Critical Practices in International Theory

Selected Essays

James Der Derian

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9781135980856
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Critical Practices in International Theory brings together for the first time the essays of the leading IR theorist, James Der Derian. The essays cover a variety of issues central to Der Derian's work including diplomacy, alienation, terrorism, intelligence, national security, new forms of warfare, the role of information technology in international relations, poststructuralist theory, and the military-entertainment-media matrix.

The book includes a framing introduction written for this volume in which Der Derian provides historical and theoretical context for a diverse body of work. Discussing his own influences and reflecting upon the development of international theory, he advocates a critical pluralist approach to the most pressing problems of world politics.

Written in the eloquent style that marks out Der Derian as one of the most provocative and innovative thinkers in international relations, this collection is essential reading for scholars and students interested in the past, present and future of international relations.

James Der Derian is a Watson Institute research professor of international studies at Brown University, where he directs the Global Security Program and the Global Media Project. He is the author of many articles and books, including the highly acclaimed Virtuous War (2001, 2009).

1 Mediating estrangement

A theory for diplomacy

Source: Review of International Studies (April, l987), 13, pp. 91–110.

How does one live according to reason if the other, the alien, the foreigner, whether remote or nearby, may burst into one’s world at any moment?

Raymond Aron, Peace and War

Diplomacy has been particularly resistant to theory. What knowledge we do have of the practice and principles of diplomacy is largely drawn from the works of former diplomatists like Abraham de Wicquefort’s L’Ambassadeur et ses Fonctions (1681), François de Callières’ De la Maniere de Négocier avec les Souverains (1716), Ernest Satow’s Guide to Diplomatic Practice (1917) and Harold Nicolson’s Diplomacy (1939).¹ Conveying a view of diplomacy as a specialized skill of negotiation, these works seek to ‘maximize’ that skill for the benefit of novices entering the profession. Understandably, their histories of diplomacy tend to be sketchy and rather anecdotal, and their theories of diplomacy, when they do exist, usually consist of underdeveloped and implicit propositions. Moreover, since the authors were serving governments at the apogee of imperial power, they were not interested in looking too widely and too deeply into a past which might undermine the foundations of skilful negotiation—order, continuity and ‘common sense’.

Neither is there to be found a substantial theoretical work on the subject in the contemporary literature of international relations.² Usually intending rationally to order the present or to prepare decision-makers for the future, the behaviouralist or ‘scientific’ school has shown itself to be preoccupied (for the most part methodologically) with the more empirical, policy-oriented side of diplomacy. The ‘classical’ or traditionalist approach in international relations offers a richer, more historical vein to mine. Its strength lies in the recognition that the origins and development of diplomacy, along with international law and a balance of power, were essential to the emergence of the European states system. A section on diplomacy can be found in almost all of the larger general texts.³ However, the strength of the classicists often contains a hidden analytical weakness. By considering diplomacy chiefly as an exchange of accredited envoys by states, and as a valuable norm for the international order, they have demonstrated a conservative preference for the status quo in international politics.⁴

Equally, they often have attributed an ‘essence’ or ‘nature’ to diplomacy which bears this preference, the best example being Nicolson’s repeated claim that ‘common sense is the essence of diplomacy’.⁵ To be fair, this is not so much a weakness as it is a normative evaluation of diplomacy, or, as Martin Wight says, ‘a statement of belief about the way international politics ought to go’.⁶ The problem, however, is that as often as not the normative element of the classical works is implicitly and uncritically supportive of a teleological view of diplomacy. Left unexplored are the dynamic forces which originally created the need for diplomacy and defined purposes often antithetical to the traditional teleology. This is yet another reason why a theoretical enquiry is needed, to dig deeper into the past, to offer an account of the pre-history of diplomacy which the classical school has neglected.

It could well be that diplomacy has suffered from theoretical neglect to the extent that power politics has profited—in theory and practice. When diplomacy is construed as a continuation of war by other means, as is often the realpolitik case, then little intellectual energy needs to be wasted on the illumination of power’s shadow. However, I would argue that it is possible to recognize the paramountcy of the power relation in human affairs, and to assert the need for a theory of diplomacy. Like Hans Morgenthau and the other realists who have followed him, I believe that an analysis of power is necessary for understanding diplomacy. However, power alone is not sufficient to explain the origins and conduct of diplomacy. Martin Wight provides an important reason

Powers have qualitative differences as well as quantitative, and their attraction and influence is not exactly correlated to mass and weight. For men possess not only territories, raw materials and weapons but also beliefs and opinions. It is true that beliefs do not prevail in international politics unless they are associated with power … But it is equally true that power varies very much in effectiveness according to the strength of the beliefs that inspire its use.⁷

Diplomatic theory is needed if we are to understand the relationship between power and diplomacy, to investigate how this relationship has been historically manifested in the attempt to govern the ungovernable—the anarchical society—through discursive and cultural practices. Hedley Bull broached this terrain, the question of how international diplomacy, in the absence of a sovereign power, constituted and was sustained by a diplomatic culture, which he defined narrowly as ‘the common stock of ideas and values possessed by the official representatives’.⁸ What he and others from the classical school have not explored in any depth is how this diplomatic culture was formed and transformed, and how its power of normalization in a Leviathan-less world has been reproduced. The need for a theory of diplomacy points, I believe, toward the need for a neo- or post-classical approach.

There are, of course, other reasons for diplomacy’s resistance to philosophical comprehension, probably as many reasons as there are approaches to the study of international relations. The dominance of the power political approach can account for only one dimension of the theoretical lacunae in diplomacy. But if power cannot provide the conceptual, let alone theoretical sufficiency to explain the origins, transformations, and current state of diplomacy, what can? Taking into account the complexity and breadth of the subject, I cannot pretend that any one concept or theory is sufficient. I will argue, however, that there is a ready-made theory which has suffered from neglect in the field of international relations. I refer to the theory of alienation, as elaborated by Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Sartre, and others.

On what grounds can we justify its application to the study of diplomacy? First, alienation theory is highly suited for a historical analysis. It seeks to explain man’s alienation from an ‘original’ state of solidarity: as a result of certain causes, new forms of alienation develop which manifest themselves in a historical framework. In Hegel, it is the self-consciousness which is alienated ‘to put itself in the position of something universal’; in Feuerbach, man alienates his essential humanity to religion, in the desire to find in heaven what he cannot find on earth; and in Marx, man is alienated from his ‘productive activity’ which leads to man’s alienation from nature, himself, his product, and other men.⁹ Thus, alienation has been interpreted as a ubiquitous spiritual, religious, or social process which has always been active in history. Second, the primeval alienation of man gave rise to estranged relations which required a mediation. In the most general sense, the form this mediation takes, as estranged relations change, constitutes a theoretical and historical base for the study of diplomacy. Third, alienation theory is well-equipped to explain the emergence and transformations of diplomatic relations, because it is a ‘systems’ theory. It attempts to explain a system by studying the genesis of its internal relations, which are seen as expressions of alienated powers. Hence, instead of the conventional micro/macro dichotomy or bifurcated level of analysis, the mediation of estrangement on pre-intra- and inter-state levels can be interpreted as the basis of the diplomatic system.

Finally, I believe that the interpretative dimension of alienation has something to offer to the classical approach to international relations. Because its history is usually back-tracked only to Marx, alienation’s rich intellectual tradition as a concept in law history, and philosophy has been forgotten or neglected. In the course of this essay I will use alienation theory to present some overlooked ‘classics’ which I hope might conceptually and textually stimulate the traditionalist ruminations.

Definitions?

Not only the theories but some of the terms I will use are relatively new to the study of international relations. Equally, some familiar words will be used in unfamiliar ways. The most notable case is the term ‘diplomacy’. Although the word does not become current in its modern sense, as the conduct or management of international relations until the late eighteenth century, I will use it for lack of a better one to represent the earliest manifestations of diplomacy. In this enquiry

I will offer a general working definition of diplomacy as a mediation between estranged individuals, groups of entities, which will be defended and become more specific in due course.¹⁰ The word ‘mediation’ will be used in two senses. First, in the conventional sense (which emerges coevally with the modern meaning of diplomacy), mediation means a connecting link or, for the purpose of reconciling, an intervention between two or more individuals or entities. By utilizing this term, I admit to an interpretation which emphasizes the interdependent and reconciliatory nature of diplomacy yet acknowledges the necessity for interventions. The other sense of the term is derived from the theory of alienation itself, as drawn from the writings of Hegel and Marx.¹¹ There are two types or orders of mediation. The first is between man (his powers) and nature (his needs). In this subject-object relationship, mediation refers to an activity, manual or intellectual, which brings man’s powers and needs together; at the most basic level an example would be one which enables man’s hunger to be fulfilled by eating. The second order of mediation is a historically specific one made necessary when man’s activity, or the product of his activity, is alienated from him. Examples taken from Feuerbach, Hegel and Marx, of mediatories acting between man and his alienated needs, would include God, the state, and money. All these mediations are essential to the authors’ explanations of religion, politics, and economics to the extent that they are related to alienation. A mediation can also be alienated as instanced by Marx’s analysis of the origins of money: acting as the necessary mediator between man and his wants, it comes to be what he wants. Marx describes this second type of mediation as ‘an alienated mediation’, and also as the ‘mediation of a mediation’.¹² An example of how this type of mediation might be adapted to diplomatic theory would be to explain the passage of diplomacy from its early mythological phase to its first historical phases when one of the earliest Western mediations, Christendom (founded on man’s estrangement from an original state of solidarity) is supplanted by the ‘alienated mediations’ of states (following their mutual estrangement from Christendom’s institutionalized representatives, the papal state).

Of course, such an explanation would involve an extensive historical investigation—which is not the purpose of this essay. Not is its purpose to explain all aspects of diplomacy: otherwise it would include an account of its multifarious functions as a system of communication, negotiation, and information. Rather, the intention of this essay is to provide a theoretical foundation for an enquiry into a neglected area of diplomacy: its origins and transformations which are related to conditions of alienation, and the attempt to mediate those conditions through systems of thought, law, and power.

The alienation of theory

The premise of this essay is that diplomacy is demarcated by alienation. To determine fully whether or not this has been the case from the inception of diplomacy would require a sifting through of the historical evidence. The task at hand, however, is to reconstruct alienation as an archaeological tool, that is, to consider changes in the nature of alienation and changes in theories of alienation which might enhance our understanding of diplomacy. This involves, I believe, four preliminary levels of comprehension: (1) demonstrate the validity of the idea of alienation for diplomacy; (2) provide definitions for ‘alienation’ and ‘estrangement’; (3) give a short history of how the concept changed accor...