No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On the ethical significance of social practices
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 March 2020
Abstract:
In Practice Theory and International Relations, Silviya Lechner and Mervyn Frost make a useful distinction between ‘praxis’ and ‘practices’ and correctly insist on the importance of describing the identity of distinct practices. They also make the important point that practices have ethical value for their participants. There is much to like about Lechner and Frost’s argument, including its solid philosophical grounding. However, from the perspective of a social scientist, there are some points of concern as well. First, while they champion ‘description’, they settle for ‘naming’ practices. Proper description requires more attention to detail than what the authors offer in the book. Second, the authors appear to discriminate between social practices in spatial terms rather than in functional terms. As a consequence, they end up with a description of the practices of international relations, where the different practices are all animated by the same value of freedom. As such, Lechner and Frost offer a reductionist interpretation of the ethical significance of international practices. Third, the authors push their anti-foundationalism too far. When one interprets the (ethical) significance of social practices, it is useful to bring on board philosophical–anthropological models, even if only because it opens up one’s interpretive horizons.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Authors 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press.
References
Carroll, John. 1980. “Naming and Describing in Social Communication.” Language and Speech 23(4):309–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Campbell. 2019. “Solving the Nuclear Dilemma: Is a World State Necessary?” Journal of International Political Theory 15(3):349–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Der Derian, James. 1987. On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Western Estrangement. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart. 2011. “Introduction and Prefaces to the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe.” Contributions to the History of Concepts 6(1):1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koselleck, Reinhart. 2018. Sediments of Time: On Possible Histories. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kustermans, Jorg. 2016. “Parsing the Practice Turn: Practice, Practical Knowledge, Practices.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44(2):175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kustermans, Jorg. 2019. “Elements of a Sociology of Historical Practices.” (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Leira, Halvard. 2019. “The Emergence of Foreign Policy.” International Studies Quarterly 63(1):187–98.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Geoffrey. 2015. Analogical Investigations: Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhouser, Frederick. 2009. “Hegel’s Social Philosophy.” In The Cambridge Companion to Hegel and Nineteenth-Century Philosophy, edited by Beiser, Frederick, 204–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 2013. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ringmar, Erik. 2016. “How the World Stage Makes Its Subjects: An Embodied Critique of Constructivist IR Theory.” Journal of International Relations and Development 19(1):101–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silber, Ilana. 1995. “Space, Fields, Boundaries: The Rise of Spatial Metaphors in Contemporary Sociological Theory.” Social Research 62(2):323–55.Google Scholar
Weiner, Annette. 1985. “Inalienable Wealth.” American Ethnologist 12(2):210–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2003. “Why a World State Is Inevitable.” European Journal of International Relations 9(4):491–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winch, Peter. 1964. “Understanding a Primitive Society.” American Philosophical Quarterly 1(4):307–24.Google Scholar