Thread by @meibauIR

🥳New article alert 🥳

In "Neorealism, Neoclassical Realism and the Problem(s) of History", I discuss pathways to thinking analytically about history: doi.org/10.1177/004711… It's open access, too!

As they say, a 🧵 1/19

I position neoclassical realism (NCR) as offering correctives to (some of) neorealism's oft-diagnosed ahistoricity. I start by discussing these diagnoses, and what they mean for IR/realist theorising. 2/19

Here, I'm indebted to the scholarship of @GeorgeLawsonIR, @Simon_the_Pratt @lefteleven @GuilhotNicolas, as well as twitterless Stefano Guzzini, Nick Vaughan-Williams and many others. 3/19

Sidenote: if you feel like you know everything you need to know about realism after weeks of awesome @ProfPaulPoast threads and are more keen on historical IR - it’s fine, I understand. Check out this new handbook that looks fascinating: routledge.com/Routledge-Hand… 4/19

Anyways, in the article, I then discuss how neoclassical realism may complement, or even replace, neorealism as a theory of state behavior precisely by allowing scholars to ‘fill in’ contexts, agency, experiences, temporality..Why NCR, and not just classical realism? 5/19

Well, for all its flaws (and there are many), neorealism does have advantages. E.g. simplicity, abstraction, generalisation. It may be desirable to retain some of these even as we search for ways to take history seriously in empirical analysis & at the level of theory. 6/19

So what is history? It’s complicated. In the article, I remain agnostic(ish) between three possible interpretations: 1) past events, 2) individual experience, 3) collective narrative. 2) and 3) is where things get spicy in a distinctly academic way (ie not actually spicy). 7/19

How far can we historicise vaguely positivist-materialist-‘scientific’ theories before things (assumptions..) stop making sense? In NCR, I identify two routes to bringing ‘history’ back in: intervening variables (unsurprisingly) and structural modifiers (bit weirder). 8/19

Intervening variables (IIV) are NCR's bread-and-butter. See Elias Gotz’ recent take: doi.org/10.1093/fpa/or…
TL;DR: IIV are domestic factors that affect how external incentives are translated into state behavior. Bureaucracies, party politics, culture, ideas, perception, etc 9/19

Sidenote: NCR is criticized for the sheer number of IIV that have been identified as definitely the most important one. Elsewhere, it’s unclear whether those IIV matter more than external factors in driving state behavior. See here for a discussion: doi.org/10.1093/isr/vi… 10/19

IIV are steeped in history, ofc. I discuss how this can help inform theorising and empirical analysis. For example, it may help bring to the fore cases and phenomena previously overlooked (or ignored) by predominantly Western realists: doi.org/10.1177/135406… 11/19

But hold on: are you saying ‘history’ is somehow ‘domestic’? Does it stop at the border? Weeeell…where this serves an analytical purpose, e.g. simplification, maybe? Here’s where the contortions start. Read the article to see me explore this and contort-argue a bit. 12/19

Alternatively, look at that shiny new-ish thing: structural modifiers. Ripsman, Taliaferro and Lobell (2016) quote Buzan, Snyder, Van Evera and others to say there are systemic level things that affect how states interact. Think geography or nuclear technology. 13/19

They affect how/when states ‘play’ the ‘game’ of anarchy. So does history, presumably. E.g. rivalries are based on a sense of entrenched historical antagonism (and/or patterns of past antagonistic behaviour). This wd allow NCR to think about history at system-level. 14/19

It may help NCR emancipate from NR as a theory of international politics (rather than remain a foreign-policy add-on). @NickKitchen1 , @dsm_ld, @AndersWivel and twitterless Jennifer Sterling-Folker have interesting things to say here. See also: doi.org/10.1093/isr/vi… 15/19

But wait: isn’t that constructivism? Well..You can do some of the same analytical things with constructivism here (esp. vaguely positivist/’thin’ constructivism in IR). But: NCR privileges structure over agency, and retains causal primacy of material over social facts. 16/19

Sidenote: I'm not sure theories ‘own’ concepts. Constructivists, historical institutionalists and many others have thought hard about history, social processes of learning, narrating, etc. This is my attempt to reflect, and pay credit to, this work in my own scholarship. 17/19

Why should you care? Even if you’re not in the realist space, this is for you if you want to think along with me about what history is, why and how it matters, and how we can capture that in theory, concepts, and analysis. 18/19

NCR (just as any approach) is and will remain an imperfect vehicle for that, but one that is worthwhile pursuing, I think – perhaps in the ways that I outline. Thanks for reading! 19/19

Forgot to tag @stevenelobell here. 😅

Aand forgot to tag @michielfoulon here. 😓