The new spirit of technocracy? : ordering practice in United Nations peacebuilding

Defense Date: 03 December 2010Examining Board: Prof. Friedrich Kratochwil,(EUI) (Supervisor) Prof. Pascal Vennesson, (EUI/RSCAS) Prof. Gunther Hellmann (Goethe University Frankfurt am Main) Prof. Iver Neumann, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI)Whether global order is drifting towards democratic or technocratic modes of governing is a contested issue. This thesis takes up the challenge of investigating how trends towards global democratization or technocratization play out in the field of United Nations peacebuilding. To do so the thesis argues that democratic optimism and technocratic pessimism should not be evaluated as competing paradigms, but as panoramas whose interplay needs to be investigated in empirical research. A pragmatist standpoint, conceptualized as 'critical optimism' is taken and a framework drawing on sociological theories of practice developed. To scrutinize democratizing and technocratizing tendencies the study of everyday ordering practices in different organizational sites is proposed. In adopting an interpretative research strategy three sites are scrutinized empirically: The United Nations Peacebuilding Commission, the United Nations Peacekeeping Best Practice Section and the Afghanistan Compact and its Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board. The interplay of different political practices at these sites is reconstructed. The discussion reveals the importance of democratic and technocratic ideas, yet demonstrates that no clear-cut tendency towards one mode can be observed. Instead, different practices work in parallel, sometimes support each other and sometimes conflict with each other. Taken together, the importance of scrutinizing the difficile interplay of practices is highlighted and the significance of taking pluralist standpoints in studying the social life of world politics is demonstrated. The thesis makes three core contributions to the literature. Firstly, the thesis is one of the first attempts at seeking a dialogue between critical and liberal theories of global governing, otherwise often seen as competitors. Secondly, through its development of theory it makes a contribution to the debate on how sociological frameworks drawing on theories of practice can be used to study the international. Thirdly, its empirical results contribute to the research agenda on how peacebuilding is organized in practice

Coping with Insecurity in Fragile Situations

Paper prepared for the Conference on 'Moving Towards the European Report on Development 2009' (Florence 21-23 June 2009

Beyond the gap

International Relations (IR) has cultivated the idea of a gap between the theory and the practice/praxis of IR. This division into two different spheres of knowledge is related to the predominant objectivist conception of science in IR, where the scientist is said to be observing reality from a distance without affecting it. Poststructuralists have denied that this distinction is meaningful and have even argued that it is dangerous to be oblivious to the structuring effects science may have on the social world. This article sets out to avoid further cultivation of the so-called gap between theory and practice, and instead addresses the question of how the theories of IR relate empirically to the practices of world politics. We suggest a theoretical and empirical alternative based on practice theoretical thought. We argue that researchers\u27 theories and policymakers practice \u27hang together\u27 and require analytical attention. In order to give empirical flesh to the theoretical discussions and to demonstrate the difference a practice theory approach makes, we discuss the example of the democratic peace thesis. We lay out how US peace researchers, the Clinton government and NATO participated in weaving a \u27web of democratic peace practice\u27 and stabilizing the thesis as a \u27fact\u27. We argue that \u27ivory tower scientists\u27, US foreign policymakers, and NATO politicians and bureaucrats hang together in this web and use each other as a resource. As a consequence, the academically certified version of the democratic peace led to a securitization of democracy. We conclude that one way to cope with the complexity of science-politics interactions is to foster reflexive empirical work on researchers\u27 own practices

Think Practical! Practice-theoretical constructivism(s) in international relations

Practice as an analytical category has received re-renewed attention in the discipline of International Relations (IR). We discuss the shared assumptions and disagreements among theories of practice in IR and the challenges these pose. Practice theory is identified as an expression of cultural theorizing, differing from rational-interest based or norm-oriented theories of action. Yet, the locus of meaning is not seen in internal mental stances, or in external textual structures, but in the inbetween of practice. Four crucial challenges are discussed: first, the repetitive character of practice, and the degree of stability reached in social orders, second, materiality and the quest of material agency, third, a moderate reflexive understanding of scientific practice highlighting the social consequences of scientific reasoning, and, fourth, a reconsideration of the spectrum of methods in IR. The contribution provides an analytical summary of the turn to practice in IR, and an identification of the key challenges associated with it.Praktisches Wissen und Alltagshandlungen finden in der Disziplin Internationale Beziehungen (IB) nur selten Beachtung. Welche analytischen Vorteile es bietet, sich diesen »praktischen« Dimensionen zuzuwenden, und welche unterschiedlichen Herangehensweisen es gibt, zeigen wir in diesem Beitrag. Deutlich wird, dass eine praxistheoretische Ausrichtung das Potenzial hat, Entscheidende konstruktivistische Leerstellen zu füllen, kreative Wege zu gehen im Studium transnationaler Phänomene wie des Terrorismus, und auch die Produktion praxisrelevanten Wissens befördert. Um praxistheoretische Ansätze zu verorten, diskutieren wir zum einen ihre sozialtheoretischen Grundlagen. Das praxistheoretische Programm interessiert sich für die Rekonstruktion von praktischem Wissen und unterscheidet sich somit deutlich von rationalistischen oder normorientierten IB-Theorien, aber auch von kulturtheoretischen Ansätzen, die Wissensordnungen im menschlichen Geist oder in externen Textstrukturen verorten. Zum anderen diskutieren wir zentrale Herausforderungen, die sich aus der Beschäftigung mit Praktiken ergeben: Führen routinisierte Praktiken zu dauerhaft stabilen Strukturen? Welche Rolle haben Dinge und Technologien? Welches Wissenschaftsverständnis ergibt sich aus Praxistheorien? Welche neuen Wege in Forschungsstrategie und Methodenwahl bieten diese

