Making Sense of 'International Practices'

摘要: Introduction Now that the “practice turn” in social theory has reached International Relations (IR), a new great debate seems to be offing. Observers of previous “turns” might skeptical promissory notes, not only because experience, but also this focus on “practices” even less well defined. The spectrum ranges from adherents “implicit knowledge” and habits la Polanyi Giddean grand focusing dialectics agency structure. It encompasses “social” epistemology stressing communal aspects knowledge production, Bourdieu’s emphasis “ habitus ” doxa , Oakeshott’s “habits” “knowing how” rather than why.” Thus, call foreground practices make for heated debates illumination by low wattage, given heterogeneity different vocabularies. Such problems are usually “solved” “working definition” imposing some order. Yet, frequently definitions” hide deep conceptual disagreements emerge intense negotiations among participants research project. While such preliminary agreement price getting along, nothing procedure guarantees “consensus” is “fruitful,” as it depends who participates setting terms debate. Two more recent “collective” programs – one “ideas,” other “judicialization” illustrate these problems: By nobly forgoing any engagement with common uses crucial their theoretical reflections, settling issues largely fiat, we were treated an amicable shallow conversation friends.