This article considers the status of genealogy among research methods currently taught, learned and used in International Relations (IR). The article makes two claims. The first is that genealogy is a unique research tool, but not radically different from the rest of the qualitative-interpretative arsenal more commonly found in the discipline. The second is that genealogy can be used in the pursuit of epistemologically varied truth-claims, including those regarding causal connections.
1 A useful, but dated literature review can be found in Milliken, Jennifer, ‘The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:2 (1999), pp. 246–248 .
2 For a notable exception, see, Klotz, Audie and Lynch, Cecelia, Strategies for Research in Constructivist International Relations (Amronk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, 2007), pp. 30–35 .
3 In my sample of sixty two recent ‘research methods’ course syllabi written by IR instructors for their graduate students only two devoted any portion of the course to genealogy as a research method. Sampling was not scientific: I accessed and collected them in order in which they were listed by an online search engine. All contained the English word ‘methods’ and were authored by self-identified IR scholars in the period between 2000 and 2007. My review of the programmes of the last four annual conventions (2003–2007) of American Political Science Association, International Studies Association, British International Studies Association and European Consortium on Political Research found no panels dedicated to genealogy. IR scholars were much more likely to discuss genealogy at more specialised and multidisciplinary conventions, such as those organised by groups such as the History of Political and Social Concepts Groups or the History of the Present.
4 The appellation comes from Vincent Descombes, cited in Flyvbjerg, Bent, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 98 . On the many Foucaults (including the dominant Foucaults in the US-centric disciplines), see, Cusset, François, French Theory: Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze & Cie et les mutations de la vie intellectuelle aux Etats-Unis (Paris: Éditions La Découverte, 2003) ; Paras, Eric, Foucault 2.0: Beyond Power and Knowledge (New York: Other Press, 2006) , and Veyne, Paul, ‘The Final Foucault and His Ethics’, Catherine Porter, trans and Davidson, Arnold I., Critical Inquiry, 20:1 (1993), pp. 1–9 .
5 As practiced in IR, critical realism believes that unobservable phenomena are in principle subject to reliable knowledge. For ontological discussions relevant to my argument, see, especially, Wight, Colin, Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) ; Gutting, Gary, Foucault: a Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) , Joseph, Jonathan, ‘Foucault and Reality’, Capital & Class, 82:2 (2004), pp. 141–163 , and Patomäki, Heikki, After International Relations: Critical realism and the (Re) construction of World Politics (London: Routledge, 2002) . To appreciate the variable status of reality, materiality as well as causation in the readings of Foucault, compare and contrast the following passages: Alcoff, Linda, ‘Foucault's Philosophy of Science: Structures of Truth/Structures of Power’, in Gutting, Gary (ed.), Continental Philosophy of Science (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2005), pp. 215–216 ; Danaher, Geoff, Schirato, Tony and Webb, Jennifer (eds), Understanding Foucault (London: Sage, 2000), pp. 57–58 ; Diez, Thomas, ‘Speaking “Europe”: The Politics of Integration Discourse’, in Christiansen, Thomas, Erik Jørgensen, Knud, Wiener, Antje (eds), The Social Construction of Europe (London: SAGE, 2001), pp. 89–90 ; Fairclough, Norman, Discourse and Social Change (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992), pp. 60–66 ; Flynn, Thomas, ‘The Philosopher-Historian as Cartographer: Mapping History with Michel Foucault’, Research in Phenomenology, 29:1 (1999), pp. 37–38 ; Gutting, Gary, Foucault, pp. 40–41 ; Prado, C. G., Starting with Foucault: An Introduction to Genealogy (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2000), pp. 25–30, p. 109, fn. 98 , and Kendall, Gavin and Wickham, Gary, Using Foucault's Methods (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1999), pp. 39–46 .
