Political Science 8489: Social Theories of International Politics
Fall 2012
Professor Eric Grynaviski
Office: 421 Monroe Hall
Email: ericgryn@gwu.edu
Class meets at
Monroe Hall, B37
Tuesdays 4-6:00
Office Hours: By appointment
Description
This course serves as an introduction to discussions of social theories of in international politics. Over the
last twenty years, there has been an explosion of interest in sociological approaches to International
Relations, characterized by vibrant debates about once taken for granted subjects, such as rationality,
methods, hermeneutics, social structure, and a litany of other topics. This course intends to both to
introduce students to foundational debates and to engage with the most recent new sociological
approaches to International Relations. The objective of the course is to ensure that students can engage
with social theory, in political science and beyond.
Grades and Assignments:



Participation (15%): Students should come, do the readings, and participate in class.
Weekly Comments (1-2 pages, 20%): Every week, a 1-2 page comment on the reading should be
emailed to ericgryn@gwu.edu as well as the rest of the class. The discussion memo should
critically engage (not summarize) one or more of a week’s readings, usually by criticizing one or
more important claims. In addition, discussion questions may be suggested at the end of the
memo.
Three options for final assignment (65% cumulative):
o Three Short Papers: Three short papers (each 20%)—one covering each major section of
the class—should make theoretical arguments that engage the literature. Each paper
should be approximately 10-15 pages. Topics usually should emerge from class
discussion and comment memos. Before writing the paper, students should provide short
(1 page or less) proposals at least one week in advance (5%).
o Final Exam and Research Design: A 10-12 page take-home final will be distributed on
the final day of class, due on the final exam day (30%). In additional, a paper or research
design on a topic of the student’s choosing (25 pages or less) is also due on the final day
of class (35%). It is strongly recommended that students consult with me on the final
paper topic by Week 8.
o Final Paper: A short proposal (1-2 pages) is required by Week 6 (15%). Students can
write a full-length research paper, due on the final exam day (50%). Additional meetings
are likely useful. This option is strongly not recommended for students in their first
semester.
Required Books:
Emmanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot. International Practices. (Cambridge University Press, 2011).1
Charlotte Epstein, The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse
(MIT Press, 2008)
Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996)
Carl Schmitt, Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political (New
York: Telos Press Publishing, 2007)
J. Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001)
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999)
Michael Williams, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Recommended Books (Background in Social Theory):
There are many books that describe the history of social theory—the main ideas that characterize
theoretical debates in sociology. Below is a list of several important texts; note that they are long and
involved, but make good desk reference.
Coleman, James. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Belknap.
Collins, Randall. 1994. Four Sociological Traditions. Oxford.
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and Modern Social Theory. Cambridge.
Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knobl. 2009 Social Theory. Cambridge.
Swingewood, Alan. 2001. A Short History of Sociological Theory. Palgrave. (Especially the first chapters
that cover the history of sociological thought before the 20th century)
Recommended Books (Background in International Relations):
If you do not already own them or have read them, this class assumes a familiarity with:
Robert Keohane, After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1984)
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999).
Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1979).
1
We read several pieces from this volume. You may not need to purchase the entire volume.
Part One: The Tradition
Week 1: Constructivism and Science
Readings:
Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 1973), chap. 1.
Emanuel Adler, “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics,” European Journal of
International Relations 3, no. 3 (1997): 319.
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999), Chapter 2 and 4.
Stefano Guzzini, “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations,” European Journal of
International Relations 6, no. 2 (2000): 147–182.
Richard Price and Christian Reus - Smit, “Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and
Constructivism,” European Journal of International Relations 4, no. 3 (1998): 259–294.
Week 2: Constructivism and International Relations: Three Histories of Anarchy
Strongly Recommended:
Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1979).
Readings:
John Gerald Ruggie. “Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist
Synthesis,” World Politics 35, no. 02 (1983): 261–285
Stacie E. Goddard and Daniel H. Nexon, “Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics,”
European Journal of International Relations 11, no. 1 (2005): 9–61
Barry Buzan and Richard Little, “Reconceptualizing Anarchy: Structural Realism Meets World History,”
European Journal of International Relations 2, no. 4 (1996): 403–438
Barry Buzan and Mathias Albert, “Differentiation: A Sociological Approach to International Relations
Theory,” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 3 (2010): 315–337
Michael Williams, The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Week 3: The Agent-Structure Debate
Readings:
Wendt, Alexander E. 1987. “The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory.”
International Organization 41(3):335–370.
Hollis, M., and S. Smith. 1991. “Beware of gurus: structure and action in international relations.” Review
of International Studies 17(04):393–410.
Carlsnaes, W. 1992. “The agency-structure problem in foreign policy analysis.” International Studies
Quarterly 245–270.
Hollis, Martin, and Steve Smith. 1994. “Two Stories about Structure and Agency.” Review of
International Studies 20(3):241–251.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1997. “Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in
International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 3(3):365–392.
Wight, Colin. 1999. “They Shoot Dead Horses Don’t They?: Locating Agency in the Agent-Structure
Problematique.” European Journal of International Relations 5(1):109–142.
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 1999. “A Reply to Colin Wight.” European Journal of International Relations
5(3):387–390.
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson and Daniel H. Nexon, “Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the
Study of World Politics,” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 3 (September 1, 1999): 291–
332.
Recommended:
Udehn, Lars. 2002. “The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism.” Annual Review of Sociology
28:479–507.
Week Four: The Logics of Action
Strongly recommended if unfamiliar with rational choice theory:
Michael Hechter and Satoshi Kanazawa, “Sociological Rational Choice Theory,” Annual Review of
Sociology 23 (1997): 191–214.
Readings:
Ian Hurd. 1999. “Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics.” International Organization. 53(2),
379-408.
Ole Jacob Sending. “Constitution, Choice and Change.” European Journal of International Relations.
8(4), 443-470.
Vincent Pouliot. 2008. “The logic of practicality: a theory of practice in security communities.”
International Organization. 62(2), 257-288.
Ted Hopf. 2010. “The logic of habit in International Relations.” European Journal of International
Relations. 18(2), 539-561.
Markus Kornprobst. 2011. “The agent's logics of action: defining and mapping political judgement.”
International Theory.
Week Five: Norms (1): Do they matter?--Socialization
Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996)
Jeffrey Checkel, “International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction and Framework,”
International Organization 59, no. 4 (October 1, 2005): 801–826
Trine Flockhart, “‘Complex Socialization’: A Framework for the Study of State Socialization,” European
Journal of International Relations 12, no. 1 (2006): 89–118
Ann E. Towns, “Norms and Social Hierarchies: Understanding International Policy Diffusion ‘From
Below’,” International Organization 66, no. 02 (2012): 179–209
James Ashley Morrison, “Before Hegemony: Adam Smith, American Independence, and the Origins of
the First Era of Globalization,” International Organization 66, no. 03 (2012): 395–428.
Week Six: Norms (2): Where do they come from?
Robert Keohane, “The Demand for International Regimes,” International Organization 36, no. 2 (1982):
325–355
Paul Pierson, “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change,” World Politics 45,
no. 04 (1993): 595–628
Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,”
International Organization 52, no. 4 (Autumn 1998): 887–917
Christian Reus-Smit, “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of
Fundamental Institutions,” International Organization 51, no. 04 (1997): 555–589
Ann Florini, “The Evolution of International Norms,” International Studies Quarterly 40, no. 3
(September 1, 1996): 363–389.
Week Six: Power (1) Materialism
Review:
Wendt. Social Theory. Chapter 3.
Required:
Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall, “Power in International Politics,” International Organization 59,
no. 01 (2005): 39–75
Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, “Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War:
Reevaluating a Landmark Case for Ideas,” International Security 25, no. 3 (2001): 5–53
Daniel Deudney, “Geopolitics as Theory: Historical Security Materialism,” European Journal of
International Relations 6, no. 1 (2000): 77–107
Andreas Bieler and Adam David Morton, “The Deficits of Discourse in IPE: Turning Base Metal into
Gold?,” International Studies Quarterly 52, no. 1 (2008): 103–128
Claudia Aradau, “Security That Matters: Critical Infrastructure and Objects of Protection,” Security
Dialogue 41, no. 5 (2010): 491–514.
Week Seven: Power (2) Ideas
Stefano Guzzini, “The Concept of Power: a Constructivist Analysis,” Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 33, no. 3 (2005): 495–521;
Nina Tannenwald, “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear NonUse,” International Organization 53, no. 03 (1999): 433–468;
Ronald R. Krebs and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, “Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of
Political Rhetoric,” European Journal of International Relations 13, no. 1 (2007): 35–66;
Tony Evans, “International Human Rights Law as Power/Knowledge,” Human Rights Quarterly 27, no. 3
(2005): 1046–1068;
Anne Harrington de Santana, “Nuclear Weapons as the Currency of Power:Deconstructing the Fetishism
of Force,” The Nonproliferation Review 16, no. 3 (2009): 325–345.
Part Two: Contemporary Issues:
Week Eight: Do Networks solve all of our problems?
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Miles Kahler, and Alexander H. Montgomery, “Network Analysis for
International Relations,” International Organization 63, no. 3 (2009): 559–592
Stacy Goddard, “Brokering Change: Networks and Entrepreneurs in International Politics,” International
Theory 1, no. 2 (2009): 249–281
Jack Donnelly, “Rethinking Political Structures: From ‘ordering Principles’ to ‘vertical Differentiation’ –
and Beyond,” International Theory 1, no. 01 (2009): 49–86
Barry Buzan and Mathias Albert, “Differentiation: A Sociological Approach to International Relations
Theory,” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 3 (2010): 315–337
Daniel H. Nexon and Thomas Wright, “What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate,” The American
Political Science Review 101, no. 2 (2007): 253–271.
Week Nine: Pragmatism : The Philosophy of Science
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, Miles Kahler, and Alexander H. Montgomery, “Network Analysis for
International Relations,” International Organization 63, no. 03 (2009): 559–592
Stacy Goddard, “Brokering Change: Networks and Entrepreneurs in International Politics,” International
Theory 1, no. 2 (2009): 249–281
Jack Donnelly, “Rethinking Political Structures: From ‘ordering Principles’ to ‘vertical Differentiation’ –
and Beyond,” International Theory 1, no. 01 (2009): 49–86
Barry Buzan and Mathias Albert, “Differentiation: A Sociological Approach to International Relations
Theory,” European Journal of International Relations 16, no. 3 (2010): 315–337
Daniel H. Nexon and Thomas Wright, “What’s at Stake in the American Empire Debate,” The American
Political Science Review 101, no. 2 (2007): 253–271.
Week Ten: ‘The Practice Turn’
Iver B Neumann, “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy,” MillenniumJournal of International Studies 31, no. 3 (2002): 627
Emmanuel Adler and Vincent Pouliot, “International Practices,” International Theory 3, no. 1 (2011): 1–
36
Friedrich Kratochwil. 2011. “Making Sense of ‘international practices.” In International Practices. 36-60.
Janice Bially Mattern. 2011. “A practice theory of emotion for International Relations.” In International
Practices. 63-86.
Raymond Duvall and Arjun Chowdury. 2011. “The Practices of Theory.” In International Practices. 335354.
Richard Price, “Moral Limit and Possibility in World Politics,” International Organization 62, no. 2
(2008): 191–220.
Week Eleven: Language, Communication, and Discourse.
Guillaume, Xavier. (2002) “Foreign Policy and the Politics of Alterity: A Dialogical Understanding of
International Relations.” Millennium 31: 1–26.
Albert, Kessler, and Stetter. 2008. “On order and conflict: International Relations and the ‘communicative
turn.’ Review of International Studies. 34(s1), 43-67.
Vivien A. Schmidt, “Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse,” Annual
Review of Political Science 11, no. 1 (2008): 303–326.
Charlotte Epstein. 2008. The Power of Words. MIT Press.
Part Three: The Margins
Week Twelve: Theorizing from the Margins
Required:
Birgit Locher and Elisabeth Prügl, “Feminism and Constructivism: Worlds Apart or Sharing the Middle
Ground?,” International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1 (2001): 111–129
J. Ann Tickner, Gendering World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001)
Sanjay Seth, “Postcolonial Theory and the Critique of International Relations,” Millennium - Journal of
International Studies 40, no. 1 (2011): 167–183
Paul Wapner, “The Sovereignty of Nature? Environmental Protection in a Postmodern Age,”
International Studies Quarterly 46, no. 2 (2002): 167–187.
Week Thirteen: Regulating the Margins (1) Inside or outside?
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (University of Chicago
Press, 1985), chap. 1–2
Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell (University of Chicago Press, 2005), chap. 1.
J. Huysmans, “The Jargon of Exception—On Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political Society1,”
International Political Sociology 2, no. 2 (2008): 165–183
Andrew W. Neal, “Foucault in Guantánamo: Towards an Archaeology of the Exception,” Security
Dialogue 37, no. 1 (2006): 31–46
Mark B. Salter, “When the Exception Becomes the Rule: Borders, Sovereignty, and Citizenship,”
Citizenship Studies 12, no. 4 (2008): 365–380
Alexander Wendt and Raymond Duvall, “Sovereignty and the UFO,” Political Theory 36, no. 4 (2008):
607–633.
Week Fourteen: Regulating the Margins (2) Terrorism
Carl Schmitt, Theory of the Partisan: Intermediate Commentary on the Concept of the Political (New
York: Telos Press Publishing, 2007);
David Chandler, “War Without End(s): Grounding the Discourse of `Global War’,” Security Dialogue 40,
no. 3 (2009): 243–262;
Wouter G. Werner, “The Changing Face of Enmity: Carl Schmitt’s International Theory and the
Evolution of the Legal Concept of War,” International Theory 2, no. 3 (2010): 351–380;
Yves Winter, “The Asymmetric War Discourse and Its Moral Economies: a Critique,” International
Theory 3, no. 3 (2011): 488–514;
Benno Gerhard Teschke, “Fatal Attraction: a Critique of Carl Schmitt’s International Political and Legal
Theory,” International Theory 3, no. 2 (2011): 179–227.