Reassembling and Dissecting: International Relations Practice from a Science Studies Perspective

What does it take to be an international relations (IR) scholar? IR discourses have tackled this question with focus on very different problems: the role and function of IR scholars for policy; the (ir)relevance and impact of IR knowledge and expertise in world politics; disciplinary history; or in studying IR's institutions. We argue that all these "disciplinary sociology" debates struggle with the relation between an internal scientific IR world and an external social context (policy, society). We reject this distinction and argue that science studies can help us to address these problems more adequately by treating IR as a scientific practice that is closely tied to its social environment. The article sets out to explore science studies' possible contributions. Based on science studies key assumptions, we develop a heuristic by which the relations between IR and its environment can be grasped systematically. From this perspective, IR is pivotally a culture constituted by different domains of practice. Hence, understanding IR scholars in "doing IR" requires taking into account their daily and sometimes trivial practices. For instance, writing an article in IR means much more than only thinking theoretically at a desk. We systematize the different domains of practices as the articulation of knowledge claims, mobilizing the world, autonomy seeking, alliance building, and public representation. "Being an IR scholar" and "producing IR knowledge" depends inevitably on these sets of practices and IR is intrinsically interwoven with its environment through these

The role and functions of expertise in contemporary societies : evidence from the German Hartz Commission

Following the concepts of knowledge societies, capacity for effective action is limited mainly by the availability and application of expert knowledge. Experts can therefore be seen as influential actors in societal decision-making. Taking the prognosis that modern society is on a way of transformation towards a knowledge society as point of departure, this thesis explores the role experts and their expertise plays in policy and society empirically and theoretically. The thesis therefore explores key theoretical concepts, that further the understanding of the emerging role of experts. The connection between theory an practice, and the state of knowledge as presented by theory of science is explored and the shape of a upcoming knowledge society is sketched. To find definitions and the broadest possible picture for the terms 'expert' and 'expertise' several theoretical perspectives are evaluated following an eclectic approach. As the task of the thesis is to find theoretical and empirical evidence a single case is studied in a process-tracing approach: The case of the German Hartz Commission working about the reform of the German labour market. The case was selected as it can be seen as paradigmatic, as this expert group played not only a decisive role in the German national election of 2002, but is ought to be a model for societal decision making for at least the next legislature period. Key findings of the thesis include that expertise can not only be used in a strategic or legitimising manner but also fosters dialogue between conflicting interest groups

Beyond the gap: relevance, fields of practice and the securitizing consequences of (democratic peace) research

International Relations (IR) has cultivated the idea of a gap between the theory and the practice/praxis of IR. This division into two different spheres of knowledge is related to the predominant objectivist conception of science in IR, where the scientist is said to be observing reality from a distance without affecting it. Poststructuralists have denied that this distinction is meaningful and have even argued that it is dangerous to be oblivious to the structuring effects science may have on the social world. This article sets out to avoid further cultivation of the so-called gap between theory and practice, and instead addresses the question of how the theories of IR relate empirically to the practices of world politics. We suggest a theoretical and empirical alternative based on practice theoretical thought. We argue that researchers’ theories and policymakers practice ‘hang together’ and require analytical attention. In order to give empirical flesh to the theoretical discussions and to demonstrate the difference a practice theory approach makes, we discuss the example of the democratic peace thesis. We lay out how US peace researchers, the Clinton government and NATO participated in weaving a ‘web of democratic peace practice’ and stabilizing the thesis as a ‘fact’. We argue that ‘ivory tower scientists’, US foreign policymakers, and NATO politicians and bureaucrats hang together in this web and use each other as a resource. As a consequence, the academically certified version of the democratic peace led to a securitization of democracy. We conclude that one way to cope with the complexity of science– politics interactions is to foster reflexive empirical work on researchers’ own practices