5. The Role of Metaphors in International Relations Theory

Recent scholarship, however, does suggest that much can be learned by advancing alternate narratives for what is taken as accepted knowledge. These alternate narratives can emerge through writing fictional accounts of events in IR. See Park-Kang (2014). On alternative narratives in the representation of issues in international affairs, see also Singh (2014).

Lebow (2014, 5–6) writes that inefficient causation “rests on the premise that many, if not most, international events of interest are best described as instances of what philosophers call singular causation. We can construct causal narratives about these outcomes, but they cannot be explained or predicted by reference to prior generalizations or narratives…Singular causation understands cause as the glue that holds a story together; it is something akin to a plot line in a novel.” For a specific example of how narrative complicates theorizing, see Spencer (2014).

Bliesemann de Guevara employs a definition of political myths suggested by Chiara Bottici (2007, 14), who defines a myth as the “work on a common narrative by which members of a social group (or society) provide significance to their…experience and deeds.” On myths in IR, see also Cooke (2016), Dany and Freistein (2016), Loriaux and Lynch (2016), Münch (2016). On the relationship between myth and metaphor, see Kermode (1966), Denham (1990), Christensen and Cornelissen (2015).

On distinguishing metaphors used deliberately from those that are constitutive of thought, see Steen (2013).

The reason why “the fluctuations of sound frequencies are like waves on the ocean” is an analogy while “waves of democratization” is a metaphor is that in the former the comparison is between two sets of physical forces that take similar form while in the latter the relationship highlighted is between an abstract idea (democracy) and an unrelated physical force (cyclical movement). “Fluctuations” and “waves” are related realms; one can make an analogy between the up and down movements of fluctuations and waves. Democracy and cyclical movement are unrelated realms; however, a key similarity between them—the recurrent nature of political activity and the up and down movements in waves—can be highlighted by using waves as a metaphor for political democracy.

On early theories of IR that draw on metaphorical imagery, see Kleinschmidt (2000).

For more on the balance of power in the development of statecraft, see Little (2007).

The discussion that follows draws on the work of Brown (2003).

Richard Ashcraft (1977) offers a somewhat different take on Behavioralism and metaphors, arguing that the rational choice aspect of Behavioralist pursuits is designed to infuse the study of politics with metaphors borrowed from economic rationality. The goal for Behavioralists, Ashcraft argues, is to maintain the hegemony of a view of liberal democracy rooted in the dynamics of the capitalist system.

A similar effort to use a domestic analogy to re-think anarchy is set forth by Zaheer Kazmi (2012), who draws on theories of anarchy to propose a re-conceptualization of IR as constituted by practices of “polite anarchy.”

https://​www.​amazon.​com/​s/​ref=​nb_​sb_​ss_​i_​1_​10?​url=​search-alias%3Dstripbooks&​field-keywords=​soft+power&​sprefix=​soft+power%2Cpopular%2C263&​crid=​12S1LFE06KMPS.

At the extreme end, one could fairly ask if conceptual metaphors in the social sciences (or even the physical and natural sciences) lead to inadvertent or even deliberate academic fraud because such conceptual metaphors create categories into which researchers try to fit evidence and/or data. When researchers strive to find evidence that fits into the categories created by conceptual metaphors, what has been found is not entirely free of confirmation bias.

For a sample of works on “divided” nations, see, for example, Henderson et al. (1974), Woodward (1976), Doyle (2002), Rowse and Goot (2007), Fulbrook (2009), Goldin (2013), Mabry et.al. (2013).

In this definition of crime, it is not necessary that other people understand the personal gain a criminal is pursuing, for example, in the case of a person motivated by mental illness.

This point is made by Blagden (2016) when discussing the relationship between deductive and inductive theorizing in IR.

Some examples of points of tension that scholars do not typically refer to as “crises” include the period of imminent hostilities between Argentina and Chile over control of islands and waterways in the Beagle Channel in 1978 and the mass wave of humans that fled Haiti in 1991 after the military coup against President Jean Bertrand Aristide.

Metaphors are an interesting thing in terms of how they make people think about a particular issue in different ways. A group of editors (Crocker et al. 1999) conceived of international mediation in a “complex” world as a process of “herding cats,” while the same editors (Crocker et al. 2007) later conceptualize a “divided” world metaphorically in terms of “leashing the dogs of war.” Dogs provide a metaphor for war and aggression, while cats, difficult to control as a group, provide a potential basis for cooperation. These are suggestive linguistic metaphors only, to be sure, but it is intriguing how scholars continue to rely on them to theorize about IR.

Maasen (211) continues: “Metaphors are sites and media of knowledge transfer.”

On the “chain gang” metaphor, see Christensen and Snyder (1990), Tierney (2011).

From a policy standpoint, ambiguity in the concept of “alliances” can have serious implications for relations among states. In one example that was provided by a foreign policy expert in Poland, deterioration in relations between the United States and Poland in the early 2010s reflected in at least small part different understandings between Americans and Poles regarding what is meant by an “ally.” “Part of the problem…was that the terms ‘partner’ and ‘ally’ were used interchangeably in describing the countries’ relationship. But they are not the same thing, he said: An ally offers international support and sheds blood in a crisis, while a partner shares in the profits” (Lyman 2014, no page number).

Onuf cites Adler (2002, 2012) regarding the metaphorical nature of Constructivism’s journey forward.

Onuf (130) appears to favor the middle path: “A fully realized constructivism—one that is fully articulated as a framework and thus a moderate-sized dry good—has many uses and (switching metaphors yet again) somewhere to go, but only when it joins up with micro-physics or global sociology (either works) and negotiates the space between them (both senses of negotiate, both metaphors).”

Similarly, the methods scholars devise for studying IR and other disciplines emanate in part from metaphorical conceptions of how the world works. For example, Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey Checkel (2015) observe that the method of process tracing in part grows out of metaphors of causation that then become analytic tools. Theodore Brown (2003) has found likewise in his study of metaphors in science.

On the importance of scholars reflecting on the subjectivity of knowledge production, see Müller (2016).

That IR scholars base their theories on the experiences they encounter in their own lives helps account for the plurality of theoretical approaches in the field. On theoretical plurality in IR, see Van der Ree (2014).

The biannual survey conducted by the Institute for the Theory and Practice of International Relations indicates that IR scholars regularly describe their own political beliefs along the left side of the political spectrum, that is, in the range of what is often described as “progressive.” In the 2011 survey, for example, on social issues, among all scholars who responded to the survey, 17% describe themselves as “very left/liberal,” 36% as “left/liberal,” and 20% as “slightly left/liberal” for a total of 73% on the left end of the political spectrum (just over 8% describe themselves on the right on social issues with 19% in the middle). On economic issues, 12% describe themselves as “very left/liberal,” 28% as “left/liberal,” and 23% as “slightly left/liberal” for a total of 63% on the left end of the political spectrum (16% describe themselves on the right on economic issues with 20% in the middle; figures were rounded by the investigators and therefore do not add up to 100%) (Maliniak et al. 2012, 39–40).

It must be noted that in no way does Rathbun imply that scholars’ political ideologies bias them in one way or another toward certain findings. Rather, Rathbun suggests that there is evidence to support the hypothesis that scholars’ political ideologies lead them to find plausible the propositions of certain epistemological and paradigmatic perspectives in the study of IR. For a more explicit discussion of the normative aspects of theorizing about IR, see Price (2008) as well as a forum in the journal International Theory, Erskine (2012), Price (2012a, b), Rengger (2012), Snyder and Vinjamuri (2012).

For critical interpretations of conceptual metaphor theory, see also Croft (1998), Vervaeke and Kennedy (2004).

For additional comments on IR scholarship outside of a US context, see Crawford and Jarvis (2001), Tickner and Wæver (2009).

For a critique of the role of metaphors in the social sciences in general, see Shapiro (1985).

In this sense, acknowledging the role of metaphors in IR theory is part of the interpretivist turn in IR. For a summary of interpretivist methods in IR, see Lynch (2014).