte (1993a) has called for a change of emphasis in International Relations from the study of power politics to the study of social change. Linklater (1990) has outlined a historical and sociological project that will go ‘beyond Realism and Marxism’. Booth (1996: 335) has argued that the study of Global-Macro History may lead to ‘insights into the meanings of the present and prospects for the future’. Puchala (1995) has welcomed the renewed interest in what he calls the History of International Relations, and Little (1994: 9) has pointed to ‘an important convergence of interest in recent years between students of International Relations and students of large-scale historical change.’

Much of this interest in the study of large-scale historical and social change has focused on a group of writers working in a different disciplinary area, but concerned with a similar range of issues. These writers, generally known as historical sociologists, are part of a long tradition of philosophers and historians who have sought to reveal patterns and structures in human history. The recent work by historical sociologists has received recognition in International Relations primarily because of their renewed interest in the development of the state. This work has resulted in a different notion of the state than that employed traditionally in International Relations. Recent work in Historical Sociology has developed Weberian notions of the state, seeing it as a set of institutions that claim precedence over a particular territorial area. Furthermore, a key advance in the recent work of historical sociologists has been the locating of their analysis of the state within an international system. Traditional Sociology has been concerned with social relations within one society (usually within the boundaries of a particular country). More recent work has moved away from regarding societies as discrete units. Sociologists have become increasingly interested in examining the impact that multiple societies have on each other. To do this they have sought to analyse international impacts on social development.

Hence a core feature of recent work in Historical Sociology has been an interest in the notions ‘international system’ and ‘state’. Both of these concepts are central to International Relations. The foundation of much International Relations theory has been the state. States are seen to comprise international systems. Hence, as the quotation from Little indicated, there are overlapping interests between the two disciplines, or, at least, a potential for dialogue. My purpose in this book is to assess the character of this overlap and potential dialogue. Does the possibility exist for a fruitful exchange of ideas between the two disciplines? Alternatively, when the two approaches invoke the notions of international system and state, are they employing radically different concepts? My aim is to explore these points by answering questions concentrated around three main issues:

The international system How is the international system theorised in Historical Sociology? Have there been problems with the way in which historical sociologists have used this concept? Can International Relations theorists gain anything from this approach?

The state Can the approaches to the state developed by historical sociologists be transferred to International Relations theory? More specifically, can it contribute to Neorealism, which has been criticised for its lack of a theory of the state?

The relationship between Historical Sociology and International Relations How can the relationship between Historical Sociology and International Relations be described? Does it provide a ‘second agenda’, a ‘challenge’, or, because of its state-centred approach and concentration on war, does it provide grounds for the reinforcement of Realism?

The remainder of this first chapter provides an introduction to these issues.

HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: SECOND AGENDA, CHALLENGE OR REALISM REINFORCED?

There is considerable dispute over the meaning of the term ‘Historical Sociology’. A full definition of ‘Historical Sociology’, and a discussion of the problems involved in a study of the social world that aims to be both historical and sociological, will be left for the next chapter. For our current purposes, Skocpol’s definition of Historical Sociology will be sufficient. She (1984:4) describes it as ‘a continuing, ever-renewed tradition of research devoted to understanding the character and effects of large-scale structures and fundamental processes of change’. The implication from this definition is that Historical Sociology concerns the analysis of social change over a broad perspective. It is distinct from ‘traditional’ Sociology because of its prime concern with change and historical context. It is distinct from ‘traditional’ History because of its concern with social structures rather than recounting the stories of individuals and describing events. Alternative disciplinary labels that give an idea of what historical sociologists do are ‘Macro-sociology’ or ‘Structural History’. The first stresses the abstract level of analysis undertaken. The second stresses the dimensions of change and time, and the attempt to historicise social formations.

That there has been an increased interest in Historical Sociology over the last few years can be demonstrated by two factors: a large number of references made to the works of historical sociologists such as Skocpol, Tilly, Mann and Wallerstein in articles and books; and the development of approaches to the study of international relations which are attempting to combine a theoretical approach with a historical framework. References to works by historical sociologists have appeared in articles from across the range of International Relations Journals from Alternatives to International Studies Quarterly. The element in the work of specific historical sociologists that has generated particular interest in International Relations is their renewed interest in the analysis of the state. Much of the recent work in Historical Sociology has been concerned with ‘bringing the state back in’.²

The notion of the state is a central concern of International Relations. Indeed for realist approaches it is the foundation of the discipline. However, International Relations theorists have lacked a certain ‘curiosity’ about how this central element of their discipline is constituted. Despite being a focal point, the state is surprisingly under-theorised. The state is usually conceived as being a territorial area together with everything that is contained within it. For example, when referring to the Spanish state, what is meant is the equivalent of what appears on a map—the land that is enclosed by what is known as the Spanish borders, and everything contained within that territory: the government, the population, the military, and the natural resources. This kind of approach to the state is typified by this definition from Fred Northedge:

A state…is a territorial association of people recognized for purposes of law and diplomacy as a legally equal member of the system of states. It is in reality a means of organizing people for the purpose of their participation in the international system.

(Northedge 1976:15)

The key term in this definition is ‘territorial association of people’. Compared with this view of the state, historical sociologists tend to stress an institutional definition. This entails a much more limited view of the state. For most historical sociologists the state does not denote a territorial and social totality, but rather a limited set of institutions with coercive powers. It is not equal to a particular territory, but makes a claim to control that area. This set of institutions not only has to compete for resources with other groups within a territorial area, but also with other actors in different territorial areas. In other words, the typical International Relations definition of the state is territorially based, while the Historical Sociology definition is based upon institutions. Historical Sociology purports to provide accounts not only of what the state comprises, but also of how states develop and change. The major reviews of the Historical Sociology literature by International Relations scholars have concentrated on this aspect of their work. They have also discussed the implications of such an approach for the study of international relations.

Fred Halliday (1987) has argued that the approach to the state in Historical Sociology provides a ‘second agenda’ for International Relations. Halliday draws a contrast between traditional realist views of the state as an abstract social/territorial entity and the Historical Sociology approach that sees the state as a centralised grouping of coercive and administrative institutions. For historical sociologists, states, societies and governments are viewed as separate but interconnected social formations. Halliday cites some examples of the differences that might illustrate these two approaches:

In discussing land, we distinguish between the territory of the state, in its total sense, and the areas of land owned by the state, in its institutional sense. Similarly we distinguish between the population or working population of a state, and the percentage of that population who are directly employed by the state. In revolutions the institutional state is overthrown, but the total state remains.

(ibid.: 218–19)

One particular problem with the realist approach is that it prejudges the character of non-state actors. These are seen as subsidiary to the state and constrained within territorial limits. By contrast, the approach to the state in Historical Sociology generates the possibility of a much wider agenda for International Relations. It opens the possibility of discussing the state, both as an actor in competition with other domestic social formations, and in terms of its relations with other states and with other actors in different territories. It also becomes possible to examine the ways in which states manipulate their non-domestic activities as a means of strengthening their position internally. Furthermore, by separating state and society, it becomes easier to theorise how non-state actors operate regarding their international interests. At times they may act counter to the foreign policy of the state. For example, when companies export to countries against which their home government has implemented sanctions. Alternatively, domestic groups who consider that their interests have been threatened may pressurise the state to take action against other states. Historical Sociology, argues Halliday, provides a second agenda for International Relations because by providing a view of the state as a set of institutions, it opens up a much wider set of parameters within which theorising can take place.

Adopting a similar viewpoint to Halliday, Jarvis has suggested that the approach to the state in Historical Sociology provides a challenge which International Relations needs to address. The notion of the state is central to International Relations. ‘International Relations is about states and the system of states’ (Jarvis 1989:281). However, realist, interdependency and dependency writers have all depicted the state as a derivative of the international system. Realists see the state primarily in terms of its political and strategic relationships with other states. There is no attempt to analyse the state with regard to its domestic situation. Interdependency writers, conversely, do consider domestic relations. In contrast to realist writers, the state is not viewed as a unitary actor, but as one actor amongst many, having to balance both internal and external concerns. However, although this provides a wider concept of the state than that provided by Realism, Jarvis argues that it is still an under-theorised account. ‘This is because while seeming to suggest the operation of a logic of economic interdependency it still uses a theory of the state insufficiently distanced from its conceptual origins in the dynamic of the system of states’ (ibid.: 282). In other words, the state is still viewed as primarily a product of international relations. With its class-based analysis, Dependency Theory, Jarvis argues, provides a potentially promising research avenue. In this kind of analysis state development is seen as a function of the international economy and class relations. This is an improvement on realist and interdependency approaches, but because it privileges social and economic factors, it still leaves much unexplained in terms of state action (for example, requirements to maintain military security).

In comparison, Jarvis argues, the kinds of approaches to the state being developed by historical sociologists provide a better ‘fit’ in the theorising of societies, states and geopolitics. This is primarily for two reasons. First, because of the multi-causal logic which historical sociologists apply, no one element in the relationship between states, societies and geopolitics is seen as dominant. International Relations theorists tend to see geopolitical relations between states as the primary factor in state development. In contrast, recent work by historical sociologists sees multiple logics at work. Additionally, the significance of these multiple logics varies historically. At different times one or more of the influences between society, state and geopolitics have been of greater importance than others. Historical Sociology, Jarvis argues, provides a challenge to International Relations because it provides ‘a number of convincing accounts, theoretical and historical, of how such a fit might exist; not only as a general account but one sensible to variance in such relationships’ (ibid.: 283).

Hobson is similarly critical of the ‘reductionist’ approaches adopted by International Relations scholars. In their own ways, he suggests, both Neorealism and Marxism are ‘billiard ball theories of history’ (Hobson 1994:4). For Waltz it is the clash of undifferentiated states that is the source of the international system, whilst for Marx it is class conflict that is the motor for history. In both approaches the state becomes ‘a passive bearer of external structures’ (ibid.). The state is seen as a product of external structures rather than as having significance in its own right:

There really is no room for power forces other than the structures of the mode of production (Marxism) or the international system of states (Neorealism) to make an impression in the overall development of history. Attempts to bring in additional variables are immediately dismissed as either ‘bourgeois’ (Marx) or as ‘reductionist’ (Waltz).

(ibid.)

To redress the reductionism of Neorealism and Marxism, Hobson proposes an approach to the study of international relations based on six principles derived from the insights being produced by historical sociologists (Hobson 1998). Such an approach would include six main elements (Hobson 1994:5):

1 An account of the state which Hobson describes as ‘neo-statist’. This includes seeing the state as a causal variable, capable, with other forces, of shaping both domestic and international space.

2 A multi-logic approach, which is not reducible to any one factor.

3 A view of space as overlapping, with no clear boundaries between the international, national and sub-national.

4 A more developed view of power. Rather than power being considered as purely zero-sum, it is possible to analyse power as positive-sum, negative-sum, or zero-sum.

5 A view of time as discontinuous, rather than continuous.

6 A view of the autonomy of actors as being always partial rather than potential, relative or absolute.

The prime aim is to remedy the neglect shown by Neorealism and Marxism to the issues of states, power, space and time.

Halliday, Jarvis and Hobson all suggest that Historical Sociology provides a more developed approach to the state than is available within International Relations. The notion of state used by realists is too abstract to be of any use except in the most limited of theorising. As Jarvis (1989:283) comments, ‘we now expect the discipline…to do much more than simply give an account of the interaction of states in the system of states’. The approach to the state from Historical Sociology provides a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• 1. Introduction: A ‘historical turn’ in International Relations?
• 2. History, Sociology and Historical Sociology
• 3. Kenneth Waltz and the Concept of System in International Relations
• 4. Theda Skocpol
• 5. Charles Tilly
• 6. Michael Mann
• 7. Immanuel Wallerstein
• 8. Historical Sociology and International Relations
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index