International Practice Theory

International relations scholars are increasingly interested in practice. Following a wider turn to practices in the social sciences, a broad movement of scholars is now engaged in practice-based study. In this introduction, we discuss what intrigues us about practice. International practice theory offers a genuine and novel perspective on politics and international relations, and promises to provide observers with a new lens through which to analyse the world. We show that four issue areas – the study of diplomacy, the production of insecurity, transnational governance, and state building and intervention – have been particularly important in developing the empirical research agenda of international practice theory. We also provide a brief overview of the seven core approaches discussed in the book. These approaches, ranging from Bourdieu’s praxeology to Boltanski’s pragmatic sociology, are the conceptual cornerstones of international practice theory. Finally, we introduce the notion of praxiography as the corresponding methodology for the study of international practices.

This chapter provides an overview of what practice theory is and what we can do with it. Practice theory has been introduced across the social sciences and is quite heterogeneous; rather than being a theory in the conventional sense, it is an intellectual space (a trading zone) in which different scholars ‘trade’ ideas on how to study practices. We situate practice-theoretical thinking in the wider landscape of social theory and philosophy, and introduce a map that contrasts it with other social theories, such as rational choice, or discourse theory. Practice theory differs from cultural theories that foreground either the mind and beliefs or discourses and structures of meaning. This also provides us with a map for understanding how IPT relates to other theoretical developments in IR, such as constructivism. Finally, we argue that practice theory entails a number of commitments of how to think about and perform social science, and about the core characteristics of international politics. We summarise these commitments under the concepts of process, knowledge, learning, materiality, multiplicity, performativity and empiricity.

This is the first of two chapters that introduce seven approaches of international practice theory. We discuss four approaches, that have their origins in the writing of a major intellectual figure: Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Etienne Wenger, and Theodore Schatzki. We provide a concise introduction to the conceptual vocabulary and strategies for the study of practice outlined for each of these approaches, and discuss ways of using them in IR. Together, they give us a theoretical repertoire for the study of practice. We consider Bourdieusian research, which has been most directly associated with the label of practice theory, and continue in discussing the work of Foucault by introducing his major concepts, such as governmentality. Although Foucault’s body of work is often not directly associated with the term practice theory, our discussion intends to correct this misunderstanding in arguing that he is first and foremost a practice theoretical thinker who allows us to conceptualise and study historical practices and configurations of very wide scope. Our third approach, community of practice, foregrounds the importance of community structures and learning processes. Finally, we turn to Theodore Schatzki, whose definitions have become quite influential in the debate, and review his practice theoretical outline.

This chapter continues our review of the main approaches. We discuss three of them: the focus on narratives, actor-network theory and pragmatic sociology. Narrative approaches, actor-network theory, and pragmatic sociology have not always been included in the body of practice theoretical thought, although as we demonstrate, they are an essential part of it. The chapter starts with an approach that puts emphasis on narrative as the concept that binds practice across time and space. Narratives can be understood as configuration devices by which actors make sense of the world and order it through storytelling practices. Actor-network theory foregrounds the practices of making relations as well as the importance of non-human, or material aspects. Drawing on the works of theorists such as Latour, Law, or Callon, scholars emphasise performativity and contingency. For them, international politics is a world continually in the making that requires significant effort and maintenance work. Our final approach is pragmatic sociology, following the work of Boltanski, Chiapello and Thévenot. This pragmatic approach is particularly interesting in the way that it considers issues such as creative capacity, the uncertainty of situations, and the fragile notion of order.

We consider how the main approaches of IPT relate to one another and how their relationship spurs exciting new questions for future research. To explore these relations, we focus on a set of conceptual challenges. These challenges present issues that are contentious, present dilemmas or paradoxes and over which IPT scholars take differing positions. These must be appreciated as creative tensions; rather than playing the approaches against each other, we argue that their tensions provide fruitful heuristics for advancing IPT. The challenges are major ontological puzzles. We begin with a discussion of the tension between an understanding of practice as a social regularity and as a fluid entity. This leads us to the question of how far IPT can make statements on the contingency and change of practical configurations. Next, we address the issue of how to conceptualise the scale and size of practice. This is largely a question of (ontological) prioritisation, which is fundamental given the interest of IPT in the international and the global. We proceed with a reflection on different standpoints towards the normativity of practice, how the material dimension of practices (bodies, technology, artefacts) is prioritised, and how to conceptualise power and critique.

In this chapter, we discuss the methodology and methods of IPT. We outline methodological guidelines that spring from practice theory, and the fact that social science is also a practice. We introduce the notion of praxiography to speak about the methodology and methods of practice-theory-driven research, and discuss the status of ‘theory’ and its relation to empirics. Praxiography can be anchored in different starting points, and the seven core approaches imply distinct strategies as to where to begin inquiry. Turning to methods, our argument is that praxiography implies carefully considering how practice can be observed directly. We show how different forms of field work, including participant observation, event observation and shadowing can be used to study practice Some situations require alternative techniques, and we point to interviews and different forms of text analysis as options. Finally, we address the drafting of a praxiography. Writing about practice implies controlling for the unruliness of practices, and ordering them into a more-or-less coherent narrative. How can a narrative about practice be written in a way that makes sense to a distinct audience? We argue that praxiography requires experimentation and creativity, and introduce ideas from ethnography and filmmaking as inspirations.

The concluding chapter zooms out and reflects on recent developments. IPT has become a mature and very successful programme of research. Asking whether it has lived up to its promises, we find that some of them are clearly on the way to being realised, while others require further effort. Promises such as producing relevant knowledge that can trigger change, and moving closer to the actions of practitioners, remain important issues on the agenda. The practice turn is far from being completed, we end by speculating about the future of IPT, investigating three scenarios. Is IPT becoming an ever-growing and thriving trading zone, is it evolving into a paradigm, or will it soon begin to disappear into the annals of IR theory? The current state of play does not indicate that IPT has failed or will disappear in the near future. Instead, IPT has developed as a trading zone, as demonstrated by the quantitative and substantial expansion of IPT scholarship. The risks associated with turning IPT into a new paradigm will require close and sustained attention, however.