6 As Martin Saar observed, Foucault developed and used genealogy only in his middle period. Saar, , ‘Genealogy and Subjectivity’, European Journal of Philosophy, 10:2 (2002), p. 232 . See, above all, Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sherdian (New York: Vintage, 1979) and Foucault, , The History of Sexuality, Vol. I and II. trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1990) . Among Foucauldian perspectives used in IR, governmentality is currently more popular than genealogy. For the reasons of space, I cannot discuss these other tools or how geneology relates to other Foucauldian concepts (for example, biopolitics, historical a prioris, state racism, etc.).
7 Flyvbjerg, , Making Social Science Matter, p. 57 .
8 For the reasons of space, I cannot consider the status of these definitions in the philosophy of science. Anecdotally, they appear to resonate at the usual disciplinary/disciplined sites such as the Institute for Qualitative Research Methods or the European Consortium for Political Research Summer School in Methods and Techniques. For claims of unity/difference between qualitative and interpretative methods in the social sciences, see the contributions in Yanow, Dvora and Schwartz-Shea, Peregrine (eds), Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2006) .
9 See, respectively, Shiner, Larry, ‘Reading Foucault: Anti-Method and the Genealogy of Power-Knowledge’, History and Theory, 21:3 (1982), p. 397 ; Megill, Allan, Prophets of Extremity: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), chap. 5 , and Allen, Barry, Truth in Philosophy (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press), 1993, chap. 8 .
10 Citations in O'Farrell, Claire, Michel Foucault (London: Sage, 2005), p. 52 and Shiner, , ‘Reading Foucault’, p. 396 . Some of his students also added, with various degrees of approval, the following descriptions: ‘non-general method’, ‘ad hoc method’, ‘un-method’, ‘non-method’, ‘anti-method’. See, inter alia, Brass, Paul, ‘Foucault Steals Political Science’, Annual Review of Political Science, 3 (2000), pp. 305–330 ; Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Rabinow, Paul, Michel Foucault, Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, with an Afterword by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1983 ; Shiner, ‘Reading Foucault’, Megill, Prophets, and Roth, Michael S., ‘Foucault's “History of the Present”’, History and Theory, 20:1 (1981), pp. 32–46 .
11 Dreyfus, and Rabinow, Paul, Michel Foucault, p. 184 .
12 But these lessons are subject to wide interpretations. On the status of the ‘why resist?’ question and Foucault, see, inter alia, Bernstein, Richard, The New Constellation (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1994), chap. 5 ; Deleuze, Gilles, Foucault trans. and edited by Hand, Seán (London: Athlone, 1988) ; Mills, Sara, Discourse (London: Routledge, 2004), chaps 4–5 ; O'Leary, Timothy, Foucault and the Art of Ethics (London: Continuum, 2006) ; Paras, Foucault 2.0; Saar, , ‘Genealogy and Subjectivity’, pp. 234–237 ; Veyne, , ‘The Final Foucault’, and Wood, David, The Step Back: Ethics and Politics after Deconstruction (Albany: SUNY Press, 2005) .
13 Alcoff, Linda, ‘Foucault as Epistemologist’, The Philosophical Forum, 25:2 (1993), pp. 95–124 .
14 Fernández-Armesto, Felipe, Truth: A History and a Guide for the Perplexed (New York: Dunne Books/St Martin Press, 1999) .
15 Foucault, , The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, trans. Sheridan, A. M. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972), p. 234 . For the standard interpretative squabbles over Focault's alleged positivism, compare, inter alia, Dreyfus and Rabinow, Michel Foucault, p. 105; Catherine Elgin, ‘Epistemology's End’, in Martin Alcoff, Linda (ed.), Epistemology: The Big Questions (London: Blackwell, 1998), pp. 26–40 ; Gutting, Gary ‘Foucault and the History of Madness’, in Gutting, Gary (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 64–69 ; Mirchandani, Rekha, ‘Postmodernism and Sociology: from the Epistemological to the Empirical’, Sociological Theory, 23 (2005), pp. 91–92, 109–110 ; Saar, , ‘Genealogy and Subjectivity’, p. 233 , and Williams, Bernard, Truth & Truthfulness: an Essay in Genealogy (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2002), pp. 64–65 .
16 See, for example, the discussion of Foucault's, ‘Questions of Method’, in Kendall, and Wickham, , Using Foucault's Methods, pp. 3–4, 151 ; O'Farrell, , Michel Foucault, pp. 52, 139 , and Gutting, , ‘Foucault’, pp. 64–69 .
17 There are multiple citations, with slightly varying translations. Gutting, , Foucault pp. 112–113 . Less famous is Foucault's description of his books as ‘surgeon's knives, Molotov cocktails or, galleries in a mine […] to be carbonized after use.’ Quoted in Steven V. Hicks, ‘Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault: Nihilism and Beyond’, in Milchman, Alan and Rosenberg, Alan (eds), Foucault and Heidegger: Critical Encounters (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), p. 102 . Referencing Foucault ‘properly’ is becoming an exercise in scholasticism and will not be pursued in this article.
18 On the evolution of this concept, see Torfing, Jacob, ‘Discourse Theory: Achievements, Arguments and Challenges’, in Howarth, David and Torfing, Jacob (eds), Discourse Theory in European Politics: Identity, Policy and Governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005), pp. 5–9, 24 .
19 Foucault never fully developed a theory of politics, but thanks to his insights, we can now better understand why the Haitian revolution, the successful black slave rebellion in Saint-Domingue, was unthinkable in Europe in its time or why systematic studies of UFOs do not exist. See, respectively, Trouillot, Michel-Rolph, Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (Boston: Beacon Press, 1995) , and Wendt, Alexander and Duvall, Raymond, ‘Sovereignty and the UFO’, Political Theory, 36:4 (2008), pp. 607–633 .
20 What constitutes a non-discursive context is a much-debated question among Foucault's acolytes. For critical realists, reality is socially constructed in the sense that people construct their interpretations of the non-discursive real. See, especially, Joseph, , ‘Foucault and Reality’, and Joseph, Jonathan and Michael Roberts, John, ‘Introduction’, in Michael Roberts, John and Joseph, Jonathan (eds), Realism, Discourse and Deconstruction (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 1–19 .
21 Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish, pp. 135–228 .
22 In general, far more intellectually defensible is the rejection of casing when the latter is put forward as the statistical method writ small, a qualitative method without qualitative methodology, so to speak.
23 See the discussion in Jacob Torfing, ‘Discourse Theory’ and Flyvbjerg, Making Social Science Matter, chap. 6; Also see Bartleson, Jens, A Genealogy of Sovereignty (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 8, 76 , and Hansen, Lene, Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War (London: Routledge, 2006), chap. 6 .
24 Saar, , ‘Genealogy and Subjectivity’, pp. 238–240 .
25 Contrary to the conventional wisdom, effective history is not the same as Wirkungsgeschichte, as in Gadamer's (and so perhaps Heidegger's) hermeneutics, but from Nietzsche's (and so perhaps Rousseau's) wirkliche Historie (real or true history); here, Machiavelli's verita effettuale (effective truth) is a possible predecessor as well. Flyvbjerg, , Making Social Science Matter, p. 114) . Also misleading are claims of identity between genealogy and Begriffsgeschichte of Reinhart Koselleck and others and/or Cambridge contextualism of Quentin Skinner and others; neither one of these is identical with the ‘history of concepts’ that Foucault read under Georges Canguilhem. Gutting, , Foucault, pp. 8–10 . Cf. Bevir, Mark, ‘Begriffsgeschichte’, History and Theory, 39:2 (2000), pp. 273–284 . On historical knowledge before and after Foucault in the discipline of history, see, inter alia, Berkhofer, Robert, Beyond the Great Story: History as Text and Discourse (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995) ; Fernández-Armesto, , Truth, ; and Clark, Elizabeth A., History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2004) .
26 This pre-theory of power – its ‘apparatus’, ‘dispositif’ – is what makes genealogy an ‘upgrade’ to archaeology, Foucault's earlier tool for historical-interpretative analysis. There is a debate to what extent Foucauldians should regard these two as different. Compare Dean, Mitchell, Critical and Effective Histories: Foucault's Methods and Historical Sociology (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 32–34 ; Dreyfus, and Rabinow, , Michel Foucault, p. 104 ; Gutting, , Foucault, pp. 45–46 ; Couzens Hoy, David, Foucault: a Critical Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), pp. 6–7 ; O'Farrell, , Micheal Foucault, p. 129 ; Paras, , Foucault 2.0, pp. 68–69 .
27 See the discussions in Bernstein, Richard, ‘Foucault: Critique as a Philosophic Ethos’, in Kelly, Michael (ed.), Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994), pp. 222–225 ; Kendall, and Wickham, , Using Foucault's Methods, p. 4 ; Flynn, , ‘The Philosopher-Historian’, p. 42 ; and Roth, , ‘Foucault's “History of the Present”’, p. 43 .
28 Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish, p. 27 .
29 Ibid., pp. 30–1. Cf. Dreyfus and Rabinow, Foucault, p. 118; Gutting, , Foucault, p. 10 , and Roth, , ‘Foucault's “History of the Present”’, pp. 37–40 .
30 Foucault still concluded that ancient Greeks were less libertarian in their sexual practices than late moderns. Foucault, , Archealogy, Vol. II, p. 39 . Foucault's analyses were also effective because they shifted the study of the human body in history, but, once again, that is another story.
31 See, Foucault, Michel, ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’, in Rabinow, Paul (ed.), The Foucault Reader (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), pp. 81–83 . Cf. Saar, , ‘Genealogy and Subjectivity’, and Sluga, Hans, ‘Foucault's Encounter with Heidegger and Nietzsche’, in Gutting, Gary (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Foucault (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 210–239 . In the liberal Kantian tradition, contingency can be understood as subject-centred agency – the capacity of a human actor to make judgments and decisions despite structural conditions (whereby agency is proportional to contingency). On Kant's conceptions of causation, see Watkins, Eric, Kant and the Metaphysics of Causality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) .
32 For major controversies and issues, see Tetlock, Philip and Ned Lebow, Richard, ‘Poking Counterfactual Holes in Covering Laws: Cognitive Styles and Historical Reasoning’, American Political Science Review, 95:4 (2001), pp. 829–843 .
33 Kendall, and Wickham, , Using Foucault's Methods, p. 6 .
34 In principle, rationalist approaches focus on choices as opposed to teleological outcomes, too. Elster, Jon, Explaining Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) .
35 Flyvbjerg, , Making Social Science Matter, pp. 117–118 .
36 See Hay, Colin, ‘Constructivist Institutionalism’, in Rhodes, R. A. W., Binder, Sarah and Rockman, Bert (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 56–75 .
37 Woods, Phillip, ‘Building on Weber to Understand Governance: Exploring the Links Between Identity, Democracy and “Inner Distance”’, Sociology, 37:1 (2003), pp. 143–163 .
38 See, especially, Selby, Jan, ‘Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and the Limits of Foucauldian IR’, International Relations, 21:3 (2007), pp. 324–345 .
39 Price, Richard M. and Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘Dangerous Liaisons? Critical International Theory and Constructivism’, European Journal of International Relations, 4:2 (1998), p. 268 .
40 See, inter alia, Sterling-Folker, Jennifer, Making Sense of International Relations Theory (Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2006), pp. 172–175, 329–330 , and Milliken, , ‘The Study of Discourse’, pp. 246–248) . Bartelson famously declared that his methodology must not be taken ‘too seriously’, but then he still went on at some length to discuss the rationale for selecting his episodes and generating his archive. Bartleson, , Genealogy, p 78 vs. pp. 7–11, 78–87 .
41 Campbell, David, Writing Security: US Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), pp. 14, 91, cf. p. 275, n. 5 . Paradigmatic cases are unique for being chosen on intuition, as they are meant to set the selection standard, rather then being selected on a standard Flyvbjerg, , Making Social Science Matter, p. 80 .
42 Price, Richard, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1997), p. 1 .
43 Jackson, Patrick T., Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006), pp. 73–78 .
44 Hansen commits an entire chapter, and then some, on methodological trade-offs in genealogical scholarship. Hansen, , Security as Practice, pp. 52–92, 217–220 .
45 On coherence in genealogy, see Gutting, , Foucault, pp. 66–67 .
46 Foucault, , Archaeology, pp. 10–14 . Cf. Kendall and Wickham, Michel Foucault, p. 5; Torfing, , ‘Discourse Theory’, p. 19 ; Henrik Haahr, Jens and Walters, William, ‘Introduction’, in Haahr, and Walters, (eds), Governing Europe: Discourse, Governmentality and European Integration (London: Routledge, 2005), p. 17 .
47 See, especially, Gary Gutting's interpretation of genealogy as a ‘historical causal explanation that is material, multiple, and corporeal’. Gutting, , Foucault, p. 47 . While Foucault's conceptualisation of causation varied, he always clearly rejected monocausality (that is, direct correspondence between discourse and action) and idealism (that is, ‘collective unconscious') and there is an inconsistency in his claims that there is ‘nothing outside discourse’.
48 Price, , The Chemical Weapons, p. 4 .
49 Jackson, , Civilizing the Enemy, p. 3 .
50 IR has long been overloaded with reflections on large and old philosophical debates on human experience, and the understanding-explanation debate goes back at least to Wilhelm Dilthey. For a widely-read statement, see Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press Paperbacks, 2004) .
51 Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 77–89 .
52 Smith, Steve, ‘Wendt's World’, Review of International Studies, 26:1 (2000), pp. 151–163 . By attempting to walk his via media, Wendt was also attacked by positivists who contend that constitution is already part of explanation, either as description or as a task of specifying antecedent conditions (permissive/deep causes) that permit a later outcome to occur (proximate/shallow causes). For the ongoing debate, see, inter alia, the contributions in Guzzini, Stefano and Leander, Anna (eds), Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and His Critics (London: Routledge, 2006) ; Dessler, David and Owen, John, ‘Constructivism and the Problem of Explanation: A Review Article’, Perspectives on Politics, 3:3 (2006), pp. 1–15 ; Jorge Rivas, ‘Realism is Not a Via Media between Positivism and Interpretivism: Assessing Wendt's Version of Scientific Realism’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ISA's 49th Annual Convention, San Francisco (2008). On file with the author.
53 See, inter alia, Fierke, Karin, ‘Critical Methodology and Constructivism’, in Fierke, Karin, Diplomatic Interventions: Conflict and Change in a Globalizing World (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 12 ; Campbell, , Writing Security, pp. 217–218 ; Hansen, , Security, pp. 1, 10–11, 25–28 .
54 Jackson, , Civilizing the Enemy, p. 41 . Also see, Edward Keene, ‘Reconstructing the English School's Conceptual Vocabulary: An Ideal-Typical approach’, Paper presented at the Annual ISA Convention, Chicago (2007). On file with the author. For philosophical discussions of the ‘reasons as causes’ debate, see, especially, Asma, Stephen, ‘Darwin's Causal Pluralism’, Biology and Philosophy, 11:1 (1996), pp. 1–20 ; Cartwright, Nancy, ‘Causation: One Word, Many Things’, Philosophy of Science, 71:5 (2004), pp. 805–851 ; Little, Daniel, Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1991) ; Roth, Paul, ‘Beyond Understanding: The Career of the Concept of Understanding in the Human Sciences’, in Turner, and Roth, (eds), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (London: Blackwell Philosophy Guides, 2002), pp. 311–333 ; Rorty, Richard, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1979) , and Stephen P. Turner and Paul A. Roh, ‘Ghosts and the Machine: Issues of Agency, Rationality, and Scientific Methodology in Contemporary Philosophy of Social Science’, in Turner, and Roth, (eds), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (London: Blackwell Philosophy Guides, 2002), pp. 1–18 .
55 From an epistemological standpoint, a claim that all meaning is unstable is indefensible: even the most anti-epistemological analysis must value some intellectually evaluative criteria – spelling and grammar in the exposition, consistency of the narrative and evidence.
56 Hansen, , Security as Practice, p. 19, fn. 1 .
57 Shepherd, Laura, ‘A User's Guide: Analyzing Security as Discourse’, International Studies Review, 8 (2006), pp. 656–657 .
58 Again, see Bartleson, Genealogy, p. 78. Walters, William called his genealogy ‘unapologetically superficial’. Walters, , Unemployment and Government: Genealogies of the Social (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 10 .
59 Hansen, , Security as Practice, pp. 10, 25 .
60 Read, Rupert and Richman, Kenneth A. (eds), The New Hume Debate (London: Routledge, 2007) .
61 The terms come from Kurki, Milja, ‘Causes of a Divided Discipline: Rethinking the Concept of Cause in International Relations Theory’, Review of International Studies, 32:2 (2006), pp. 211–212 . Here, anything that produces a certain reality is causation. For earlier calls to ‘broaden and deepen’ the conceptualisation of causation in IR, see Price, and Reus-Smit, , ‘Dangerous Liaisons?’, pp. 278–279, 282 ; Patomäki, , After International Relations, pp. 76–82 ; Wendt, , Social Theory, pp. 55–56, 84–87, 165–168 , and Ibid., , ‘Why a World State is Inevitable: Teleology and the Logic of Anarchy’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4 (2003), pp. 494–495 .
62 Hansen, , Security as Practice, p. 31 .
63 X, Y, and Z are not to be confused a type of constitutive analysis that focuses on the inter-subjective context ‘C’. See, especially, Searle, John R., The Construction of Social Reality (New York, Free Press, 1995) . Here, an analysis of the relationship between discourse ‘X’ and outcome ‘Y’ leads to a conclusion that that X renders Y in C. For instance, a same-sex couple from Whitehorse was constituted as married (Y) by a decision of the Supreme Court (X) in Yukon Territory (C).
64 Stuart Hughes, H., ‘The Historian and the Social Scientist’, The American Historical Review, 66:1 (October 1960), p. 28 .
65 Elster, , Explaining Social Behavior, p. 36 ; Cf. Hedström, Peter and Swedberg, Richard, eds., Social Mechanisms. An Analytical Approach to Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998) .
66 Jackson, Compare, Civilizing the Enemy, pp. 43–45 and Wendt, , Social Theory, pp. 81–85, 153–154 .
67 Selby, , ‘Engaging Foucault’, pp. 339, 341 .
68 Ibid., p. 340.
69 To the extent that IR, like Marxism, is ultimately interested in evaluating realities most conducive to emancipation (meaning the human subject's pursuit of goals in ways that do not stop other subjects from doing the same), then Foucauldian research tools must also be ready to engage questions such as ‘what is right, just or fair?’, ‘what is to be done?’ or ‘what could work?’
* This article originated in the ‘methods’ classes taught at Ohio State by Ted Hopf and Alexander Wendt, where it also benefited from criticisms by Bentley Allan, Richard Arnold, Emilie Bécault, Eric Grynaviski, Dane Imerman, Tahseen Kazi, Tim Luecke, Ryan Phillips, John Oates and Lorenzo Zambernardi. For written comments and correspondence, thanks are due to Tarak Barkawi, Richard Bowmans, Elizabeth Dauphinee, Peter Katzenstein, George Lawson, Anna Stavrianakis and two anonymous reviewers. All errors or flaws remain the author's alone.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed