Plural ontology of the international: in search of overcoming the crisis in political science

Plural ontology of the international:
in search of overcoming the crisis in political science



Article received: 2024.11.03 19:27. Accepted: 2024.12.04 19:28


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2025.01.03
EDN: IATSDE


For citation:

Kharkevich M.V. Plural ontology of the international: in search of overcoming the crisis in political science . – Polis. Political Studies. 2025. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2025.01.03. EDN: IATSDE (In Russ.)



Abstract

The article continues the discussion initiated by Mikhail Ilyin in the second issue of this journal in 2024, addressing the crisis in political science linked to the persistence of outdated 19th-century concepts of social structures and processes. As a solution, the article suggests drawing on the experience of IR theory, which has historically faced similar crises and is now seeking solutions on the ontological level. The author demonstrates that the crises in IR theory and the crisis in political science share a common root cause: an embeddedness in a specific political ontology (post-Heideggerian) characteristic of the modern era, based on the opposition between politics and social being. A vivid example of this is Hobbes’s contrast between political order and the state of nature. The article argues that employing alternative political ontologies described by R. Esposito—such as the ontology of constituting (Deleuzian) or the ontology of instituting (neo-Machiavellian, associated with Claude Lefort)—could resolve these crises in both political science and IR theory. In these alternative frameworks, politics does not oppose the “natural order” but rather constitutes (Deleuzian variant) or institutionalizes (neo-Machiavellian variant) it. However, these approaches may also give rise to crises unique to each ontology. Thus, the article underscores the importance of an ontological turn for overcoming crisis tendencies in contemporary social sciences.

Keywords
political ontology, crisis in political science, International Relations Theory, post-Heideggerian paradigm, Deleuzian ontology, neo-Machiavellian theory, ontological turn.


References

Abbott, K.W. (2005). Toward a richer institutionalism for international law and policy. Journal of International Law & International Relations, 1(1-2), 9-34.

Albert, M., Buzan, B., & Zurn, M. (Eds.). (2013). Bringing sociology to international relations: world politics as differentiation theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Avant, D.D., Finnemore, M., & Sell, S.K. (Eds.). (2010). Who governs the globe? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Axelrod, R. (2008). Political science and beyond: presidential address to the American political science association. Perspectives on Politics, 6(1), 3-9.

Brown, Ch., & Eckersley, R. (eds). (2018). The Oxford handbook of international political theory. Oxford Academic.

Bull, H. (2012). The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

Buzan, B. (2004). From international to world society? English school theory and the social structure of globalisation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616617

Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2001). Why international relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 19-39.

Choi, C. J., Kim, S. W., & Yu, S. (2009). Global ethics of collective Internet governance: Intrinsic motivation and open source software. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 523-531.

Coen, D., & Pegram, T. (2018). Towards a third generation of global governance scholarship. Global Policy, 9(1), 107-113.

Dubber, M.D., Pasquale, F., & Das, S. (eds.). (2020). The Oxford handbook of ethics of AI. Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.001.0001

Esposito, R. (2021). Instituting thought: three paradigms of political ontology. Polity Press.

Farrell, H., & Newman, A. (2015). The new politics of interdependence: cross-national layering in trans-Atlantic regulatory disputes. Comparative Political Studies, 48(4), 497-526.

Forte, A., Larco, V., & Bruckman, A. (2009). Decentralization in Wikipedia governance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 49-72.

Gooding, N., & Hoekstra, K. (2020). Hobbes and Aristotle on the foundation of political science. In Douglass, R., Olsthoorn, J. (eds.), Hobbes’s on the Citizen: A Critical Guide (pp. 31-50). Cambridge University Press.

Guilhot, N. (ed.). (2011). The invention of international relations theory: realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hall, T.H., & Ross, A.G. (2015). Affective politics after 9/11. International Organization, 69(4), 847-879. https://www.jstor.org/stable/i24757009

Horowitz, M.C. (2016). The ethics & morality of robotic warfare: assessing the debate over autonomous weapons. Daedalus, 145(4), 25-36. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24916781

Jotterand, F., & Ienca, M. (2017). The biopolitics of neuroethics. In Racine, E., & Aspler, J. (Eds.), Debates about Neuroethics. Advances in Neuroethics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54651-3_17

King, M. (2016). The end of alchemy: money, banking and the future of the global economy. London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Krisch, N. (2017). Liquid authority in global governance. International Theory, 9(2), 237-260. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000269

Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: on the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235-254.

Lefort, C. (2012). Machiavelli in the making. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

Levi-Faur, D. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press.

Levitt, S.D., & Dubner, S.J. (2005). Freakonomics: a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. New York: William Morrow.

Mallin, Ch. A. (2016). Corporate governance. Oxford University Press.

May, C. (2008). Globalizing the logic of openness: open source software and the global governance of intellectual property. In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (pp. 364-375). Routledge.

Meijer, A., Rodríguez B., & Manuel P. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392-408.

Morgenthau, H.J. (1946). Scientific man vs. power politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). (2009). University governance. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Paris, R. (2015). Global governance and power politics: back to basics. Ethics & International Affairs, 29(4), 407-418.

Peters, B.G. (2012). Governance as political theory. In Levi-Faur, D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 19-32). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0002

Regilme, S.S.F. (2019). The global politics of human rights: From human rights to human dignity? International Political Science Review, 40(2), 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118757129

Rhodes, R.A.W. (2012). Waves of governance. In Levi-Faur, D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 33-48). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0003

Risse, Th., Börzel, T.A., & Draude, A. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook of governance and limited statehood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Root, H. (2013). Dynamics among nations: the evolution of legitimacy and development in modern states. Boston: MIT Press.

Rose, N., & Abi-Rached, J. (2014). Governing through the brain: neuropolitics, neuroscience and subjectivity. The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology, 32(1), 3-23.

Rosenau, J.N., & Czempiel, E.-O. (Eds.). (1992). Governance without government: order and change in world politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rosenberg, J. (2016). International relations in the prison of political science. International Relations, 30(2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662

Schippers, B. (2020). Autonomous weapons systems and ethics in international relations. In The Routledge Handbook To Rethinking Ethics in International Relations (pp. 312-325). Routledge

Snidal, D. (1985). Coordination versus prisoner’s dilemma: implications for international cooperation and regimes. American Political Science Review, 79(4), 923-942.

Suganami, H. (1989). The domestic analogy and world order proposals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sylvester, C. (2007). Whither the international at the end of IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 35(3), 551-573.

Sylvester, C. (2013). Experiencing the end and afterlives of international relations/theory. European Journal of International Relations, 19(3), 609-626.

Tallberg, J., Bäckstrand, K., & Scholte, J.A. (Eds.). (2018). Legitimacy in global governance: sources, processes, and consequences. Oxford University Press.

Taylor, C. (2007). A secular age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Tilly, C. (1984). Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Wæver, О. (2011). The speech act of realism. The move that made IR. In The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory (pp. 97-127). New York: Columbia University Press.

Walker, R.B.J. (1993). Inside/outside: international relations as political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wight, M. (1960). Why is there no international theory? International Relations, 2(1), 35-48.

Young, O.R. (1980). International regimes: problems of concept formation. World Politics, 32(3), 331-356.

Zumbansen, P. (2012). Governance: an interdisciplinary perspective. In Levi-Faur, D. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 83-96). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0006


Auzan, A. (2014). Ekonomika vsego. Kak instituty opredelyayut nashu zhizn’ [The economics of everything. How institutions shape our lives]. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferbe.

Ilyin, M. V. (2018). Modern political science: crisis or development? (Theses for discussion). Political Science (RU), 1, 40-67.

Ilyin, M.V. (2019). What can possibly unite us? Political expertise: POLITEX, 15(1), 7-16.

Ilyin, M.V. (2024). A fundamental challenge. Are the affordances of political science being wasted? Polis. Political Studies. 2, 8-24. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.02.02.

Content No. 1, 2025

See also:


Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M.,
What Is Happening to the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No1

Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A.,
International relations theory: on the threshold of new «Great Debates»?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2

Inoguchi T.,
Political theory. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No3

Sungurov A.Yu.,
Human rights as subject of political science and as interdisciplinary conception. – Polis. Political Studies. 2010. No6

Sergeev V.M., Kazantzev A.A., Medvedeva S.M.,
The Crisis of Constructivism and Methodological Problems of Studying International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No5

 
 

Archive

   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991