Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:06:27.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stepping out of the social world: A lonely call for more philosophy in the practice turn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2020

AMY SKONIECZNY Open the ORCID record for AMY SKONIECZNY [Opens in a new window]
AMY SKONIECZNY*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Avenue, Humanities Building 452, San Francisco, CA94132
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Practice Theory and International Relations will challenge all you’ve come to know about the practice turn in international relations. It will ask you to question how you define practices and call for more precision. It will challenge your starting point of ground-up actions in everyday life and look at practices from above. It will push you to rethink your empirical methodology and call out sociological approaches as misconceived. And yes, it will ask you to reread Hegel and bring philosophy back in to your practice theorising. In short, it will make a lonely, and for many, unwanted call for a U-turn in the field. In this review, I’ll take up this call for a U-turn back to philosophical foundations, and ask what is gained and what is lost in rethinking practice theory from a philosophical perspective.

Keywords

practice turnWittgensteinOnufrules and rule-makingnorms and institutions
Type
Articles
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2020 , pp. 212 - 219
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020 

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

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, Gavan and Frederking, Brian. 2009. “Changing the Rules: A Speech Act Analysis of the End of the Cold War.” International Studies Quarterly 53(2):325–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fierke, K. M. 1998. Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Fierke, K. M. 2002. “Links across the Abyss: Language and Logic in International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 46(3):331–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Peter. 2002. Constructing Security: The Power of Language in U.S. Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: American University.Google Scholar
Kustermans, Jorg. 2016. “Parsing the Practice Turn: Practice, Practical Knowledge, Practices.” Millennium 44(2):175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas G. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Skonieczny, Amy. (2015) “Playing Partners: Expectation, Entanglement, and Language Games in US Foreign Policy.” International Relations 29(1):69–95. Available at: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0047117814552300>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar