Processes of increasing internationalisation have posed a marked challenge to sociology. For many years now, debates on ‘methodological nationalism’ and related issues have indicated that there is a need for sociology to move beyond the dualism of the ‘national’ and the ‘international’. Nowhere is this as true as in Europe, where the European Union adds to the sociological dilemma. Interestingly, the same problem is found in the tradition of International Relations (IR). While sociologists attempt to cross the divide from the side of the ‘national’, IR scholars are trying to do so coming from the ‘international’. Seen from this perspective, this edited volume can be viewed as a fruitful encounter between the two traditions.
The book brings together a select group of IR scholars who draw on both theoretical and empirical insights from Bourdieu to grapple with problems of their own tradition. In that sense, the aim of the volume is very clear: drawing inspiration from Bourdieu's sociology to advance the understanding of international relations. As Adler-Nissen argues in the introduction, Bourdieu's sociology can help IR scholars reconceptualising ‘the international’, by breaking with the dualism between an orderly national realm and an anarchistic international realm. Furthermore, Bourdieu can be used to reconceptualise key concepts in IR and underlying assumptions about IR knowledge. Apart from the introduction and a chapter on Bourdieu's concepts, each chapter covers a central concept in IR: Methodology, Knowledge, Power, Strategy, Security, Culture, Gender, Norms, Sovereignty, Integration and Citizenship. These are short, but well-written chapters that demonstrate how Bourdieu's sociology can help reinterpret these concepts.
In a way, this conceptual focus may seem at odds with Bourdieu's denunciation of ‘theoretical theory’ and emphasis on empirical research. However, the conceptual focus is a great organising principle for the book and allows the authors to communicate with the IR literature without making long exposés on Bourdieu's entire theoretical apparatus. A good example of this is Guzzini's chapter on power, which illustrates the usefulness of Bourdieu's relational and non-reductionist understanding of power within IR. Underlining the performative power of language, Bourdieu can help IR scholars break with ‘taken for granted’ understandings of power and start engaging in empirical studies of how actors, such as diplomats, ‘“make up” indicators for overall power’ in different international arenas (86).
Most of the chapters are highly empirical in nature, illustrating the added value of Bourdieu's approach by presenting empirical findings. The emphasis on empirical research thus stands out as a recurring theme in the book and the editor argues that Bourdieu is used to call for ‘IR scholars to roll up their sleeves and do some empirical research’ (7). An excellent example is Epsteins chapter on norms in international whaling. In a clear communication with the constructivist literature within IR theory, she argues that Bourdieu's concept of nomos may help understand the underlying relations of symbolic power that structure the conflicts around whaling. Thus her research shows that while the issue of whaling is ridden by conflict, ‘the struggle for recognition is not a struggle to be able to continue whaling but rather to be re-included on the side of those who draw the lines’ between those who can whale and those who cannot (175). In that sense, the chapter is a good illustration of the interplay between theory and empirical research found in most chapters.
A theme that goes through many contributions is the importance of knowledge and perceptions in the construction of international relations. This is taken up most explicitly in Berling's chapter on knowledge. She argues that Bourdieu helps to translate ‘the important point about the inevitable involvedness of science (…) into an operationalizable framework for studying how theory and practice “hang together”’ (66). Drawing on a study of European security in the 1990, she argues that social scientists (and IR scholars in particular) cannot just be seen as neutral observers, but have to be regarded as engaged in a struggle with a range of experts and other actors concerning the legitimate forms of knowledge about ‘the international’. Thus, Bourdieu's sociology inspires IR scholars to expand the cast of actors under study, which is another theme raised in many contributions.
While a number of the contributors touch upon the role of the state, this is most explicitly done in Adler-Nissen excellent chapter on sovereignty. Taking as its case the establishment of the European External Action Service, the chapter shows how ‘sovereignty is actually enacted, performed and maintained’ (182), thus recognising the importance of ‘apparently mundane and everyday activities in international politics’ (184). Adler-Nissen uses Bourdieu to argue that what is going on in these mundane practices is the struggle for the monopoly of the legitimate forms of symbolic capital – a meta-capital that was for a long time possessed by states, but is now increasingly contested through processes of transnationalisation. But rather than being the automatic process suggested by terms like ‘globalization’ or ‘post-sovereignty’, it is a process driven by struggles and investments by different groups (like diplomats in the case under discussion).
Looking across the diverse chapters it seems that Bourdieu's emphasis on practices and symbolic power are the main tools that inspire these IR scholars. They seem less concerned with an orthodox application of the so-called ‘key concepts’ of habitus, capital and field. In their chapter on Bourdieu's concepts, Pouliot and Mérand present some very interesting discussions on the possibility of using Bourdieu's field concept for studying international processes. However, even here it seems less critical for evaluating the merits of Bourdieu's sociology for IR. It seems they have found other elements in his sociology that are valuable for research. In that sense, this book could inspire sociologists to reconsider the value of this ‘overly French’ sociologist for studying both other European societies and their transnational transformation. Thus, the fruitful combination of theoretical considerations and methodological reflections delivered in each chapter of this volume would make me recommend it for IR scholars and sociologists alike.
Jens Arnholtz, Department of Sociology, University of Copenhagen