Framing Robert W. Cox, Framing International Relations

In the recent years, R.W. Cox has distanced himself from some genealogical connections made by his followers in regard to what he meant in his famous 1981 article. Was he mischaracterized, framed? This paper focuses on how Cox has been ‘framed’, a concept elaborated and used across social sciences in different contexts. Here, it is used to look at different mechanisms by which ideas, such as those of Cox, can be connected, ‘framed’ to other ideas, not only to advance knowledge but to strengthen individual careers, to strengthen and construct approaches and disciplines. Framing highlights and creates a space but also constrains and obscures. Cox deserves to be seen outside any frames other than the one he creates for himself, one which is changing and developing as does the real world, not captive to any approach, paradigm, discipline, or any other frame. This chapter focuses on how Robert W. Cox has been 'framed', a concept elaborated and used across social sciences in different contexts. Over three decades ago, Cox caused a major stir in the discipline of international relations (IR) on both sides of the Atlantic. However, 'frame' and 'framing' are now terms used in the IR discipline, in the positivist mainstream form of constructivism. The initial mischaracterization that stuck distracted from seeing other aspects of Cox's contribution—he deserves a different place in the IR discipline and beyond it, a point made in the conclusion. In addition—in an incredible move in the history of IR discipline—subjective became inter-subjective, inter-subjectively agreed upon, and no longer out of bounds of scholarly pursuits in IR discipline, at least in one of its approaches. 'Critical' in IR has now become a portmanteau term which includes anything that is 'anti-': even feminists, environmentalists, post-colonials, indigenous peoples, and the very poor