Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:18:27.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theorizing Agency in Hobbes's Wake: The Rational Actor, the Self, or the Speaking Subject?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2013

Charlotte Epstein
Charlotte Epstein*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The rationalist-constructivist divide that runs through the discipline of International Relations (IR) revolves around two figures of agency, the rational actor and the constructivist “self.” In this article I examine the models of agency that implicitly or explicitly underpin the study of international politics. I show how both notions of the rational actor and the constructivist self have remained wedded to individualist understandings of agency that were first incarnated in the discipline's self-understandings by Hobbes's natural individual. Despite its turn to social theory, this persistent individualism has hampered constructivism's ability to appraise the ways in which the actors and structures of international politics mutually constitute one another “all the way down.” My purpose is to lay the foundations for a nonindividualist, adequately relational, social theory of international politics. To this end I propose a third model of agency, Lacan's split speaking subject. Through a Lacanian reading of the Leviathan, I show how the speaking subject has in fact laid buried away in the discipline's Hobbesian legacy all along.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 67 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 287 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2013

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

Abbot, Andrew. 1995. Things of Boundaries. Social Research 62 (4):857–82.Google Scholar
Aron, Raymond. 1966. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Austin, John. 1962. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Terence. 1985. Hobbes's Linguistic Turn. Polity 17 (4):739–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Michael, and Duvall, Raymond. 2005. Power in International Politics. International Organization 59 (1):39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy. 1998. The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bially Mattern, Janice. 2005. Ordering International Politics: Identity, Crisis, and Representational Force. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blits, Jahn H. 1989. Hobbesian Fear. Political Theory 17 (3):417–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boucher, David. 1990. Inter-Community and International Relations in the Political Philosophy of Hobbes. Polity 23 (2):207–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brams, Steven J. 1985. Rational Politics: Decisions, Games, and Strategy. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Keith. 1980. Thomas Hobbes and the Title-Page of Leviathan. Philosophy 55 (213):410–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1981. Hobbes and the International Anarchy. Social Research 48 (4):717–38.Google Scholar
Bull, Hedley. 1995. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Buzan, Barry. 2004. From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, David. 1998. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Carr, Edward Hallet. 1946. The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. 7th ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claude, Inis L. 1962. Power and International Relations. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Dewey, John, and Bentley, Arthur F.. 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Doty, Roxanne Lynn. 2000. Desire All the Way Down. Review of International Studies 26 (1):137–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drulák, Petr. 2010. Polemics: Of Metaphors, Concepts and Reality—A Reply to Onuf. Perspectives: Review of International Affairs 18 (1):77–86.Google Scholar
Edkins, Jenny. 1999. Poststructuralism and International Relations: Bringing the Political Back in. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa. 1997. Manifesto for a Relational Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103 (2):281–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa, and Mische, Ann. 1998. What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology 103 (4):962–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Charlotte. 2008. The Power of Words in International Relations: Birth of an Anti-Whaling Discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Charlotte. 2011. Who Speaks? Discourse, the Subject and the Study of Identity in International Politics. European Journal of International Relations 17 (2):327–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Charlotte. 2012. Stop Telling Us How to Behave: Socialization or Infantilization? International Studies Perspectives 13 (2):135–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, Bruce. 1995. The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 2004. Sécurité, Territoire, Population: Cours au Collège de France 1977–78. Paris: Editions du Seuil/Gallimard.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1969. The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1977. The Social Contract as Ideology. Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (2):130–64.Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Glynos, Jason, and Stavrakakis, Yannis. 2008. Lacan and Political Subjectivity: Fantasy and Enjoyment in Psychoanalysis and Political Theory. Subjectivity 24:256–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, Xavier. 2009. From Process to Politics. International Political Sociology 3 (1):71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, Jean. 1986. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2006. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Heller, Mark A. 1980. The Use and Abuse of Hobbes: The State of Nature in International Relations. Polity 13 (1):21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. 1946 [1651]. Leviathan. Edited by Oakeshott, Michael. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Howarth, David. 2000. Discourse. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 1999. Relations Before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics. European Journal of International Relations 5 (3):291–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, Beate. 2000. The Cultural Construction of International Relations: The Invention of the State of Nature. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juignet, Patrick. 2003. Lacan, le Symbolique et le Signifiant. Cliniques Méditerranéennes 68:131–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juranville, Alain. 1984. Lacan et La Philosophie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Morton A. 1956. How Sovereign Is Hobbes's Sovereign? Political Research Quarterly 9 (2):389–405.Google Scholar
Kavka, Gregory S. 1983. Hobbes's War of All Against All. Ethics 93 (2):291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1988. International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly 32 (4):379–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 1975 [1973]. Le Séminaire Livre XX: Encore. Edited by Miller, Jacques-Alain. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 1981 [1956]. Le Séminaire Livre III: Les Psychoses. Edited by Miller, Jacques-Alain. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 1988 [1954]. The Seminar Book I: Freud's Papers on Technique. Edited by Miller, Jacques-Alain. Translated by Forrester, John. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 1994 [1957]. Le Séminaire Livre IV: La Relation d'Objet et les Structures Freudiennes. Edited by Miller, Jacques-Alain. Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 2006 [1977]. Ecrits: A Selection. Translated by Sheridan, Alan. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto. 1996. Emancipation(s). London: Verso.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Malcolm, Noel. 2002. Hobbes's Theory of International Relations. In Aspects of Hobbes, 432–56. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, Iain. 1981. The Social Contract in Leviathan and the Prisoner's Dilemma Supergame. Political Studies 29 (3):339–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milliken, Jennifer. 1999. The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods. European Journal of International Relations 5 (2):225–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1960 [1948]. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 3rd ed. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Neal, Patrick. 1988. Hobbes and Rational Choice Theory. Western Political Quarterly 41 (4):635–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas Greenwood. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 2007 [1932]. The Concept of the Political. Translated by Schwab, George. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Carl. 2008 [1938]. The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes: Meaning and Failure of a Political Symbol. Translated by Schwab, George and Hilfstein, Erna. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Michael Joseph. 1986. Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Souriau, Étienne. 1990. Vocabulaire d'Esthétique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Springborg, Patricia. 1995. Hobbes's Biblical Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth. Political Theory 23 (2):353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavrakakis, Yannis. 1999. Lacan and the Political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stillman, Robert E. 1995. Hobbes's Leviathan: Monsters, Metaphors and Magic. English Literary History 62 (4):791–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suganami, Hidemi. 1989. The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1989. Hobbes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, John R. 1981. The Hobbesian Tradition in Twentieth-Century International Thought. Millennium—Journal of International Studies 10 (2):91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, R.B.J. 1993. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Watkins, John W. N. 1989 [1965]. Hobbes's System of Ideas. 2nd ed. London: Gower.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46 (2):391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2004. The State as Person in International Theory. Review of International Studies 30 (2):289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, Martin. 1992. International Theory: The Three Traditions, edited by Wight, Gabriele and Porter, Brian. New York: Holmes and Meier.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael C. 1996. Hobbes and International Relations: A Reconsideration. International Organization 50 (2):213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Michael C. 2005. The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfers, Arnold. 1962. Discord and Collaboration: Essays on International Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehfuss, Maja. 2001. Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison. European Journal of International Relations 7 (3):315–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Žižek, Slavoj. 2003. Jacques Lacan: Society, Politics, Ideology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar