Toward historical sociology of diplomacy

As should be evident from the above discussion, diplomacy is an institution of international societies, not of individual states. In fact, an important point of departure is to abandon the state-centric perspective that has dominated the study of diplomacy. Instead it can be conceived that diplomacy is an institution structuring relations among polities. A polity can be understood as a political authority, which “has a distinct identity; a capacity to mobilize persons and their resources for political purposes, that is, for value satisfaction; and a degree of institutionalization and hierarchy (leaders and constituents).” Polities, as loci of political authority, are constantly evolving.

In other words, the link between state sovereignty and diplomacy that characterizes contemporary international relations is not inevitable but historically contingent. Following James Rosenau, it is suggested that “what makes actors effective in world politics derives not from the sovereignty they posses or the legal privileges thereby accorded them, but rather lies in relational phenomena, in the authority they can command and the compliance they can thereby elicit.” In a transhistorical perspective, diplomacy may involve all sorts of polities, be they territorial or not, sovereign or not.

This goes hand in hand with the top-down, rather than bottom-up perspective, according to which political space is global and its differentiation a system-driven process. Furthermore, this differentiation is not seen to result in the creation of two distinct political spaces, as in realism. Rather, “global politics has always been a seamless web.” The most important implication of a top-down perspective, for the purposes of the study, is that the international system can be analyzed as a social system and not only as an imaginary state of nature. In other words, the international system can be conceptualized as being constituted by something other than the consequences of interacting self-constituted actors. Indeed, the international system becomes analytically and ontologically prior to the individual units populating it.

In pursuing such a perspective, one can draw on the burgeoning literature on the historical sociology of international relations (IR). Much IR-related historical sociology is either neo-Weberian or neo-Marxist, and, with a few notable exceptions, is focused on the great material processes of war, industrialization and capitalism. More often than not, the explanandum has been the development of the modern state and the economic systems attached to it. This, however, leaves a significant dimension of the global political landscape unacknowledged and unexplained. The neglect of international institutions, in particular, detracts from the central project of neo-Weberian historical sociology – that of understanding the sovereign state as an historically situated and variable political formation. While there are several historical sociologies of international relations, differing not only in focus and interest, but also in terms of epistemological and ontological foundations, there are certain similarities that outweigh these differences. The study will draw on four such similarities.

First, historical sociologists focusing on international relations criticize mainstream IR for being ahistorical and seek to problematize the present. Second, historical sociologists study “the ways in which, in time, actions become institutions and institutions are in turn changed by action.” Third, historical sociology treats the “attainment of stability” as, at least, equally puzzling as the “occurrence of change.” Here the core similarities among the various historical sociologies of international relations stand out in sharp relief: “beneath the hubbub of the modernism/postmodernism dispute, a deeper contest is looming: one between the partisans of modal invariance and the partisans of the flux.” Indeed, the shift from a substantialist to a relational ontology dramatically changes research focus: “It becomes necessary to explain reproduction, constancy, and entityness, rather than development and change.”

Despite their differences, varying historical sociologies are joined in their partisanship of flux. Of course, this does not mean that change is not interesting or in need of study. Whereas historical sociologists often study change, they do not view change as anomalous or stability as natural; it is the specificity of change that needs to be understood or explained, not the abstract phenomenon of change.

Finally, historical sociologists ask questions about the differentiation of international political space. On what basis are polities differentiated and individuated? While different answers are suggested, neither the state nor territoriality is taken for granted. Furthermore, adherents of the English school point out that it is necessary not only to investigate the borders, or differentiation, of polities but also those of international societies. In other words, there are always at least two processes of bordering, or bounding, going on: that among units, and that between these units as a whole and an outside.

These four commonalities of the different historical sociologies of international relations, bridge or sidestep the meta-theoretical debate between reflective post-positivism and the rationalistic mainstream. They also provide methodological advice to the study: avoid ahistoricism, pay attention to processes of institutionalization, look for explanations of stability in natural processes of change, and ask questions about the differentiation and reproduction of international society. Not only do these imperatives provide a basis for theorizing diplomacy but demonstrate that diplomacy is a field of study that underscores these lessons and insights from historical sociology.

?After-reading activities

1 Comprehension questions

1 What is polity?

2 What kind of link if any exists between sovereignty and diplomacy?

3 What is the difference between top-down and bottom-up perspectives in analysis of political space?

4 What is the main focus of IR-related historical sociology?

5 What are the similarities between historical sociologies of international relations?

6 What are the differences between historical sociologies of international relations?

7 What is “attainment of stability” in historical sociology of IR?

8 What is the difference between substantialist and relational ontology?

9 What questions do historical sociologies of international relations attempt to answer? Do they provide similar answers?

10 What methodological advice do historical sociologies of international relations provide?

Work with the dictionary and consult the text to do tasks 2 and 3

2 Translate  words and word combinations  from English into  Ukrainian and use them in your own sentences

          Point of departure; state-centric; to conceive; polity; political authority; to mobilize; institutionalization; to evolve; contingent; to accord; to elicit; transhistorical perspective; top-down; bottom-up; prior to; explanandum; political landscape; epistemological; ahistorical; attainment; hubbub; postmodernism; entityness; partisanship; flux; to individuate; to take  for granted; to bound; commonality; to sidestep; to underscore

3 Translate from Ukrainian into English

Влада; привілеї, перевага; надавати; виконання; розмежування; становити; онтологічно; міжнародні відносини; індустріалізація; капіталізм; аспект, вимір; нехтування; стійкість, стабільність; розмежування; прихильник, послідовник

4 Complete the sentences with words or phrases from the list

dimensions; constitute; compliance; adherents; capitalism; neglect;  stability; unacknowledged; burgeoning; differentiation; populated; political authority; international relations

1.     Napoleon personally fought 60 battles. They were his canvas and palette, and until the very end he believed that battle was the only real ________.

2.     In other words, social influence uses tactics that appeal to our human nature to secure _______, obedience, helping, and behavior and attitude change.

3.     In the 1960s, Lorand Szalay studied free word associations, and found interesting differences among cultures regarding conceptual associations that were thought to ___________ meaning.

4.     As such, while it occupies the relatively sparsely __________ facilitative end of the spectrum it also joins many other organizations in producing messages originating from Britain which are intended to be consumed overseas.

5.     The slums ______ around Morocco’s larger cities teemed with young, underemployed first generation educated youth.

6.     Fulbright’s philosophical support for the human dimension in foreign affairs included a lament that such a dimension was a “low priority add-on to the serious content of our ______  ________.”

7.     On the positive theme of American ideology and the virtues of ____________, the USIA publicized U.S. economic and technical assistance programs, scientific and technological advances, and the virtues of free trade unions.

8.     In government decision-making, ethical considerations are tightly intertwined with political and managerial ones and all three ________ are essential to successful governance.

9.     Such debates are likely to continue so long as the underlying assumptions of communication remain unexposed and the legitimacy and strategic value of both views are __________________.

10. At the same time, Japan was required to ____________ its state-controlled cultural policies and abandon its self-image as a military-state by expressing a fresh vision for its own national identity.

11. In other words, China’s public diplomacy, created and managed by the government, informs and is informed by a specific political agenda and a determination to project an image of strength, affluence, and political responsibility that surmounts the popular impression of China as a state which routinely violates human rights and threatens global ___________.

12. An early definition of propaganda nevertheless points to a useful indirect ____________ between public diplomacy and propaganda, describing the latter as ‘a process that deliberately attempts through persuasion techniques to secure from the propagandee, before he can deliberate freely, the responses desired by the propagandist’.

13. But the attractiveness of this model is being challenged by another: the ‘Beijing Consensus’, which appears to be more relevant to their needs, ‘attracting ______________ at almost the same speed the US model is repelling them.

5 Say if the following statements are true according to the text.

1 Diplomacy is an institution of individual states.

2 Diplomacy structures relations among political parties.

3 Polities are constantly changing, they are not stable.

4 Diplomacy may involve both sovereign or not sovereign polities.

5 International system can be analyzed only as an imaginary state of nature.

6 International system ontologically precede the individual units populating it.

7 IR-related historical literature can be either neo-Weberian or neo-Marxist.

8 Mainstream IR is often seen as  ahistorical.

9 There is difference between  substantialist and relational ontology.

10 Adherents of the English school focus on borders and differentiation of international societies.