Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-xdj6x Total loading time: 0.577 Render date: 2021-09-27T22:33:16.926Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

‘Turning’ everywhere in IR: on the sociological underpinnings of the field's proliferating turns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2020

Stephane J. Baele*
Affiliation:
Centre for Advanced International Studies (CAIS), University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4RJ, UK
Gregorio Bettiza
Affiliation:
Centre for Advanced International Studies (CAIS), University of Exeter, Exeter, Devon EX4 4RJ, UK
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: S.Baele@exeter.ac.uk

Abstract

In the past two decades, calls for International Relations (IR) to ‘turn’ have multiplied. Having reflected on Philosophy's own linguistic turn in the 1980s and 1990s, IR appears today in the midst of taking – almost simultaneously – a range of different turns, from the aesthetic to the affective, from the historical to the practice, from the new material to the queer. This paper seeks to make sense of this puzzling development. Building on Bourdieu's sociology of science, we argue that although the turns ostensibly bring about (or resuscitate) ambitious philosophical, ontological, and epistemological questions to challenge what is deemed to constitute the ‘mainstream’ of IR, their impact is more likely to be felt at the ‘margins’ of the discipline. From this perspective, claiming a turn constitutes a position-enhancing move for scholars seeking to accumulate social capital, understood as scientific authority, and become ‘established heretics’ within the intellectual subfield of critical IR. We therefore expect the proliferation of turns to reshape more substantively what it means to do critical IR, rather than turning the whole discipline on its head.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Adler, Emanuel. 2019. World Ordering: A Social Theory of Cognitive Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler, Emanuel, and Pouliot, Vincent. 2011. “International Practices.” International Theory 3 (1): 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Mathias. 2016. A Theory of World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, Mathias, Kessler, Oliver, and Stetter, Stephan. 2008. “On Order and Conflict: International Relations and the ‘Communicative Turn’.” Review of International Studies 34(S1): 4367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, Richard K., and Walker, Rob B. J.. 1990. “Introduction: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 259–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baele, Stephane J., Sterck, Olivier C., and Meur, Elisabeth. 2016. “Theorizing and Measuring Emotions in Conflict: The Case of the 2011 Palestinian Statehood Bid.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 60 (4): 718–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, David. 1995. “Security Studies and the End of the Cold War.” World Politics 48 (1): 117–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzacq, Thierry, and Baele, Stephane. 2014. “The Third Debate and Postpositivism.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies, DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.104.Google Scholar
Battistella, Dario. 2013. “La France.” In Traité des Relations Internationales, edited by Thierry, Balzacq and Frédéric, Ramel. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, pp. 157–180.Google Scholar
Bell, Duncan S. A. 2001. “International Relations: The Dawn of a Historiographical Turn?The British Journal of Politics & International Relations 3 (1): 115–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, Andrew. 2013. “The Mother of All Isms: Causal Mechanisms and Structured Pluralism in International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 459–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berenskötter, Felix. 2018. “Deep Theorizing in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 24 (4): 814–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigo, Didier. 2011. “Pierre Bourdieu and International Relations: Power of Practices, Practices of Power.” International Political Sociology 5 (3): 225–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birtchnell, Thomas. 2017. “Book Review: Making Things International I: Circuits and Motion”, Progress in Human Geography 41 (5): 696–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleiker, Roland. 2001. “The Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30 (3): 509–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleiker, Roland. 2009. Aesthetics and World Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleiker, Roland. 2017. “In Search of Thinking Space: Reflections on the Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45 (2): 258–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleiker, Roland, and Hutchison, Emma. 2008. “Fear No More: Emotions and World Politics.” Review of International Studies 34 (S1): 115–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason.” Social Science Information 14 (6): 1947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990a. The Logic of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990b. “Animadversiones in Mertonem.” In Robert K. Merton: Consensus and Controversy, edited by Clark, Jon, Modgil, Celia, and Mogdil, Sohan. London: Falmer, pp. 297–301.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. “The Peculiar History of Scientific Reason”, Sociological Forum 6 (1): 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. Sociology in question. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1994. Practical Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Bueger, Christian, and Gadinger, Frank. 2014. International Practice Theory: New Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bueger, Christian, and Gadinger, Frank. 2015. “The Play of International Practice.” International Studies Quarterly 59 (3): 449–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camic, Charles. 2011. “Bourdieu's Cleft Sociology of Science.” Minerva 49: 275–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, David. 2004. “Horrific Blindness: Images of Death in Contemporary Media.” Journal for Cultural Research 8 (1): 5574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, David. 2007. “Geopolitics and Visuality: Sighting the Darfur Conflict.” Political Geography 26 (4): 357–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cetina, Karin Knorr, Schatzki, Theodore R., and Von Savigny, Eike. 2005. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkel, Jeffrey. 1998. “The Constructive Turn in International Relations Theory.” World Politics 50 (2): 324348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Benjamin J. 2010. “Are IPE Journals Becoming Boring?International Studies Quarterly 54 (3): 887–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colgan, Jeff D. 2016. “Where is International Relations Going? Evidence from Graduate Training.” International Studies Quarterly 60 (3): 486–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 2013. “The ‘New Materialism’ and the Fragility of Things.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41 (3): 399412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coole, Diana, and Frost, Samantha, eds. 2010. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, Neta C. 2000. “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships.” International Security 24 (4): 116–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Neta C. 2014. “Institutionalizing Passion in World Politics: Fear and Empathy.” International Theory 6 (3): 535–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, Simon, and Koivisto, Marjo. 2010. “Towards a Second ‘Second Debate’? Rethinking the Relationship between Science and History in International Theory.” International Relations 24 (4): 433–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles, and Guattari, Felix. 2004. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene, and Wight, Colin. 2013. “The End of International Relations Theory?European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 405–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Journal of International Relations. 2013. “Special Issue: The End of International Relations Theory?European Journal of International Relations 19 (3).Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.” American Political Science Review 97 (1): 7590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Jim, and Campbell, David. 1990. “Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 269–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, Jairus. 2016. “An Insurgency of Things: Foray into the World of Improvised Explosive Devices.” International Political Sociology 10 (4): 332–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Todd H. 2015. Emotional Diplomacy: Official Emotion on the International Stage. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Halperin, Eran. 2015. Emotions in Conflict: Inhibitors and Facilitators of Peace Making. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamati-Ataya, Inanna. 2011. “Contemporary ‘Dissidence’ in American IR: The New Structure of Anti-Mainstream Scholarship?International Studies Perspectives 12 (4): 362–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamati-Ataya, Inanna. 2012. “IR Theory as International Practice/Agency: A Clinical-Cynical Bourdieusian Perspective.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 (3): 625–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2011. “Theorizing the Image for Security Studies: Visual Securitization and the Muhammad Cartoon Crisis.” European Journal of International Relations 17 (1): 5174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Lene. 2015. “How Images Make World Politics: International Icons and the Case of Abu Ghraib.” Review of International Studies 41 (2): 263–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106 (3): 4160.Google Scholar
Hoggett, Paul, and Thompson, Simon. 2012. Politics and the Emotions: The Affective Turn in Contemporary Political Studies. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hom, Andrew. 2018. “Silent Order: The Temporal Turn in Critical International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 46 (3): 303–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, Kimberley. 2008. Time and World Politics: Thinking the Present. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, Emma, and Bleiker, Roland. 2014. “Theorizing Emotions in World Politics.” International Theory 6 (3): 491514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Political Sociology. 2013. “Forum: ‘Actor-Network Theory’ and International Relationality.” International Political Sociology 7 (3).Google Scholar
International Studies Quarterly. 2015. “Symposium: The Practice Turn in International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly. http://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/4955/The-Practice-Turn-in-International-Relations.Google Scholar
International Studies Quarterly. 2016. “Symposium: Queer IR.” International Studies Quarterly. https://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/5259/categoryId/102/Queer-IR.Google Scholar
International Studies Review. 2014. “Forum on Queer International Relations.” International Studies Review 16 (4).Google Scholar
International Theory. 2014. “Forum: Emotions and World Politics.” International Theory 6 (3).Google Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and its Implications for the Study of World Politics. New York, NY: Routledge.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): 291332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahn, Beate. 2017. “Theorizing the Political Relevance of International Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 61 (1): 6477.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Darryl S. L. 2000. International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Jonathan, and Kurki, Milja. 2018. “The Limits of Practice: Why Realism can Complement IR's Practice Turn.” International Theory 10 (1): 7197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Erika. 2015. “Visuality, Photography, and Media in International Relations Theory: A Review.” Media, War & Conflict 8 (2): 199212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2018. Praxis: On Acting and Knowing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, Peter Marcus. 2018. “International Relations at the End: A Sociological Autopsy.” International Studies Quarterly 62 (2): 245–59.Google Scholar
Kubalkova, Vedulka. 2013. “The ‘Turn to Religion’ in International Relations Theory.” E-IR. http://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/03/the-turn-to-religion-in-international-relations-theory/.Google Scholar
Kurki, Milja. 2011. “The Limitations of the Critical Edge: Reflections on Critical and Philosophical IR Scholarship Today.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40 (1): 129–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kustermans, Jorg. 2016. “Parsing the Practice Turn: Practice, Practical Knowledge, Practices.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (2): 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2011. “Why ‘Isms’ are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2): 465–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lake, David A. 2013. “Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 567–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapid, Yosef. 1989. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Creation of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lawson, George. 2012. “The Eternal Divide? History and International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 18 (2): 203–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucarelli, Sonia, and Menotti, Roberto. 2002. “Le Relazioni Internazionali Nella Terra del ‘Principe’”, Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica, 32 (I): 3182.Google Scholar
Lundborg, Tom, and Vaughan-Williams, Nick. 2015. “New Materialisms, Discourse Analysis, and International Relations: A Radical Intertextual Approach.” Review of International Studies 41 (1): 325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Ginty, Roger, and Richmond, Oliver P.. 2013. “The Local Turn in Peace Building: A Critical Agenda for Peace.” Third World Quarterly 34 (5): 763–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, David M. 2012. “What's at Stake in the Historical Turn? Theory, Practice and Phronēsis in International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41 (1): 2342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, David M. 2016. “Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism.” International Studies Quarterly 60 (3): 475–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose, and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2014. “The Study of International Politics in the Neurobiological Revolution: A Review of Leadership and Political Violence.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43 (1): 92123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mearsheimer, John J., and Walt, Stephen M.. 2013. “Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is bad for International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 427–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, Jonathan. 2005. “Rationality and Psychology in International Politics.” International Organization 59 (1): 77106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, Jonathan. 2006. “Human Nature and the First Image: Emotion in International Politics.” Journal of International Relations and Development 9 (3): 288303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millennium. 2008. “Forum: History in International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 37 (2).Google Scholar
Millennium. 2013. “Special Issue: Materialism and World Politics.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41 (3).Google Scholar
Millennium. 2017. “Forum: The Aesthetic Turn at 15.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 45 (2).Google Scholar
Moore, Cerwyn, and Shepherd, Laura J.. 2010. “Aesthetics and International Relations: Towards a Global Politics.” Global Society 24 (3): 299309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, Iver B. 2002. “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31 (3): 627–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2008. “The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities.” International Organization 62 (2): 257–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puchala, Donald. 2003. Theory and History in International Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2013. “Beyond Metatheory?European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 589608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter-Montpetit, Melanie. 2018. “Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sex (in IR) But were Afraid to Ask: The ‘Queer Turn’ in International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 46 (2): 220–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter-Montpetit, Melanie, and Weber, Cynthia. 2017. “Queer International Relations.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Geoffrey. 2006. “History, Theory and the Narrative Turn in IR.” Review of International Studies 32 (4): 703–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rorty, Richard M. 1992 [1967]. The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ross, Andrew. 2006. “Coming in from the Cold: Constructivism and Emotions.” European Journal of International Relations 12 (2): 197222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, Mark B. 2015. Making Things International 1: Circuits and Motion. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Salter, Mark B., ed. 2016. Making Things International 2: Catalysts and Reactions. Minneapolis; London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Schouten, Peer. 2014. “Security as Controversy: Reassembling Security at Amsterdam Airport.” Security Dialogue 45 (1): 2342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2010. “Analytic Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms Across Research Traditions.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (2): 411–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sil, Rudra, and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2011. “De-centering, not Discarding, the ‘Isms’: Some Friendly Amendments.” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2): 481–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srnicek, Nick, Fotou, Maria, and Arghand, Edmund. 2013. “Introduction: Materialism and World Politics.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41 (3): 397397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 2007. “Whither the International at the End of IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35 (3): 551–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sylvester, Christine. 2013. “Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations/Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 19 (3): 609–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teschke, Benno. 2003. The Myth of 1648. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Thomas, Scott M. 2016. “The Religious Turn Reconsidered.” Critical Studies on Security 4 (3): 319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasileva, Bistra. 2015. “Stuck with/in a ‘Turn’: Can We Metaphorize Better in Science and Technology Studies?Social Studies of Science 45 (3): 454–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaughan-Williams, Nick. 2005. “International Relations and the Problem of History.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 34 (1): 115–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wæver, Ole. 1996. “The Rise and Fall of the Inter-Paradigm Debate.” In International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, edited by Steve, Smith, Booth, Ken and Zalewski, Marysia, 149–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wæver, Ole. 1998. “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.” International Organization 52 (4): 687727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wæver, Ole. 2016. “Still a Discipline After All These Debates?” In International Relations Theories, edited by Tim, Dunne, Kurki, Milja and Smith, Steve, 300–21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen. 1991. “The Renaissance of Security Studies.” International Studies Quarterly 35 (2): 211–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, William. 2014. “Drone Strikes, Dingpolitik and Beyond: Furthering the Debate on Materiality and Security.” Security Dialogue 45 (2): 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. 2014. “From Queer to Queer IR.” International Studies Review 16 (4): 596601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. 2015. “Why is There No Queer International Theory?European Journal of International Relations 21 (1): 2751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. 2016. Queer International Relations: Sovereignty, Sexuality and the Will to Knowledge. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2015. Quantum Mind and Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Cai. 2017. “Introduction: Queer/ing In/Security.” Critical Studies on Security 5 (1): 106–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Michael C. 2003. “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 47 (4): 511–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

‘Turning’ everywhere in IR: on the sociological underpinnings of the field's proliferating turns
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

‘Turning’ everywhere in IR: on the sociological underpinnings of the field's proliferating turns
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

‘Turning’ everywhere in IR: on the sociological underpinnings of the field's proliferating turns
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *