Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:02:45.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The agent's logics of action: defining and mapping political judgement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2011

Markus Kornprobst
Markus Kornprobst*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Vienna School of International Studies
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How do individual actors figure out what to do? This article advocates a departure from carving up research on this key question about political agency into narrow scholarly categories. Such categories, especially what has to become framed as incompatible logics of action in International Relations Theory, may make for neat and tidy scholarly boxes. But they miss the winding roads through which actors come to embark on a course of action. In order to overcome this shortcoming, I start with uncovering an important clue on which authors adhering to different logics of action converge; political agency has a lot to do with making judgements. I proceed with conceptualizing political judgement broadly in terms of subsuming particulars and universals. I follow-up with outlining a map for empirical research on judgement that helps us follow the actors in how they figure out what to do (the agent's logics of action) rather than superimposing our narrow scholarly categories on their reasoning (a scholarly logic of action). Scrutinizing the usefulness of this map, finally, I analyse McNamara's exercise of political agency during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The findings underline my overall argument: the inclusive conceptualization of political judgement, coupled with the balance of theoretical and empirical inquiry that the research map facilitates, improves on our understandings of how actors figure out what to do.

Keywords

agencycreativityjudgementlogics of actionpractical reasonresonancestructuration
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , 18 February 2011 , pp. 70 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, E. (1991), ‘Cognitive evolution: a dynamic approach for the study of international relations and their progress’, in E. Adler and B. Crawford (eds), Progress in Postwar International Relations, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 128–173.Google Scholar
Adler, E. (2005), Communitarian International Relations: The Epistemic Foundations of International Relations, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Allison, G.Zelikow, P. (1999), Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Allyn, B.J., Blight, J.G.Welch, D.A. (1989), ‘Essence of revision: Moscow, Havana, and the Cuban Missile crisis’, International Security 14(3): 136–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansell, C. (1997), ‘Symbolic networks: the realignment of the French working class, 1887–1894’, American Journal of Sociology 103(2): 359–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. (1961), ‘Freedom and politics’, in A. Hunold (ed.), Freedom and Serfdom: An Anthology of Western Thought, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 191–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, H. (1964), Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (2003), ‘Home to roost’, in J. Kohn (ed.), Responsibility and Judgment, New York: Schocken, pp. 257–276.Google Scholar
Arendt, H. (2006), Between Past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Aristotle, (1934), Nicomachean Ethics (edited and translated by H. Rackham), London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Aristotle, (1995), Rhetorik (edited and translated by F.G. Sieveke), Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Baron, J. (2004), ‘Normative models of judgment and decision making’, in D. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
Bates, R., Figueiredo, R.Weingast, B. (1998), ‘The politics of interpretation: rationality, culture, and transition’, Politics and Society 26(4): 603–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beiner, R. (1983), Political Judgment, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Benhabib, S. (2001), ‘Judgment and the moral foundations of politics’, in R. Beiner and J. Nedelsky (eds), Judgment, Imagination, and Politics: Themes from Kant to Arendt, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 183–204.Google Scholar
Berger, T. (1996), ‘Norms, identity, and national security in Germany and Japan’, in P. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 317–356.Google Scholar
Beschloss, M. (1991), The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev 1960–1963, New York: Edward Burlingame Books.Google Scholar
Bjola, C.Kornprobst, M. (2010), ‘Introduction: the argumentative deontology of global governance’, in C. Bjola and M. Kornprobst (eds), Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld, and Shared Reasons, London: Routledge, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Blight, J.Welch, D. (1989), On the Brink: Americans and Soviets Reexamine the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
Blight, J.Lang, J.M. (2005), The Fog of War: Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara, Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. (2002), ‘ “How to make social science practical,” Pragmatism, Critical Social Science and Multiperspectival Theory’, Millennium 31(3): 499–524.Google Scholar
Boltanski, L.Thévenot, L. (2006), On Justification: Economies of Worth (translated by C. Porter), Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977), Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1998), Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Checkel, J. (2001), ‘Why comply? Social learning and European identity change’, International Organization 55(3): 553–588.Google Scholar
Choi, I., An Choi, J.Norenzayan, A. (2004), ‘Culture and decisions’, in D. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 504–526.Google Scholar
Cicero, M.T. (2003), Topica (edited and translated by T. Reinhardt), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crawford, N. (2002), Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1983), Explaining Technical Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1989), Solomonic Judgements: Studies in the Limitations of Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J.Hylland, A. (1986), ‘Introduction’, in J. Elster and A. Hylland (eds), Foundations of Social Choice Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Fearon, J.Wendt, A. (2002), ‘Rationalism v. constructivism: a skeptical view’, in W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations, London: Sage, pp. 52–72.Google Scholar
Finnemore, M.Sikkink, K. (1998), ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization 52(4): 887–917.Google Scholar
Fiske, S.T.Linville, P.W. (1980), ‘What does the schema concept buy us?’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6(4): 543–557.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.-G. (1972), Wahrheit und Methode, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G.Todd, P.M. (1999), ‘Fast and frugal heuristics: the adaptive toolbox’, in G. Gigerenzer, P.M. Todd and the ABC Research Group (eds), Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Glaser, B.Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago: Atherton.Google Scholar
Goldgeier, J.Tetlock, P. (2008), ‘Psychological approaches’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 462–480.Google Scholar
Goldstein, J.Keohane, R. (1993), ‘Ideas and foreign policy: an analytical framework’, in J. Goldstein and R.O. Keohane (eds), Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grattan, R. (2006), ‘Robert McNamara's 11 lessons in the context of theories of strategic management’, Journal of Management History 12(4): 425–438.Google Scholar
Griffin, D.Brenner, L. (2004), ‘Perspectives on probability judgment calibration’, in D. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 177–199.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1977), ‘Hannah Arendt's communications concept of power’, Social Research 44(1): 3–24.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1991), Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1995a), Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns I: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1995b), Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns II: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1986), Governing the Economy: The Politics of State Intervention in Britain and France, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, R.Dawes, R. (2010), Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making, Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Herman, R. (1996), ‘Identity, norms, and national security: the soviet foreign policy revolution and the end of the cold war’, in P. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 271–316.Google Scholar
Hopf, T. (1998), ‘The promise of constructivism in international relations theory’, International Security 23(1): 171–200.Google Scholar
Hopf, T. (2002), Social Construction of International Politics: Identities & Foreign Policies, Moscow 1955 and 1999, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Joas, H. (1996), Die Kreativität des Handelns, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Kahan, J.H.Long, A.K. (1972), ‘The Cuban missile crisis: a study of its strategic context’, Political Science Quarterly 87(4): 564–590.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.Tversky, A. (1979), ‘Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’, Econometrica 47(2): 263–292.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P.Tversky, A. (eds) (1982), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1956), Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1974), Kritik der Urteilskraft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P.Sil, R. (2008), ‘Eclectic theorizing in the study and practice of international relations’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 109–130.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, W.W. (1964), The McNamara Strategy, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Keck, M.Sikkink, K. (1998), Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, R.O. (1988), ‘International institutions: two approaches’, International Studies Quarterly 44(1): 83–105.Google Scholar
Klotz, A. (1995), ‘Norms reconstituting interests: global racial equality and U.S. sanctions against South Africa’, International Organization 49(3): 451–478.Google Scholar
Koehler, D.Harvey, N. (2004), ‘Preface’, in D. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. xiv–xvi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornprobst, M. (2008), Irredentism in European Politics: Argumentation, Compromise, and Norms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kornprobst, M. (2009), ‘International relations as rhetorical discipline: toward (Re-)newing horizons’, International Studies Review 11(1): 87–108.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kydd, A.H. (2008), ‘Methodological individualism and rational choice’, in C. Reus-Smit and D. Snidal (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 425–443.Google Scholar
Lagnado, D.Sloman, S. (2004), ‘Inside and outside probability judgment’, in D. Koehler and N. Harvey (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 157–176.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lau, R.Sears, D. (1986), ‘Social cognition and political cognition: the past, the present, and the future’, in R. Lau and D. Sears (eds), Political Cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 347–366.Google Scholar
Lebow, R.N.Stein, J.G. (1994), We All Lost the Cold War, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lebow, R.N. (2005), ‘Reason, emotion and cooperation’, International Politics 42(3): 283–313.Google Scholar
Locke, K. (1996), ‘Rewriting the discovery of grounded theory after 25 years’, Journal of Management Inquiry 5(3): 239–245.Google Scholar
March, J.G.Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, G.E., Neuman, W.R.MacKuen, M. (2000), Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martin, W. (2006), Theories of Judgment: Psychology, Logic, Phenomenology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
May, E.R.Zelikov, P.D. (eds) (2002), The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (ed.) (1972), ‘Game theory and the evolution of fighting’, in On Evolution, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 8–28.Google Scholar
McDermott, R. (2004), ‘The feelings of rationality: the meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science’, Perspectives on Politics 2(4): 691–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, R. (1968), The Essence of Security: Reflections in Office, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
McNamara, R. (1986), Blundering into Disaster: Surviving the First Century of the Nuclear Age, New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
McNamara, R. (1989), Out of the Cold: New Thinking for American Foreign and Defense Policy in the 21st Century, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
McNamara, R. (1995), In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
Müller, H. (1994), ‘Internationale Beziehungen als kommunikatives Handeln: Zur Kritik der utilitaristischen Handlungstheorien’, Zeitschrift für internationale Beziehungen 1(1): 15–44.Google Scholar
Plato, (1925), Statesman (edited and translated by H. Fowler and W.R.M. Lamb), London: William Heinemann.Google Scholar
Plato, (1961), Meno (edited and translated by R.S. Bluck), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pouliot, V. (2007), ‘ “Sobjectivism”: toward a constructivist methodology’, International Studies Quarterly 51(2): 359–384.Google Scholar
Pouliot, V. (2008), ‘The logic of practicality: a theory of practice of security communities’, International Organization 62(2): 257–288.Google Scholar
Risse, T. (2000), ‘Let's argue! Communicative action in world politics’, International Organization 54(1): 1–39.Google Scholar
Schimmelfennig, F. (2000), ‘International socialization in the New Europe: rational action in an institutional environment’, European Journal of International Relations 6(1): 109–139.Google Scholar
Schneider, U. (1998), ‘Eclecticism rediscovered’, Journal of the History of Ideas 59(1): 173–182.Google Scholar
Scott, L.Smith, S. (1994), ‘Lessons of october: historians, political scientists, policy-makers and the cuban missile crisis’, International Affairs 70(4): 659–684.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (2002), Rationality and Freedom, Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Sending, O.J. (2002), ‘Constitution, choice and change: problems with the “logic of appropriateness” and its use in constructivist theory’, European Journal of International Relations 8(4): 443–470.Google Scholar
Sewell, W.F. (1992), ‘A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation’, American Journal of Sociology 98(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1957), Models of Man: Social and Rational, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Snow, D.Benford, R. (1988), ‘Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization’, in B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow (eds), From Structure to Action: Social Movement Participation Across Cultures, Greenwich: JAI Press, pp. 197–217.Google Scholar
Sprague, R.K. (ed.) (1972), The Older Sophists, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Stone, I.F. (1968), In a Time of Torment, London: Cape.Google Scholar
Swidler, A. (1986), ‘Culture in action: symbols and strategies’, American Sociological Review 51(2): 273–286.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P.E. (2005), Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Trewhitt, H.L. (1971), McNamara, New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Vertzberger, Y.Y.I. (1990), The World in Their Minds: Information Processing, Cognition and Perception in Foreign Policy Decisionmaking, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Weldes, J. (1999), ‘The cultural production of crises: US identity and missiles in Cuba’, in J. Weldes, H. Gusterson, M. Laffey and R. Duvall (eds), Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities and the Production of Danger, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 35–62.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (1987), ‘The agent-structure problem in international relations theory’, International Organization 41(3): 335–370.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (1999), Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wiener, A. (2009), ‘Enacting meaning-in-use. Qualitative research on norms in international relations’, Review of International Studies 35(1): 175–193.Google Scholar
Wight, C. (2006), Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar