print

Theory of world politics:
assessing the potential for transfer

Lebedeva M.M.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, mmlebedeva@gmail.com

elibrary_id: 250953 | ORCID: 0000-0003-4162-0807 | RESEARCHER_ID: C-2309-2013

Gavrilenko N.V.,

MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, gavrilenko.n.v@my.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 1209171 | ORCID: 0009-0006-1187-0134 |

Zakharov D.S.,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federaion, Moscow, Russia, zaharov_d_s@my.mgimo.ru

Kucherov M.A.,

Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia, kucherov_m_a@my.mgimo.ru

Article received: 2023.08.27. Accepted: 2023.12.20


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.02.04
EDN: PPKLMV

Rubric: Theme of the issue: Political science faced by the challenges of interdisciplinary diffusion and social practice

For citation:

Lebedeva M.M., Gavrilenko N.V., Zakharov D.S., Kucherov M.A. Theory of world politics: assessing the potential for transfer. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 2. P. 38-49. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.02.04. EDN: PPKLMV

The reported study was funded by Russian Science Foundation grant № 23-18-01045. The authors express their gratitude to Т.А. Alekseeva and M.V. Kharkevich for the suggestion to consider the possibility of exporting theoretical concepts from international studies to other subject areas, as well as to D.M. Kurbatov and P.A. Chipizubova for their valuable suggestions and comments.

Abstract

In international studies, there are many borrowings from other disciplines at the level of metaphors, concepts, etc. In this regard, the question is raised about a possible reverse transfer, i.e. from the sphere of world politics to other scientific spheres, including not only socio-humanitarian, but also the natural sciences. The article analyzes a successful example of such a transfer given by R. Axelrod in the early 2000s, as well as subsequent attempts to theoretically validate the conditions for export from the field of international studies to other areas. Two approaches have been identified. Within the framework of the first approach, it is proposed to create an interdisciplinary theory, since international relations are able to integrate various humanitarian and social disciplines. The second approach allows for a “pluralistic” and “blurred” subject field of the theory of international relations, in which various theoretical and methodological lines can coexist and enter into discussion with each other (societal multiplicity), rather than remain isolated. It provides opportunities for its “export” to other scientific fields. A critical analysis of these approaches allows us to conclude that in both the first and second cases, the political focus of international research is lost. The article substantiates the subject area of world politics as the exertion of political influence in the international arena by state and non-state actors. Based on this, the authors of the article put forward a third direction. The essence of it is that the search for the possibility of exporting from international research to other scientific fields does not lie in the creation of an interdisciplinary theory, and not in the formation of a “blurred” subject field that ensures “societal multiplicity”, but in the similarity of the situations under consideration. The authors show that the degree of similarity of situations depends on a number of factors, including the behavior of actors/objects being in conditions that are relatively the same. Examples are given by comparing situations and theoretical concepts of international relations and world politics with situations and concepts in other scientific fields - meteorology, medicine, ethology. At the same time, the place of the “political” in other spheres is occupied by the dominant object/factor.

Keywords

international studies multidisciplinarity, theory of international relations, societal multiplicity, world politics fragmentation, international studies transferring potential, political science, IR studies.

Akcay, E., Roughgarden, J., Fearon, J.D., Ferejohn, J.A., & Weingast, B.R. (2013). Biological institutions: the political science of animal cooperation. SSRN Electronic Journal, 113-134. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2370952

Albert, M., & Buzan, B. (2017). On the subject matter of International Relations. Review of International Studies, 5(43), 898-917. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210517000262

Aurelli, F., & De Waal, F. (Ed.). (2000). Natural conflict resolution. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.

Axelrod, R. (2008). Political science and beyond: presidential address to the American political science association. Perspectives on Politics, 6(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1017/S153759270808002X.

Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: towards a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives, 27(1), 63-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105

Boisot, M. (1972). Discipline and Interdisciplinarity. In Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 89-97). Paris: OECD.

Boulding, K.E. (1956). General systems theory: the skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197.

Bunge, M. (1973). Method, model and matter. Boston: Reidel.

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, 19-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298010300010401

Buzan, B., Waver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: a new framework for analysis. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Corry, O. (2022). What's the point of being a discipline? Four disciplinary strategies and the future of international relations. Cooperation and Conflict, 57(3), 290-310. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098492

Dunn Cavelty, M., & Balzacq, T. (2017). Routledge handbook of security studies. Routledge.

Fry, D.P. (2013a). Evolution and peace: a Janus connection. In War, Peace and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views (pp. 25-38) . London, New York: Oxford University Press.

Fry, D.P. (2013b). Cooperation for survival: creating a global peace system. In War, Peace and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views (pp. 543-556). London, New York: Oxford University Press.

Gernsheimer, O., Kanbach, D.K., & Gast, J. (2020). Coopetition research - a systematic literature review on recent accomplishments and trajectories. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 2-18. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.05.015

Heckhausen, H. (1972). Discipline and interdisciplinarity. In Interdisciplinarity: Problems of Teaching and Research in Universities (pp. 83-89) . Paris: OECD.

Held, D. (1989). Political theory and the modern state. Essays on state, power, and democracy. Stanford: University Press.

Klein, J.T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities and interdisciplinarities. London: University Press of Virginia.

Klein, J.T. (2000). A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science. In P. Weingart & N. Stehr (Ed.), Practising Interdisciplinarity (pp. 3-24). London: University of Toronto Press.

Lascaux, A. (2021). Coopetition and trust: what we know, where to go next. Industrial Marketing Management, 96, 113-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.05.001

Pouliot, V. (2008). The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities. International Organization, 62(2), 257-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818308080090

Rosenau, J. (1990). Turbulence in world politics. A theory of change and continuity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rosen, S.P. (2007). War and human nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rosenberg, J. (2016). International relations in the prison of political science. International Relations, 30(2), 127-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662

Rosenberg, J., & Tallis, B. (2022). Introduction: The international of Everything. Cooperation and Conflict, 57(3), 250-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/00108367221098490

Thayer, B.A. (2004). Darwin and international relations: on the evolutionary origins of war and ethnic conflict. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Wendt, A. (2015). Quantum mind and social science: unifying physical and social ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2346.12348

Zwick, M. (2001). Understanding imperfection. In G. Ragsdell & J. Wilby (Ed.), Understanding Complexity (pp. 83-90). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Alekseeva, T.A., Mineev, A.P., Loshkarev, I.D., & Anan’ev, B.I. (2018). “Kvantovyi podkhod” k mezh- dunarodnym otnosheniiam [“Quantum approach” to international relations: scientific publication]. Moscow: Znanie-sila. (In Russ.)

Auzan, A.A. (2014). Economica vsego. Kak institute opredelyayut nashu zhizn [Economics of everything. How institutions define our life]. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber. (In Russ.)

Degtyarev, D.A., & Istomin, I.A. (2015). Systemic modelling of international relations. World Economy and International Relations, 11, 17-30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2015-59-11-17-30

Lebedeva, M.M. (2016). System of political organization of the world: ‘Perfect storm’. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2(47), 125-133. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2016-2-47-134-144

Parkhomenko, V. P. (2020). Problems of forecasting and climate change. Energeticheskaya politika [Energy policy], 10(152), 40-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46920/2409-5516_2020_10152_40 

See also: