Prof. Andreas Bieler and Prof. Adam D. Morton
The Social Function of Ideology
'If space is the sphere of multiplicity, the product of social relations, and those relations are real material practices, and always ongoing, then space can never be closed, there will always be loose ends, always relations with the beyond, always potential elements of chance'
- Doreen Massey, For Space.
The role of ideas in international relations
Ideas are generally neglected in an analysis of how actors define their interests in IR. Questions, for example, of which economic theories are likely to shape the interests of actors are rarely addressed. Equally, the ontological question of whether ideas are part of the overall structure is often overlooked. In this Class, we discuss how different IR theories address this issue of the role of ideas in international relations.
In the next section, we first outline how so-called cognitive approaches attempt to incorporate an analysis of ideas into mainstream neo-realist and liberal approaches. Section 3 is dedicated to constructivist understandings of ideas, Section 4 to poststructuralist perspectives, before an historical materialist alternative is introduced, which focuses on the internal relation of the material-ideal within the material structure of ideology. Overall, the purpose of this Class is similar to the one on agency-structure. Discussing the role of ideas in international relations allows us to review the various approaches so far introduced in this resource.
Cognitive approaches: amending mainstream IR theories
Neo-realists argue that states’ interests are derived from structure. ‘Neorealists stay focused on the material part (i.e. the relative distribution of power) of “material structure” as the master explanatory variable’ (Sørensen, 2008: 8). Hence, ideas and interests are treated as exogenous to the interaction of states. Liberal institutionalism, in turn, adds regimes to the analysis. They are also important at the international level in that they provide negotiation arenas for state interaction. State interests, however, are still treated as exogenous. They use regimes as they facilitate co-operation, but their initial interests and ideas are not affected. Both neo-realism and liberal institutionalism are not concerned with the source of new ideas and the self-interest of those putting them forward. They simply take them as given.
With ideas, however, gaining a larger salience within IR theory due to constructivist and poststructuralist challenges, cognitive approaches have emerged from within the mainstream in order to take ideas into account (Bieler, 2001). They focus on the causal effect of ideas on policy and ask when certain ideas are accepted as guidelines for policy-making. These approaches do not rival traditional approaches. Instead they treat ideas as an additional explanatory variable. Equally based on a positivist understanding of social science, they attempt to identify causal relationships in an objective world.
The so-called ‘epistemic communities’ approach is a good example of cognitivism (e.g. Haas, 1992). ‘Epistemic communities’ are defined as networks of professionals with a recognised expertise in a particular domain. These professionals have a shared set of normative and principled beliefs, shared causal beliefs, shared notions of what is valid scientific knowledge and a common policy enterprise. Ideas put forward by epistemic communities may play a role in the definition of states’ interests. In times of crisis and/or uncertainty, policy-makers may turn to epistemic communities for advice. For example, in view of the problem of climate change, which is clearly outside the general expertise of policy-makers, scientists dealing with these issues have gained a particular voice in influencing policy-making around how to respond to the challenge at the international level.
Despite these advances, however, there remain a number of problems with cognitivism. First, interests are still treated as given, to be achieved with the help of ideas carried by actors as ‘weapons’ in their arguments when trying to convince others. Moreover, regarding ideas as causes and as properties of actors does not allow us to treat them as a part of the wider social structure. Hence, the source of ideas and material interests linked to them are overlooked. Ultimately, the positivist basis of cognitivism prevents these approaches from appreciating the wider ontological role of ideas as part of the overall structure.
THINK POINT:
In what way is a congnitivist conceptualisation of the role of ideas in IR problematic?
Constructivist approaches and the role of ideas
Social constructivists consider ideas to be ‘intersubjective meanings’, defined as ‘the product of the collective self-interpretations and self-definitions of human communities’ (Neufeld, 1995: 77). Thus, from a constructivist perspective, ideas in the form of intersubjective meanings, i.e. as collectively held beliefs, become part of the wider social structure (see Class 4). As a result, first, identity and interests are not exogenous to interaction, but may be changed in the process of interaction. Second, structure is instantiated but also transformed through agency and their interaction. As Alexander Wendt has argued, the nature of the international system depends on the interaction of states within it. ‘Anarchy is what states make of it’ (Wendt, 1992).
In general, constructivism is very good at sequencing how a particular idea became part of the overall structure in the form of an intersubjective meaning. Nevertheless, as already indicated in Class 9 on agency-structure, there are problems with constructivism. First, constructivism is unable by itself to provide an answer as to who are the core agents to be analysed in IR. They need to rely on additional approaches in an ad hoc manner, as for example Wendt draws on neo-realism, when identifying states as the key actors in IR (Wendt, 1992: 424; Wendt, 1999: 39, 43). Second, constructivism cannot provide an answer to why certain ideas are successful at particular times. There are always all kinds of ideas around that rival each other for dominance. It is also important to investigate why a particular set of ideas emerges as dominant at a particular moment in time to, thus, become part of the overall structure, while another one falls by the wayside. For example, why was neoliberalism successful at replacing Keynesian economic policies from the 1970s onwards and not a different way of how to understand the workings of the economy? Finally, change in international relations is exclusively explained by reference to changes in intersubjective meanings by constructivism (Sørensen, 2008). The material structure plays no role in this. Ideas and structure are, thus, only understood as externally related.
Poststructuralism and the role of ideas
The core contribution of constructivism is outlining how power is always implicated in theory formation and discourses. As poststructuralists reject the identification of agents and a particular order/structure due to their anti-foundationalist stance, ideas cannot be regarded as part of the ontological structure. Instead, there is a conception of ideas as discourse (which is more than language) surrounding the political, or the moment a new myth is deployed to establish a particular social or world order. According to Edkins (1999: 13), ‘the founding moment is the moment of decisioning, the moment that both produces and reproduces the law.’ An example of such a founding moment would be the significance of 1989 within processes of European integration, when a new order could be enacted through the inclusion and legitimacy of Central and Eastern Europe within the regional social order. Hence, poststructuralism is very good at sequencing how a particular discourse has become established over time as part of a new order.
Nevertheless, due to post-structuralism’s anti-foundationalism, what is not analysed is who the agents behind structural change are (see Class 9). Equally, while the emergence of a dominant discourse can be sequenced, it is not possible to identify why one particular discourse has won over other contending discourses at a particular ‘political moment’ in time. Following Stuart Hall (1986: 40), an emphasis on the discursive does not mean that everything is within the discursive, for this would collapse into an emphasis on the 'total free floatingness of all ideological elements and discourses'. In other words, similar to constructivism the who of power and the why of change cannot be analysed when assessing the role of ideas in international relations (see Morton 2016).
Historical materialism: the material structure of ideology
An historical materialist position on the role of ideas draws on the philosophy of internal relations. In contrast to empirical pluralism, certain factors are not understood as independent variables, but as different forms, expressing the same social relations of production and, thus, internally related. For example, ‘state’ and ‘market’ or ‘agency’ and ‘structure’ (see Class 9) are understood as different forms of the same social relations of production. As indicated in the lecture on agency-structure, the centrality of class struggle is essential to comprehend these internal relations. It is here that the philosophy of internal relations is articulated by historical materialism (see Bieler and Morton 2018).
A dialectical connectedness of ideas as material social processes becomes apparent in a non-deterministic understanding of structural change. Four different ways can be identified in particular in relation to how the material structure of ideology is expressed (Bieler and Morton, 2008: 117-21). First, ideas can be understood as part of a hegemonic structure in that they are transmitted through, for example, specific forms of architecture. It is no surprise, for example, that banks generally occupy some of the most prestigious properties in cities, be it historical buildings, be it cutting edge modern architecture. The power of capital within contemporary society is expressed within and through these forms of architecture in the production of space (see Morton 2018). This is where Doreen Massey's work is so persuasive in highlighting the multiplicity of contested processes in the production of space along with the ongoing production of history in the present, within wider material geometries of power (Massey 2005: 129-30). Second, the material structure of ideology is expressed in forms of ‘capillary power’. Hegemony within civil society is established through a whole range of social institutions including the Catholic Church, newspapers, or education system, for example. Third, ideas are not arbitrary but historically produced in class struggle. Importantly, only those ideas are considered to be organic ideas, which are closely related to the social relations or production. This provides an additional conceptual understanding of why some ideas are more decisive than others. Ultimately, the ideas related to dominant forces in class struggle are more likely to win over those ideas, supported by weaker social class forces.
Finally, the connection between the material structure and ideas is produced by so-called ‘organic intellectuals’. According to Antonio Gramsci, ‘every social group, coming into existence on the original terrain of an essential function in the world of economic production, creates together with itself, organically, one or more strata of intellectuals which give it homogeneity and an awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields (Gramsci, 1971: 5). Unlike traditional intellectuals, who conceive of themselves as independent but ultimately sustain and maintain the existing social order, organic intellectuals are in charge of producing hegemonic projects, which may become the basis of an alternative order. While constructivist ‘norm entrepreneurs’ are treated as independent of power politics (see Class 4), organic intellectuals, in line with the philosophy of internal relations, are conceptualized as the ideological expression of particular social class forces. In other words, organic intellectuals are an expression of the material structure of ideology.
THINK POINT:
Why is a focus on the internal relations important when conceptualising the role of ideas in IR?
Conclusion: the who, how and why of social change in IR
By drawing on the philosophy of internal relations, an historical materialist perspective is able to answer the questions of the who, how and why of social transformation. Due to the historical materialist ontology, social class forces are identified as the key collective agents in IR. Similarly to constructivism and poststructuralism, the perspective can also sequence the how of social transformation, i.e. the way particular ideas have emerged as dominant as part of a new order at a particular moment in time. Finally, due to how ideas are understood as internally related to the material structure of the social relations of production, the question of why a particular order with certain ideas came about can also be addressed. The stronger the social class forces promoting ideological positions, the more likely its success is in a particular moment of class struggle.
The fact that neoliberalism has emerged as dominant out of the crisis of capitalism in the 1970s is also due to the fact that it had been linked to the increasingly powerful social forces of transnational capital and its ties with key organic intellectuals working through states aligned with powerful institutions such as the IMF or World Bank or influential newspapers including the Financial Times, as well as associated with highly influential economics departments at universities around the world. Hence, the structural power of transnational capital and the capillary ways of how this power was transmitted through various institutions in society is key in answering why neoliberalism has become dominant as the new ‘class project’ of (transnational) capital.
References
Bieler, Andreas (2001) ‘Questioning Cognitivism and Constructivism in IR Theory: Reflections on the Material Structure of Ideas’, Politics, 21(2): 93-100.
Bieler, Andreas and Adam David Morton (2008) ‘The Deficits of Discourse in IPE: turning base metal into gold?’, International Studies Quarterly, 52(1): 103-28.
Bieler, Andreas and Adam David Morton (2018) Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edkins, Jenny (1999) Poststructuralism & International Relations: Bringing the Political Back In. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Haas, Peter M. (1992) ‘Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination’, International Organization, 46(1): 1-35.
Hall, Stuart (1986) 'The Problem of Ideology - Marxism without Guarantees', Journal of Communication and Inquiry, 10(2): 28-44.
Massey, Doreen (2005) For Space. London: Sage.
Morton, Adam David (2016) ‘The Who of Power?’, Globalizations, 13(2): 232-41.
Morton, Adam David (2018) ‘The Architecture of “Passive Revolution”: Society, State and Space in Modern Mexico’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 50(1): 117-52.
Neufeld, Mark A. (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sørensen, Georg (2008) ‘The Case for Combining Material Forces and Ideas in the Study of ir’, European Journal of International Relations, 14(1): 5-32.
Wendt, Alexander (1992) ‘Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics’, International Organization, 46(2): 391-425.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.