Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T05:21:20.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Just the facts: why norms remain relevant in an age of practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2019

Miles M. Evers Open the ORCID record for Miles M. Evers [Opens in a new window]
Miles M. Evers*
Affiliation:
George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Reification – the act of treating something socially created as if it were real – is often described as a problem in the study of international norms. Critical and post-colonial scholars argue that reification silences alternative worldviews, whereas practice-oriented scholars argue it diminishes agency and practical innovation. In his article ‘From Norms to Normative Configurations,’ Simon Pratt proposes a solution to the problem of reification, reconceiving norms as a configuration of interrelated social practices. In this piece, I argue that the conventional wisdom is wrong. Reification is an essential part of how norms are constructed, contested, and surmounted in international politics. I revisit the foundational figures in norms research to highlight problems in Pratt's analysis, and prove the value of reification, both analytically and methodologically. Then, I use these insights to amend the concept of normative configuration, redefining it as a complex network of discrete norms tied together through common social practices. Along the way, I offer directions for future research on the relationship between norms and practices.

Keywords

practice turnnormsreificationnoncompliancecontestation
Type
Original Papers
Information
International Theory , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , July 2020 , pp. 220 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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, Emanuel, and Pouliot, Vincent, eds. 2011. International Practices. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. “Stigma Management in International Relations: Transgressive Identities, Norms, and Order in International Society.” International Organization 68 (1): 143–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banka, Andris, and Quinn, Adam. 2018. “Killing Norms Softly: US Targeted Killing, Quasi-Secrecy and the Assassination Ban.” Security Studies 27 (4): 665–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Peter L., and Luckmann, Thomas. 1991. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. London: England, Penguin Books Limited.Google Scholar
Carlsnaes, Walter. 1992. “The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis.” International Studies Quarterly 36 (3): 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, Arjun, and Duvall, Raymond. 2014. “Sovereignty and Sovereign Power.” International Theory 6 (02): 191–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Ambruoso, William L. 2015. “Norms, Perverse Effects, and Torture.” International Theory 7 (1): 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessler, David. 1989. “What's at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?” International Organization 43 (3): 441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doty, Roxanne. 1997. “Aporia: A Critical Exploration of the Agent-Structure Problematique in International Relations Theory.” European Journal of International Relations 3 (3): 365–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, Miles M. 2017. “On Transgression.” International Studies Quarterly 61 (4): 786–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 1998. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52 (4): 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Großklaus, Mathias. 2017. “Friction, Not Erosion: Assassination Norms at the Fault Line Between Sovereignty and Liberal Values.” Contemporary Security Policy 38 (2): 260–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofferberth, Matthias, and Weber, Christian. 2015. “Lost in Translation: A Critique of Constructivist Norm Research.” Journal of International Relations and Development 18 (1): 75–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, Martin, and Smith, Steve. 1991. “Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations.” Review of International Studies 17 (4): 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2007. “Breaking and Making Norms: American Revisionism and Crises of Legitimacy.” International Politics 44 (2/3): 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. 2006. Civilizing the Enemy: German Reconstruction and the Invention of the West. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Nexon, Daniel H.. 1999. “Relations before States: Substance, Process and the Study of World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 5 (3): 291–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaczmarska, Katarzyna. 2019. “Reification in IR: The Process and Consequences of Reifying the Idea of International Society.” International Studies Review 21 (3): 347–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klotz, Audie, Lynch, Cecilia, Checkel, Jeffrey T., and Dunn, Kevin C.. 2006. “Moving Beyond the Agent-Structure Debate.” International Studies Review 8 (2): 355–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich, and Ruggie, John Gerard. 1986. “International Organization: A State of the Art on an Art of the State.” International Organization 40 (04): 753–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantis, Jeffrey S., and Wunderlich, Carla. 2018. “Resiliency Dynamics of Norm Clusters: Norm Contestation and International Cooperation.” Review of International Studies 44 (3): 570–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCourt, David M. 2016. “Practice Theory and Relationalism as the New Constructivism.” International Studies Quarterly 60 (3): 475–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Harald. 2004. “Arguing, Bargaining and All That: Communicative Action, Rationalist Theory and the Logic of Appropriateness in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 10 (3): 395–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. World of Our Making: Rules and Rule in Social Theory and International Relations. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1994. “The Constitution of International Society.” European Journal of International Law 5 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2004. “The Essence of Constructivism.” Journal of International Relations and Development 7: 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2010. International Security in Practice the Politics of NATO-Russia Diplomacy. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=502510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pouliot, Vincent. 2016. International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pratt, Simon Frankel. 2019. “From Norms to Normative Configurations: A Pragmatist and Relational Approach to Theorizing Normativity in IR.” International Theory 12(1): 59–82. doi:10.1017/S1752971919000095Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 2019. “Syria and the Chemical Weapons Taboo.” Journal of Global Security Studies 4 (1): 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Mark. 2019. Social Practices of Rule-Making in World Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 1997. “The Constitutional Structure of International Society and the Nature of Fundamental Institutions.” International Organization 51 (4): 555–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandholtz, Wayne and Kendall, W. Stiles. International Norms and Cycles of Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Averell, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 2019. “Breaking the Ban? The Heterogeneous Impact of US Contestation of the Torture Norm.” Journal of Global Security Studies 4 (1): 105–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 2016. “The Limits of Emergence: Reply to Tony Lawson.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 46 (4): 400–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 1999. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use.” International Organization 53 (03): 433–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1992. “Anarchy is What States Make of it: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46 (02): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, Antje. 2009. “Enacting Meaning-in-Use: Qualitative Research on Norms and International Relations.” Review of International Studies 35 (01): 175–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, Colin. 2003. “The Agent–Structure Problem and Institutional Racism.” Political Studies 51 (4): 706–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winston, Carla. 2018. “Norm Structure, Diffusion, and Evolution: A Conceptual Approach.” European Journal of International Relations 24 (3): 638–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar