Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:21:35.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History, theory, and contingency in the study of modern international relations: the global transformation revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2016

Alexander Anievas
Alexander Anievas*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut, Department of Political Science, Storrs, CT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Debates engaging the problems of ahistoricism and Eurocentrism in International Relations (IR) theory have taken on new dimensions in recent years. Scholars from a variety of different theoretical traditions have aimed to reconstruct IR theory on stronger historical–sociological grounds, while re-orienting the study of IR away from the fetish of ‘Western’ thought and agency. Buzan and Lawson’s The Global Transformation offers a welcome contribution to these endeavours to furnish a non-Eurocentric historical sociology of international relations. This article seeks to push their project further by re-assessing the relationship between history, theory, and contingency. In particular, it interrogates whether Buzan and Lawson’s ‘configurational’ approach to the ‘global transformation’, emphasizing the contingent concatenation of historical events and social processes, results in a displacement of theory through an over-emphasis on the interaction of free-floating contingently related causes, causes that are external to any theoretical schema. This approach obscures the deeper, structural forces in the making of global modernity, most notably those that escape Buzan and Lawson’s singular focus on the ‘long 19th century’.

Type
Symposium: Theory, History, and the Global Transformation
Information
International Theory , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 468 - 480
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allinson, Jamie. 2015. “When Ernest Met Leon.” The Disorder of Things. https://thedisorderofthings.com/tag/jamie-allinson/?iframe=true&preview=true/feed/ Google Scholar
Anderson, Perry. 1974. Lineages of the Absolutist State. London: New Left.Google Scholar
Anievas, Alexander, and Nişancioğlu, Kerem. 2015. How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
Brandon, Pepijn. 2015. Masters of War: State, Capital, and Military Enterprise in the Dutch Cycle of Accumulation (1600-1795). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Brewer, John. 1989. The Sinews of Power: War, Money, and the English State, 1688-1783 . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2015a. The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2015b. “The Global Transformation: A Response.” The Disorder of Things. https://thedisorderofthings.com/2015/02/13/the-global-transformation-a-response/ Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Lawson, George. 2016. “Theory, History, and the Global Transformation.” International Theory 8(3):502–522.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Little, Richard. 2000. International Systems in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Luke. 2013. “Can Contingency Be ‘Internalized’ Into the Bounds of Theory? Critical Realism, the Philosophy of Internal Relations and the Solution of ‘Uneven and Combined Development.’” Cambridge Review of International Affairs 26(3):573–597.Google Scholar
Gilpin, Robert. 1981. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Go, Julian. 2015. “Closet Postcolonialists? On Buzan and Lawson’s Global Transformation.” The Disorder of Things. https://thedisorderofthings.com/2015/02/10/closet-postcolonialists/ Google Scholar
Hobson, John M. 2004. The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Inayatullah, Naeem, and Blaney, David. 2004. International Relations and the Problem of Difference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kagarlitsky, Boris. 2014. From Empires to Imperialism: The State and the Rise of Bourgeois Civilisation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lawson, George. 2004. Negotiated Revolutions: The Czech Republic, South Africa and Chile. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Lawson, George. 2012. “The Eternal Divide: History and International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 18(2):203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linebaugh, Peter, and Rediker, Marcus. 2000. The Many-Headed Hydra: The Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Mann, Michael. 1986. The Sources of Social Power: Volume I, A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Michael. 1993. The Sources of Social Power: Volume II, The Rise of Classes and Nation States 1760-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matin, Kamran. 2013. Recasting Iranian Modernity: International Relations and Social Change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Paul, and Nexon, Daniel. 2016. “The Global Transformation: More than Meets the Eye.” International Theory 8(3):436–447.Google Scholar
Nexon, Daniel H. 2009. The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Andrew. 2016. “The Global Transformation, Multiple Early Modernities and International Systems Change.” International Theory 8(3):481–491.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2016. “Theory, History, and Great Transformations.” International Theory 8(3):422–435.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Justin. 1994. The Empire of Civil Society: A Critique of the Realist Theory of International Relations. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Justin. 2006. “Why is There No International Historical Sociology?” European Journal of International Relations 12(3):307–340.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Justin. 2013. “The ‘Philosophical Premises’ of Uneven and Combined Development.” Review of International Studies 39(3):569–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1993. “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations.” International Organization 47(1):139–174.Google Scholar
Shilliam, Robbie. ed. 2010. International Relations and Non-Western Thought: Imperialism, Colonialism and Investigations of Global Modernity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spruyt, Hendrik. 1994. The Sovereign State and its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Teschke, Benno. 2003. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics, and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso.Google Scholar
t’hart, Marjolein. 1993. The Making of a Bourgeois State: War, Politics and Finance During the Dutch Revolt. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Debra. 2015. “Through, Against, and Beyond the Racial State.” In Race and Racism in International Relations: Confronting the Global Colour Line, edited by Alexander Anievas, Nivi Manchanda, and Robbie Shilliam, 44–61. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wade, Maurice L. 2000. “From Eighteenth- to Nineteenth-Century Racial Science: Continuity and Change.” In Race and Racism in Theory and Practice, edited by Berel Lang, 27–44. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlfield.Google Scholar
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974–2011. The Modern World-System, 4 Volumes. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Ellen Meiksins. 2002. The Origin of Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar