'1

'\,

Bourdieu in International
Relations
Rethinking key concepts in IR

Edited by Rebecca Adler-Nissen

I~
~~o~&\I;n~~:up
LONDON AND NEW YORK
Contents

NOles (J11COl1trihulors IX
FOrell"onl xiii
Pre/cfef! by Emal1uel Adler xv
AcOkl1011"ledgemenls xvii

Introduction
Kt~UI:("("A ADLER-NISSI.N

BourdiclI's concepts 24
VINCENT POUliOT AND FRI':J)(-.RIC :-'1ERAND

2 Methodology 45
VI"J(T\'T I'OULIOT

3 Knowlcdgcs 59
TRINI: VILUJMSI:N HI.:KlI\'(j

4 Power 78

5 Strategy 93
Hd:llf.RIC MI~RAN[) A\,() ,\/'0.'1/:1.11".
FORGET

6 Security 114
DWII.l< BI(il)

7 Culture 131
MICHAl L (' WILLIAMS

8 Gender 148
 viii Contents

9 Norms 165
CHARLOTTE EPSTEIN

10 Sovereignty
179
REBECCA ADLER-~lSSt;.~

II Integration
193
NIJLO KAUPPI

12 Citizenship
207
VIIWI~JE GL,'IRAUDON

'lldex
220
I'
iI
~
, ;.
,'
I;
.i' :
!i
I

'.'
,I
i
\ .

:I
II
I,
I
1
. i
 Introduction
Bourdieu and International
Relations theory
Rebecca Adler-Nissen
Ii
I
Why yet another dead French thinker'.' We already have Althusscr. Foucault and
Dcrrida. Docs International Relations (I R) really need Pierre Bourdicu'! The short
answer is yes. The slightly longer answer is that Bourtlicu's sociology provides us
with an opportunity to rethink international politics in ways nOl ofTered by these
other thinkers. 130urdicu helps us rediscover the everyday practices. symbolic
structures and arenas of conflict that bring many other actors into perspective.
rather than just focusing 011 nation slates that produce (what we call) international
politics. All engagelllcnt with his \vork redirects our discipline from being
inRucncctl by overly abstructed <lnd simplified reificatiolls of world politics. which
is currenlly the casc in bOlh positivist and post-positivisl IR schools. Bourdicu
allows us to explore ho\'.' people creatc international relations in their daily
activities. 111short. Bourdicu helps us to takl' the discursive. visual and cmhodied
praclicl..'s in international politics more seriously.
The purpose of this hook is to rL'think key concepts of IR by drawing on the
work of PiL'rfL' Hourdiell. The last few years have seen a gClluine wavc of publica-
tions promoting sociology in inlcrnational relations. Scholars have suggested that
8ourdieu's vocabulary can be applied as an cpistemological or II theoretical point
of ,ic'p:1l1ure(A,lIer 200S, Guzzin; 200ll, Poulio! 201l7, Williams 2(07) or as an
analytical approach to study sccurily (Bigo 2002. 200S: I-Iuysmans 2002: Leander
2(05). diplomacy (Nellmann 2(02). foreign policy !Jackson 20llS, Hop1'2(02) or
globalcllviront11cl1lal politics (Epslein 2()()X). Yct we still lack a systcmatic and
accL'ssihle analysis of what Bourdicu-inspired IR might look like. This is where
this volume makes a contributioll. It olTl..'rsan introdllclion 10 Boun!ieu's thinking
to a wider IR audience. The hook challenges key assumptions. which clIrrcl1lly
structurc IR scholarship. and provides a theorctical restatement ofsomc ofthl..' core
concepts in the field.
While political sociology is developing rapidly as a pl..'rspectivc inlR. therl..' is a
IilL'k of general dialogul..' on the advantages and disadvantages of importing
BOllrdicll into IR. ('nntrar)' to the rich lkhale nn Michel Foucault (c.g. Chandler
2010: Neumann and Sending 2007: KirsL'Y and Stokes. 2010: Merlingl..'ll 20(6).
BOllnlicll is )'('110 he trL'atcd systelll,lIically in IR theory. The hook contrihutcs to
Ihe ongoing L'ngagcmL'nt with sociological idcas and mcthods within IR and. in
particular. the study ol'practicc.
 2 R. Adler-Nissen

This book brings together a select group of IR scholars who draw on both
theoretical and empirical insights from Bourdieu. Each chapter covers one central
concept in IR: A1ethodulogl', KflO\1lledge~i,Power, Strategy, Security, Clliture,
Gender, Norms. Sovereignty, Integration and Citizenship. The chapters demonstrate
hO\\!these concepts can be reinterpreted and used in new ways when exposed to
Bourdieusian logic.
Theoretically. Bourdieu questions a number of assumptions in JR. Bourdieu
dissolves the agency-structure problem in convenient, analytical units and otTers
all epistemological position representing what some have seen as a middle ground
between objectivist and interpretative resean.:h traditions (Nash 1999). Moreover,
Bourt!ieu's sociology offers multiple opportunities to reconsider the object(s) of
JR theory, notably by 'de-institutionalizing' the state and focusing on historical
struggles through which social distinctions arc constituted. The increasing rate at
which some states and societies are integrating on the olle hanet and thc drastic
exclusions of other societies/states/social groups on the other. has created a need
for deeper reflection on the social constitution of world politics.
For example, Bourdieu gives us imaginative ways of rethi nking the development
and natUl'e of IR's core concept - the state. Bourdieu's reflection on the state's
'mcta-capital', understood as a definitional power - capable of cxercising control
ovcr othcr types of power such as educational status and military professionalism
- providcs us with a concretc way to analyse the iJ1lcrplay betwecn the symbolic
and material resources thai contribute to Slale sovereignty. Conlrary to the
fOnllalistic views on Ihe state still dominant in IR theory. where sovereigm)' is an
either/or concept with a series of pre-defined discursive or material attributcs,
l30urdieu does not accept the idea of the state being static. On the contrary, Bourdicu
focuses on rhe historical processes and slow-changing cultural systems Ihat make
up. for instance. post-colonial Algcria or his nativc region ofBcarn in thc Pyrenecs
mountains of south-west France. At the same lime, Bourdicu helps us to understand
how non-state actors such as transnational movements challenge sovereignty by
questioning the state's regalian fuItcrions.
By using key terms from 130urdieu's sociology such asjield, habitus, ,\:vmholic
power, capital. doxa and rejlexi\'iZv, it is possible to map political units as spaces
of practical knowledge on which diverse and oHen 'unconventional' agencies
position thcmsclvcs and therefore shape international politics. Thus. crucial
questions of:

• how inclusion/exclusion lines are constituted:

• how social groups and institutions in world polilics enact their practices of
assimilation or distinction;
• \vhich power mechanisms are at the disposition of the different actors; and
• how to observe the constilUtiol1, usagc and change of political ideas through
economic. cultural and social practices

"
can be answered in original ways with sensitivity to the everyday practices in
world politics.

,f IR scholars who draw on both
u. Each chapter covers one central
nver, Strategy, Security. Culture,
izenship. The chapters demonstrate
;ed in new ways when exposed to
r of assumptions in JR. Bourdieu
'enient analytical units and offers
omc have seen as a middle ground
traditions (Nash 1999). Moreover,
ties to reconsider the object(s) of
e state and focusing on historical
constituted. The increasing rate at
: on the one hand and the drastic
IS on the other, has created a need
,f world politics.
"'ys of rethinking the development
ourdieu's reflection on the state's
'er - capable of exercising control
:atus and military professionalism
.e interplay between the symbolic
lte sovereignty. Contrary to the
R theory. where sovereignty is an
discursive or material attributes.
Ig static. On the contrary. Bourdieu
mging cultural systems that make
,'e region of Bcarn in the Pyrenees
~,Bourdicu helps us to understand
'ements challenge sovereignty by
Y such asfield, habitus, ~:vmbolic
e to map political units as spaces
often 'unconventional' agencies
mational politics. Thus, crucial
d:
I politics enact their practices of
:ion of the different actors: and
change of political ideas through
'ity to the everyday practices in
11llrodllcrioll 3
This introductory chapter explains the general argument of the book. The next
section considers the kind of exchange with the rest of the IR field that a Bourdieu-
inspired research may offer. The second section provides a brief overview of how
Bourdieu has so far been imported into IR studies. The third section explains the
selection of concepts and how they illustrate the argument of the book. The fourth
section explains the logic of the concept chapters. All chapters go through a three-
step process of (1) rethinking a key concept inlR, based on a critical engagement
with existing literature, (2) methodological considerations and empirical
illustrations of the restated concept and (3) reflective turn, self-criticism and
discussion of avenues for future research. The fifth and last section provides an
overview of how the book is organised.
Bourdieu and international politics
By the time Bourdieu died of cancer in a Paris hospital in 2002, he had made a
profound impact on social sciences. The son of a village postman, Bourdieu set
new standards - not only in research on social class and poverty. but also in the
study of media, language, literature, education. science, gender and political
communication. In the mid-1970s, Bourdieu's major writings \\'ere translated into
English and his books appeared in libraries outside of France - in the anthropology .
sociology and philosophy sections. One area in which Bourdieu \\'as almost
ignored however, was JR. This is perhaps not surprising. His D\\'n engagement
with international politics seemed to be limited to his activities as a public
intellectual. [n his later years, Bourdieu championed the anti-globalisation
movement and other anti-establishment causes in France (Swartz 2004). Moreover,
he vigorously defended the European welfare state against what he saw as
destructive nco-liberalism (see also Bourdieu 2002). However, Bourdieu was first
and foremost a remarkable social theorist and empirical researcher. His productive
career resulted in more than 25 books and hundreds of articles (for overviews of
Bourdieu's work, sec Swartz 1997: Jenkins 2002: Reed-Danahay 2004). It is in this
capacity. more than as an engaged citizen (or what his critics would call an outdated
'anti-mondialistc'), that he will bc most valuable to the further development of IR
as a discipline.
Although one of his most important works. Outline of a Them)' of Practice
(1977), is an ethnographic exploration of Kabyle (also known as Berber) society
in Algeria - including reflections on the legacy of French colonialism (see
Guiraudon, this volume) - Bourdieu did not form his ideas on the empirical objects
that are usually studied in IR. This is both a challenge and an opportunity for IR
theory: Bourdieu largely focused on the domestic arenas of European societies,
where the techniques of discipline and practices of government are disseminated
by diverse institutions across the entire social framework. In the international
arena, such techniques and practices are often more unevenly distributed. One
central question raised in this book is therefore: 1s there specificity to 'the
international'? On the one hand a Bourdieusian analysis enables us to see that the
international order is produced in much the same way as the domestic order, i.e.
4 R. Adler-Nissen

as a densely structured social space 'inhabited by all manner of discursive bodily

and material relations' (Selby 2007: 338). On the olher hand Bourdieu also helps
us to understand how the powerful distinction bet\\'ccn 'inside' and 'outside' is
upheld every day by everything from border guards to national statisticians and IR
scholars. Indeed, if we are to promote Bourdieu to the international realm, we need
to question and work our way through these and other specificities.
No matter whal makes 'the international' stand oul, Bourdiell manages to turn
mainstreamlR theory upside down. When nco-realists claim that the international
system is anarchical, Bourdicu would insist that it is hierarchical. When the
English School suggests that 'pariah states and failed states' can be seen as being
somehow outside international society, relegated to a more abstract international
system 'with less dense interaction' (Dunne 2010: 148). a l3ourdicu-inspired
approach argues that processes of exclusion arc intrinsic to international society.
MUnJllmar Gaddafi's Libya. for instance. in part becomes a 'pariah state' through
processes oflabelling and discrimination by the \Vestcrn world. To understand the
international intervention in Libya in 2011. we need to link an analysis of the
historical and economic relations between the European powers and North Africa
with the struggles between diplomatic and military fields in the \Vestcrn worlel the
UN and NATO (Adler-Nissen 2011.).
A political sociology such as Bourdieu's shares a view that all constructivists
agree on: that world politics is socially constructed (see Guzzini 2000: Jackson
2008: Kauppi 2003: Leander 2005: Pouliot 2007).1 This construction is seen as an
ongoing. dynamic process: reality is reproduced through people acting on their
interpretations and their knowledge of it. This is different from a constructivist
focus on identity and norms, because it brings power into the picture (Guzzini, this
volume). Drawing on Bourdieu's field concept. Michael C. Williams (2007). for
instance. points at constructivist security scholars' failure to understand that cul-
ture and strategic action are linked. Consequently. constructivists naively saw
NATO's transformation into a 'democratic security community' after the Cold War
as a 'fact'. a confirmation of their own theories, rather than as the ambiguous
outcome of a pal1icular power struggle. However. anarchy is not what states make
of it because international politics is already structured. States come with a history.
The marginalisatioll of some states, groups or individuals cannot be explained by
processes of social interaction and rolc ascription. but by the changing patlcrns of
cultural and symbolic forms of domination and the competition for power and
prestige. Consequently. the idca that anarchy is a defining feature of .the interna-
tional' simply docs not make sense in a Bourdicusian perspective.~ Bourdieu
would challenge. both philosophically and analytically. the key distinction betwecn
a domcstic realm. which is ordered under a (legitimate) authority, and the interna-
tional realm, which is unorganised and not bound by law. As Bourdieu demon-
strated repeatedly. life within the state is also violent and conr1ict-lidden. This idea
is perhaps Illost evident in his magnum opus. The Ii'eight oj the l1'or/d (1993) . a
book thai documents various forms of violence and social suffering in contempo-
rary Western (and par1icular1y French) society. Bourdieu and his collnborators
interview people who are living at the harsh end of society (in run-down housing
 /l1ImdUC'liofl 5

estates. on the dole. in jXlIi-time work. factory jobs. etc.) and let them tell their
llwn stories of everyday humiliation, symbolic, verbal and physical violence, This
violence docs not exist due to a lack of organised community. but precisely as a
direct result of it. The social (whether it is internationally or domestically organ-
ised) is characterised by continuous struggles for power and ways to legitimise
dominat ion, The rise of private security actors. for cxample. can he understood as
the combined effect of at least Iwo dilTcrent processes: the punitive approach to
crime since the 19705. and the neo-liheralmodes ofgovernmcnt with privatisation
and outsourcing of public scctor security functions. 'including prisons, prisoncr
transport. immigration control. and airport security' (Abrahamsen and \Villi<lms
2011: 313). As Abrahamsc:n and Williams show in the casc of South Africa, Ihe
rise or private SCl:urity is not simply the result orlhe 'dcclinc of the Slate', Rather.
what BOllnlicu calls 'the symbolic power' of the puhlic has becn rc-,1l1icula(eti. and
a new partnership bctwccn the public and the private has been constructed with the
help of diplomats of the foreign comlxlIlics' stah: of origi n, defendi ng 'free tradc'
and foreign in\'l'stmcnt in all S(,I.,.'tors.including sccurity.
Contrary 10 conventional constructivists in IR. Bourdieu did not only focus on
norm dimlsi(lIl. and socialisation in the inll:rnatiollal syslcm. I Ie studied micro-
socioiogiG11 practices such as marriagl...'. gradualion and gift-giving rituals to 1Il1dn-
stand ho\\' struclures or symbolic power and exclusion arc reproduced, Sueh rituals
have becn overhlOkcd ill 1l1lH ...h IR lhctH")' despite Iheir impt)f\ance in diplomacy and
intcrnatitmalncgotiations. ('{Hllparcd to thc cxisting versions t)l'IR nHlstnKtivism.
which pay inadequate altcntionto the role orhabilual and unrct1ectiw behaviour in
world politics. one t)l'the merits ora Bounlicusian approach is Ihat it i~ paT1iclllarly
attcntive towards these pheJlOllK'na (sec also Pouliot 200;-':).
\"'hile Bounlil...'lI dearly spl...'aks to nmstrucli\'ist IR and. ill particular. 'the prac-
tice lui'll'. he also has a lotio say (0 niticalthcorisls who will pick up on his inkr-
pretatiolls or dominalion and resistalK'c, It is no coillL'ideJlcc thai the volul1ll...'
Critical TheoJ'i,(,- olltl/lI(el'llalioJlo/ Ut'/aliil/ls (20]()1. cditcd by Jenny Edkins and
Nick Vaugh,lIl-\Villiams. indudes :I elwpler on Pierre Hourdiell, In this book.
Bourdiell is reatured alongsidc thinkers such as Karl Marx and Simone de Ik:JlIv()ir,
all 'questioning Ihe slarting point or Ihinking politically' (Edkins and Vaughan-
Williams 20 10: 2). It might he diniellit 10 sec how sul~iel:ts can possibly nllmter [he
anonymou:, rOn;l...'S,hal inscribe themseh'es as deeply inthc hody as Bourdieu l...'OI1-
tends. Ilo\\'c\'er. Bourdieu ,Kknowlcdgcs the possibility ora 'conscious control or
the habitll:" ironly tHl the basis ora rigorous stK'io-analysis (hat brings the influcnce
ofthc former 'out orlhc tacit b,Kkground illln thc explicit rorL'gmund' (I loy 200J:
123). ,\1orct),.cr. 1~{)urdiL'lIargucd that S{)1llL'tlmes bringing practicc~ tt) l't)[lSCitHIS-
ness can 1ll0W bcyolld individual habitus and L'xlcnds 10 col kl...'li\'e awarL'ness and
aClioll.' In othL'r words. IhL'l"Ci~ a critica!' clll,lllcipatory trait ill HOlll'dicu's thinking.
which undcrlines Ihe poli(iL'al in 1110hilisations or group or l:las~ strugglc. The
emphasis on the 1...'0I11pll...',,\ ctmstructioll of Clllkl:ti\'e consciousncss ilK'luding the
discursivc mows thai help l'()Jlstitute colk'cli\'c idclltitiL's 1llP\L'S us IK'yond a
Gramsci:ll1 notion or counter-hc:gemony. which is olle or t he nl\"ouriIL' versions or
'resist:UK'L" illcriticallheory (jL'rl1lain and Kenny 199X).
6 R. Adler-Nissen

Unlike his philosopher compatriots, Pierre Bourdieu has had little influence on
contemporary IR theory. In poststructuralist accounts, Bourdieu's sociology is
often regarded as (class) deterministic. having little to offer to contemporary IR
theories and debates. This is about to change; Bourdieu's work is now used to
deploy, recast, criticise and extend key issues and impasses in contemporary lR
theory. Poststructuralists engage with Bourdieu's understanding of the symbolic
power of language (Neumann 2002: Epstein, this volume: Pouliot, this volume).
BOllrdieu developed a complex understanding of language, seeking to go beyond
a Saussurian or Chol11skyan analysis. Throughout his life, Bourdieu criticised
post structuralists such as Foucault and Dcrrida, who he thought reduced or even
destroyed the social sciences 'without paying the price of gelluine conversioll to
the constraints and demands of empirical research' (Bourdieu, quoted in Leander
2008: 605). In fact. this distancing \\'35 driven not only by theoretical disagreement,
but also by a particular struggle in French academia in the 1970s over who was the
main theorist of language (see Bourdieu's discussion of his relationship to
Foucault. Bourdieu 2002: 88-94). Like Foucault, Bourdieu wanted to explore the
political and social conditions of language formation (Bourdieu 1992: 2). For
Bourdieu, and for poststructuralists, textual analysis is not enough. An internal
analysis of political discourses or texts, which docs not place them in the political
field or wider social frame, is of limited value (see Fairclough 1998: 143).
The main tension between Bourdieu's work and poststructuralism is therefore
not the emphasis on discourse, but rather hoU' to study it. Foucault-inspired
poststructuralists analyse discourses 'as practices that systematically form the
objects of which they speak' (Foucault 1972: 29).' In contrast, Bourdieu approaches
discourse sociologically, i.e. as linguistic interactions manifesting the participants'
respective positions in social space and categories of understanding. Language is
embedded in social hierarchies and in bodies. Particulilr accents. utterances and
words may signal a person's social position. Language is part of distinction and
classification games (Bourdieu 1992).
Bourdieu's attempt to go beyond both social determinism and perfor-
Illative agency in his interpretation of class and group struggles has also inspired
feminist scholars. However, Bourdieu has always had a difficult relationship with
feminists - perhaps because he did not acknowledge much of their work. A more
substantial debate between Bourdicu and feminists has concentrated around Judith
Butler's critique of Bourdieu's notion of habitus and body and what she calls 'his
neglect of the possibility of discursive agency' (see Butler 1997: 157-159). Other
feminists have argued that despite his attempt to address gendered social practices,
Bourdicu still reproduces sexist dichotomies and 'misses the critical dimension of
the public/private, male/female and culture/nature opposition and the contradictions
in that condition' (McCall 1992: 852). However, in Jabri's reconstruction (this
volume), Bourdieu's work provides an avenue to challenge binary oppositions
inherent in gender symbolism. Here, Bourdieu's notion of reflexivity olTers an
opportunity to expose the gendcrcd subtext of scientific practice.
Bourdieu, however, is not only likely to inspire a range of post. positivist theories
in JR. There is a particular aspect to Bourdieu's method, which has the potential to
 Introduclion 7

arpeal to the entire field of IR, including liberal institutionalists and cven some
realists. A distinctive clement in Bourdicu's approach is the construction of inter-
pretations through direct interaction \"ith the cmpirical world. This requires IR
scholars to roll up their sleeves and do some empirical research themselves. If. in
recent years. theory has been positioned as a superior form of IR compared to
empirical analysis (\Vallace 1996: Berling, this volume). Bourdiell has always stub-
bornly reacted 10 this. In The Slulf! Nohili~l': Elitf! S'chools ill the Field (~(P()wer
(1989). for instance. Bourdieu presents a form of total anthropology. which sur-
rasses the opposition between exploration and explanation. combining a range of
methods. including interviews. statistics. auto-anthropology and participant obser-
vation. Moreover. it ignores some of the artificial oppositions structuring the social
SCIences -- e.g. hetween quantitative and qualitative inquiry. 711('S'laff! Nohilily
analyses the prm:tical taxonomies and activities. through which teachers and stu-
dents collectively produce the French elitc schools' everyday reality as a meaning-
ful life world. Bourdicu argues thnt educational titles become a prerequisite for
ascent to the apex or private.: corporal ions and puhl ic bureaucracie.:s. The educational
system. despite its formalised meritocracy. hccomL's a mode of domination whereby
the ruling class maintains itself in France.:. Bourdiell insists that empiric<ll analysis
is crucial for our ul1lk'rstanding or society and lhat myriad m~lhods. including sta-
tistics. participantohservatioJ1s and intl:rvicws. are important in this rcspect.

A difkrent reading of 'the international'

This book oilers a dilTerent interpretation of '(he international'. 'the slate' and
'theory'. This section discusses thL'SL'thre.:e insights and points out the pOlclHial for
a more systematic use or his work in IR studies.
First. this book oll\:rs a dilTcrent reading of .thc international' by fOl..'using 011
social prilctil..'L'S.\\fhL'n Bounlictl \vas first imported into IR in thl..' 19XOs. his soci-
ology n:prese.:nh:d a I..'riticai SlallCl.' vis-,J-vis the l.'stablished US.dominiltcd IR.
BOllrdil.'u became a reference in a meta-theoretical debatl.' bl.'twccn positivisllhco.
ries and post-positivist theories of international relations (what somc call the
Fourth Cireat ikhatc),' This de.:bate was cllllcerned with the lIndl..'rlying epistemo-
logy of intern aliona I rclations schnlarship and is also tkscrihcd as a dcbale hetween
'rationalists' and 'rclkcti\'isIS' (Smith 2007: 10). l30urdiell helped qucstion the
choices nr pu/./.ks and rcs('arch questions that WL'I"C aCL'('ptcd as Icgitimak within
IR (Bigo and Walker 2007: 72X). 'Objectivc' SlructurL's such as the liberal market
economy and the Cold War's bipolar system \WIT ill fact historical contingcnt
cOects or particular practices that ('xcludcd other ways Dr organising the world.
Conscquelllly. it was possihlc to queslion th(' realist worldview and demonstrate
its arbitrariness. Ilowevcr. whcnmaking these argul11cnts. I11nstIR scholars did not
make full lise of Houn!ieu's theoretical arse.:nal. I{is critical stance was an IIlspira-
tion. but his analyticallools were not fully e.:lllployed,
I.at('r Oil, ill IIll' 1990s and 200()s. BourdiL'u's work has becn central to the
cmcrgcl1l,;e or the 'praclice turn' in IR promoted hy scholars :,uch as Neumanll
(201l~) and t\dkr and Pouliot (2011). Today. therL' is a nOl:lble increase ofintcrest
8 R. Adler-Nissen

in Bourdieu's work among IR scholars who have explored among other issues. the
relevance of his theory for security studies, European integration and migration
studies and more specifically, for the renewal of political sociological approaches
that have been rather scarce since the 'linguistic tum' in JR. Contrary to the early
pioneers, driven by a desire to demonstrate the problems of theory-constmction,
practice scholars use Bourdieu as a thinker who otTers a useful anal)1ical framework
for studying concrete practices such as diplomacy. Neumann and Pouliot (20 11),
for instance, show how Russia's awkward relationship with the \Vest over the last
millennium can be explained neither by realist notions of systemic pressure,
nor by constructivist ideas of socialisation of states. It is Bourdieu's notion of
'hysteresis', i.e. the mismatch between the dispositions Russian diplomats embody
and the positions they occupy in the international society that explains the longue
duree of Russian diplomacy vis-a-vis the \Vest. \Vhat is picked up by the practice
turn is not so much Bourdieu's insights on the production of knowledge, but rather
his understanding of the mutually constituted relationship between social structure
and social action. Instead of a simple relationship bet\\'een the individual and
society, Bourdieu substitutes the constructed relationship between habitus and
field(s); i.e. between 'history incarnated in bodies' as dispositions and 'history
objectified in things' in the form of systems of positions. 'The crucial aspect of
this equation is "relationship between", because neither habitus nor field has the
capacity to unilaterally determine social action' (Wacquant 2006; 269).
Rather than trying to make Bourdieu's theory fit with one single IR theory, this
book sees him as providing IR with a new orientation. Overall, Bourdieu moves
us away from what we could call the 'asocial' ontology. which still dominates IR
theory today. By 'asocial', J mean IR theory that continues to ignore that social
relations, including international relations. are realised and produced by people
such as UN officials, management consultants, Libyan refugees and Ugandan
child soldiers.
Moreover, despite insights from various strands of constructivism (Checkel
2005), feminism (Cohn 2006) and post-structuralism (Weber 1995; Hansen 2006)
as well as foreign policy analysis (Hudson 2005) and diplomatic studies (Neumann
2002), IR's research objects and methods are too often already defined beft"e the
actual analytical process. However. part of the research process is to construct the
research object (Bollrdiell el al. 1991). We can benefit from Bourdieu's method of
talking to actors to see what they actually do. think, etc., rather than simply impose
a rational actor view that assumes that they follow the interests as rationalism
defines them. The social cannot be understood 'as an external law. set of rules or
representations which the subject will somehow blindly follow. learn or incorpo-
rate. since ... the social will always be literally incorporated in the subject'
(Adkins 2004; 10). The theorisation of social action as always embodied implies
that to be efTective. power and hence politics are incorporated into the body. In
sUfmnary, this book seeks to further develop a practice-oriented IR and to broaden
our understanding of 'the international'.
The second general insight that this book brings to IR is a rethinking of the state.
At the end of the 1980s, Ashley showed that sovereignty was a prerequisite for
 /11Imdl/cl;oll 9

gaining acceptance in thc IR theory: 'It is what one must do in order internation-
ally 10 be' (Ashley 1989: 257. quoted by Ilerling fortheoming). Indeed Bourdieu
reminds LISthat a word such as the 'state' is not just i.Idescription, it is also a pre-
scription. The stnte imposes I1lCl1IaI catcgories, which makes the actions of the
state appear natural. \Vhen we act on behalf of the state. through delcgation- we
perform an act of magic that enables a collection ofinJividuals to form a corporate
body that transcends individuals in significance and purpose (Swartz 1097: ISO).
By emphasising magic. Bounlieu helps us understand the.' (continued) symbolic
power of the state.
Howl.'ver. IR scholars can also lise l3olll'dicli to study chnllcnges to state
sovereignty. A Boun.lieu-inspired approach involves tackling the way sovereign
claims arc allcl.'led by nil her non-spectacular or pragmatic concerns. It f()cuses on
how sovereign claims arc handled concretely and influenced hy tacit understand-
ings or legitimilte and appmpriall ..' action in panicular social COlltcXts, be they in
NATO (Pouliot :WIO) or in Islamist ternlrist networks (Williams. this volul11L').
Such analysl.'s make it p{)ssible to l.'xplore how various groups of stale proll.'ssiollals
perform tl~ hoth Ih~orislS ofth~ statl.' and as 'agents oftransfonnatioll'. Security
scholars. for instancc. havl..'argucd Ihallll1..'slatl.' is 110longl..'r the dominal1\ organiseI'
of capital: it 110 long.{,.'rl.'ollslitutcs Ihe unqucslioncd mcta-lield with 'universal
currcncy'.1\ lield or European 'insecurily pmli..'ssiollills' has devl..'lnpl..'d with a
high dcgrl.'e or hegemony over European ~ecurity knowledge (Bigo 2002: (4).
According. 10 l3igu and his l.:ullabortllors. intelligclll..'e and bmder l.:onlrol i~
construl.:lcd through a rang~ of olkn routini~cd and transnational practices (Bigo.
this volumc. 2002: Higo ilnd (iuild 200~: Iluysman:- 2()02. 20(J(1).
Finally. Hourdieu is lIsl..'l'ulto [hosc who study devclopmenls Ihat lead tn trans-
national pnlitic ..•.which arc 1101cOlllilll..'d10 {Inc nalion ~1:1tl.'eithl.'r in [heir origins or
in thcir 1..'Il"I..'ch. Takl..' Ihl..'l.',\alllple of migralion, The lllowlIlI..'nl or peoplc anos~
state horders ill rl..'l'cllt )'l'ars. l'spl'l'ially rrom dl'\l..'Ioping. In de\'l'lnped countrics.
and hCIWl'l.'l1dC\'l'loping l'ollntril.'~. has had:l :-.ig.nilicantell"l'L'l 011internalional rda-
tions. Yel IR ~cholars han' bl'Cli slruggling 10 fully grasp the prol.'l.'sses oftlligralilll1,
whctlll'r tlll'Y lake placl.' in [he Middle I':ast, In{iia ~1I'acnlSS the US-Mexil.':lll border
(Heisil.'r 20()1). IR thl'orisls tcnd 10 think of:1l.'lor:-. ill itllernation:d politics ilS only
slates Ill' ~I:l!l.'rl'presl'll[ativc:-.. as il"lhesl'IK'llPil.' did llol dlallgl' idcnlily or roles (or
worsc: as if natiollal identity WCI\' till' only Ilmll or idl'lllity \\'orlh mentioning).
1-Iowe\er. pl'ople lllme voluntarily nr involunlarily across horders, and migra-
tion is nol li~l'ly In k;l\l' Ihl'lll Ilnatlcl'll'd. During migra[inll. as in Illan)' nthl.'!"
lransnalinll:d pnll'l'ssl'S. [he Slall.' is IlO longer till' structuring and dominant 'aclor'.
as is thl' l':lSl' or 11I1Il.hJ R thl'ory. It is 11ll.'tran:-'ll:Itional lkld, \\'hich structures p;lr-
tieu lar rq1t"l'sl'ntal iOlls (l' .g. DC/a lay and ( iar! h I ()l)~. 20(1). SOllll' Illigrat ion schol-
ars lJ:o.l'BOllniicu':-. (jell! theory 10 (il.'snihe migralll:-' a~ peopk whn lll.'ither hl'long
cOlllpll'll'ly 10 their hOlllc statl' nor arl.' tOlally assimilall'd int~) the Ill'\\' state (I..ewitt
and Sdlilkr 20()4: 1(10).
[I i:-.nol llllly llligr:lIl1s. hut also migralion lll;uJ:lgl'rs. who call hl' al1:llysl.'d from
at ransllal i~1Il:11 lkld pl.'rspl.'ciivc. This \ il'W hilS hl'l'll takl'IlUJ1 hy Virgillil.' (i 1Iir:llllioll
(2003. this \olulllel in Ill.'!"studies llfllligralioll and :lsyhllll politil.'s in h'alll'e :lnd
lOR. Adler-Nissen

the rcst of Europe. While national control and authority may still be important
concerns. international cooperation on migration issues intensified dramatically in
less than two decades. In this way, illicit and controversial ways of handling
migrants dodge the radar of democratic and parliamentary control in the nation
states, while allowing the vcry same states to continue their practices of extradition
and exclusion of unwanted foreigners.
In summary, Bourdicu can be used to analyse both the continuation orand the
rcconfiguration of state power. If we are to fully understand transnational
phcnomena such as thc Arab Spring. Islamist tcrrorist networks, the global animal
rights movement or the power of organisations such as the UN, NATO and thc EU,
we must look at those forces that produce and perform them. The methods used
for exploring such dynamics are manifold. They reflect Bourdieu's multi-method
approach (Pouliot, this volume). For instance, Peter Jackson (2008) builds on
archival material to study the French foreign service and the production of
representatives of a sovereign France. Frederic Merand (2006, 2008, 2010) uses
in-depth interviews to understand the European Security and Defence Policy as a
symptom of the transformation of the European nation state in the twenty-first
century.
This understanding of the state has consequences for our understanding of the
so-called 'Ievel-of-analysis' problcm in IR. When David Singer suggested that a
clear choice of level-of-analysis between state and system could lead to better
prediction and 'greater theoretical growth in the study of international relations'
(Singer 1961: 89). he did a lot of damage to I R. Following Bourdieu. we should
seek to overcome these artificial theoretical constructs of 'levels'.Similarly~
Waltz's famous three images (individual, state, system) should be supplemented
by concepts such as 'group' and 'class'. To summarisc, Bourdieu (with his view
of the state) provides fruitful insights to both scholars who consider thc state to
remain the most important actor in international relations, and to those who believe
in the 'eclipse of the state'.
The third major insight from Bourd;eu is an analysis of the production of
(scientific) knowledge. Bourdieu would probably have shared Hedley Bull's
criticism of the scientific approach to international relations. Bull warned against
their 'uncritical attitude toward their own assumptions, and especially toward the
moral and political attitudes that have a central but unacknowledged position in
much of what they say' (Bull 1966: 375). Bourdieu would have agreed with Bull
that IR scholars lack 'reflexivity'.
Knowledge - including academic knnwledge - is inherently political. The
sociologist. according to Bourdieu. must engage in a 'sociology of sociology' so
as not to unwittingly attribute to the object of observation, the characteristics of
the subject. Reflexivity is, therefore, a kind of additional stage in the scientific
epistemology. For example, the \vhole idea that 'the international' should be seen
as the specific object of analysis,requiring a specific methodology, or at least a
specific range of mcthodologies. is problematic. Indeed, one of Bourdieu's
trademarks was his insistence not only on critical self-investigation of the author's
own position, but also of a continuous critique of the discipline of academic

tthority may still be important
isues intensified dramatically in
ontrovcrsial ways of handling
amentary control in the nation
lUetheir practices of extradition
oth the continuation of and the
illly understand transnational
rist networks, the global animal
h as the UN. NATO and the Eu'
rform them. The methods used
efleet Bourdieu's multi-method
eter Jackson (2008) builds on
icrvice and the production of
:erand (2006. 2008. 20 I0) uses
~curity and Defence Policy as a
nation state in the twenty-first
es for our understanding of the
. David Singer suggested that a
nd system could lead to better
;tudy of international relations'
Following Bourdieu. we should
nstruets of 'levels'. Similarly.
,st em) should be supplemented
larise, Bourdieu (with his view
tolars who consider the state to
lations, and to those who believe
analysis of the production of
Ily have shared Hedley Bull's
J relations. Bull warned against
lions, and especially toward the
'ut unacknowledged position in
,u would have agreed with Bull
. - is inherently political. The
in a 'sociology of sociology' so
servation, the characteristics of
dditional stage in the scientific
he international' should be seen
eifie methodology, or at least a
ic. Indeed, onc of Bourdieu's
;elf-investigation of the author's
of the discipline of academic
Introduction II
disciplines as such. Bourdieu writes: 'The intellectual world., which believes itself
so profoundly liberated from conformity and convention~ has always seemed to me
as inhabited by conformities. that acted upon me as repulsive forces' (Bourdieu
2004. quoted in Reed-Danahay 2004: I).
ReAexivity also implies that the very object of analysis is the production of IR
theories and the people that produce them. In recent years, Bourdieu-inspired
thinking has promoted a (strikingly delayed) debate on the self-Iegitimising and
co-constituting practices of European integration studies (Kauppi. this volume).
Lawyers~in particular, have begun to question the nonnative assumptions on whieh
most EU research is constructed (Walker 2003: 12-13). It appears as though many
EU scholars arc guided not just by analytical considerations and positivist legal
methods. but also by a particular (self- )understanding or normative concern forthe
te/os of the integrative process and the EU's own claims to supreme authority
(Adler-Nissen 201 Ib: Madsen 2011). It is perhaps this specific aspect ofBourdieu's
social theory. the possibility for critical reflexivity. that has the most potential to
bring forward IR studies. Bourdieu helps IR researchers move away from the self-
legitimising and descriptive accounts of international institutions and organisations,
to a morc sociologically infonned analysis.
As this book will show, a Bourdieusian analysis docs not demand a particular
kind of operationalisation:
it docs not and cannot - if it is to remain consistent with itself - provide firm
guidelines for what exactly should be studied, what kind of evidence is
relevant and in what kind of quantities for a study. To be consistent with itself.
it has to remain firm on the view that the answer to these questions is contextual
and question related.
(Leander 2006: II AQ: see also Leander 2002a: 11-12)
Indeed., the uniting theme that characterises the contributions to this book is a
scepticism towards the whole idea of a grand theory of international politics.
Instead., they insist on the messiness of the world., which should not be reduced on
the altar of simplicity (see also Leander 2010).
To sum up. Bourdieu helps IR scholars move towards a theoretically informed
empirical sociology. In particular, Bourdieu's metaphoric model of social space.
in which human beings embody and carry with them different capitals, can pave
the way for new types of analyses of otherwise understudied aspects of inter-
national relations. Moreover, Bourdieu's reflexivity provides IR scholars with a
way of critically examining the positions from which they themselves and their
colleagues speak.
Rethinking key concepts in JR
Because this book is locatcd firmly within the field oflR, our point of departure is
not Bourdieu's own conceptual universe. Instead we begin with a selection of key
notions in IR. which we then submit to a Bourdicusian reinterpretation. The reason
12 R. Adler-Nissen

for this approach is that this book was bom out oflR scholars' actual experiences
with difficulties in coming to terms with questions of. for example. pmvcr, security
and norms. Indeed this book was not born out of a wish to idolise Bourdieu. We
start out from the existing conceptual universe of current JR. Consequently, the
chapters in rhe book do not begin by introducing one of Bourdieu's own concepts
such asfield, capilal and liabillls. Instead, they start with the problems faced by IR
scholars who struggle with the concepts as they arc currently used. Charlotte
Epstein. for instance. begins with a rcview of the constructivist literature onllorms,
concluding that it has neglected 'structural power of an immaterial kind' and is too
'agent-centric'. This is then her point of departure for using Bourdicu's cOllcept of
IIomos 10 show how anti-whaling activists elTectivcly succeeded in re-ordering the
global \",haling order by changing the way in which whaling practices are
categorised. The result of this rethinking of norms is a wholly different way of
analysing the normative in international politics and specifically the dynamics of
international politics of whaling. This inevitably means a particular IR-oricllted
lrans/arion of Bourdieu. \Vith each chapter, we try to reveal the richness of
Bourdieu's thought, but in our reinterpretations we pick and choose from
Bourdieu's \",ritings.
While the book is engaged with key concepts. we do not analyse why or how
thcse concepts have become so central to IR. Vt/edo not. in other words. embark on
a genealogy of, for example, security. Instead this book questions the a priori defi-
nition of concepts. Our shared point of departure is that IR scholars often treat
concepts as the foundations on which theoretical or empirical contributions are
based but seldom as objects warranting critical examination in their own righls.
The contributors demonstratc how these often abstract units of meaning could be
rethought. specificd and operationalised dilTercntly, opening up different kinds of
analysis.
The concepts cover a wide range of the IR field. Of course, the selection is by
no means exhaustive. It is impossible 10 covcr all topics and concepts in IR within
one book. Instead wc have chosen concepts which have generated considerable
theoretical debate over the years. This explains why broader concepts such as
'security' have been choscn over more specific ones such as 'prolifcration'.
'Security' is a broad conceptual frame for a numbcr of debates ranging from
issucs such as nuclear weapons proliferation and the use of threats of military
retaliation to the growth of radical Islamist terrorism. 1n the selection process,
the book also takes into account concepts where Bourdicu's thoughts are most
obviously applicable.
One reader might find that an analysis of international law or human rights is
missing. Another reader might have wanted a chapter on globalisation or post-
colonialism. Parts of thc intcrnational law debate are covcred in the chapters on
'Sovereignly', 'Integration' and 'Citizenship'; see also Madsen (20 II) for a
Bourdieusian analysis of human rights. Elcmcnts of the globalisation debatc will
be analysed in the chapter 011 'Integration'. A notion such as . interest' is covered
in the chapters on 'Culturc'. 'Strategy' and 'Norms'. Readers are advised to look
at the comprehensive index at the end of the book for specific concepts.
 /lIlrodllrfiO/l 13

For readers interested ill international political economy, there are already mnny
useful introductions to Bourdieu (sce Leander 2002a. 2002b. 2005: Shapiro 2(02).
Moreover. Angus Cameron aml ROIlCIl Palan (1999: 26X) dnJw 011 Bourdicu (and
I:oucalllt) 10 demonstrate 'the imagined ecollomy' and proCCSSl'S ofgJ()balisatioll
and transformation of statehood. Dezalay and Garth (2002) ofrer an analysis of
transnational glohal clites. looking at competition among lawyers and economists
involved in state-building processes in Latin Atlll'rictl.
The primary ,lim or this book is nol to advocate a pal1icular inlerpretation of
l3ourdicu. 01' to go syslL'matically through his entire oeU\Tc. On thl' tOlllrary. the
focus is to explore how IR scholar~ may llSl' Hourdil'll. and Ihl' problems inhcrent
intranslaling Hourdicll inlo Ihc distiplinc of II< and the prilL'lical field of intcl'l1a-
lional politics. To sUlllmarise. this volumc docs llot olTcr an nrthodo.x rcading of
Bourdietl. Instl',\(1. rcadcrs can usc this boo\.. a~ a S(}lll"Cl'of illspiratil)1l ror lim her
(critical) cllg,lgl.'mcllt witli the work of Bounlicu <Ind. Illorl' gencrally, political
sociology.

Three steps: reconceptnalisalion. iilustration aud sl'lf-, .•.ili'lue

Each cllapll'l' in this honk lllil\..CSthrcc l'llllirihutions hI retllinkillt: 1••:Ol'l' c(lJlcepts
and ideils ill II<. 1-'11':-1.
till' dwptcrs di:-ctls:- \;lriolls ways or dclinillt: till' COIlL'l'Pt.
i,e, powcr within cxi:-ling II{ theory. and dClllonslntle how the COlll'Cpt call hl'
fruitfully rl.'statl'd hy Gin.' I'llIIy introducillg idl',l ...from Bourdicll. {)Ill' l'halkngl'. as
mentioncd carlicl'. lics in tile lilCt that lhc cmpirical (lhjccts fnr whidl Bourdicll
forgcd his ctlncl'ph did Ilot gCllcrally tran~cl'l1d tradititl[litl nati{lllal h()lJndilric~.
Another l'llalkngl' is lIwl ",hill' Hlllll"dil'U prl.'scllls an clahorall'd social tlll'l)ry. it
is awash witli IImhigllitil'~ and Ihus in Iwcd (If' thl.'orl,til'al l'I;lriliC,lIinn alld
lransl,llioll (sl.'l' Pouliot and iVll'rand, thi~ \.OIUlIll'l. Till' cOlltrihlltllrs copc with
these alllhigliitil's hy l'mploying thl' Hlllll"llil'lIsi,m \(lcabulary ;IS:t 'lhinking tool'
{Leandcr 200Xl. \\hich ,,1I(1w:-li.)I"al'crtainlll'rspl'cti\'l'. htllllccd:-Io he dcvelopcd
furthcr lind adju:-tcd to IhI.' lIel'ds ol"silualed rcscarl'll COlllL'xts, II{ scholars (e.g.
Jackson200X; Williams 2007: I.candcr 20()(l) rightrully note thill. for instancc,the
field is it rUI/.y IL'nn and has Ill'wr hCl'n rlilly l'''plicalL'd hy Hllllnlieu. II rcmains
confusing whcn alld how a lield Gill hl' idelltified, how dil"ll'l"l'llI lil'lds (slich as
nationill and trilnsllatinn;ll I)nc~) rl.latc to I.'ach ot!ll.'r ,llHl if thl' ('Xistl.'lll'C Ill' llll.ta-
fields (illthc Ilatillllal fral1lc. thl' pt)lilic,IIIiL-ld) call hc assulllcd in illll'rnali()llal
relalions (Jill'~Sl)j] 2(J()Xl.. rhe l'haplcrs therl'hlrl' disnl~s thc analytical advantages
and limitatiolls llr thc I"l'statcd II< conccpt. Till' individual chaplers also l'lIgagc
with 111l'\'ariulls nilicisllls of HOllnlicll's work not only lllildl' within II<, hul also
in sociology and thl.' ...• ocial se;l.IlCc ...•Jlll)!'l' gl'llcralfy.
Second. through lhis pnllTSS ol'rcinlcrprctatioll, thc c(}lltrihutor~ sho\\' hll\\' thi~
restated cOllCcpl may hc cmployed ill COlllTl'tl' cmpirical analyscs and IIlcy discuss
the mcthodological prohlems ofdra\\"ing rrom Hounlicll inthi~ rcspl'l't. Apart from
scrvi ng as l'(HlCrl.'lc iII1Istrat i(}n~lll" IH)\\ l1lll' Gill USI.'I\llllrdil'u iII IR, till' hril'f casc
studies also havc the advanlagc ofcllcollraging IR sl'llolars to ii.)llow Bourdil'lI's
methodol()gil'al dictUIll or constructillg thcir illlcrprctati(lns ill dirl'ct inll'raclioll
14 R. Adler-Nissen

with an empirical casco Methodological questions arc intrinsic to the discussion of

what a Bourdieusian approach brings to JR and to the rethinking of a particular
concept. This includes both meta-theoretical discussions about the nature of social
science, but also more specific questions arhow to put his theory into practice. The
book covers a wide range of cases, including NATO. military strategy, gender,
terrorism, migration, citizenship and regional intcgnttion.
Third and in accordance with the Bourdieusian call for auto-socioanalysis. the
chapters make a self-reflective 1110ve by engaging in a critical discussion of their
own rethinking of the concept. For instance, with their various usages of
Bourdicusian vocabulary, IR scholars have tended to read thc structuralism side of
Bourdieu,b This is perhaps not surprising, given IR's structuralism currents from
nco-realism to \Vendtian constructivism. Following the structural Bourdieu,
however, creates the problem that change and contingency of any social order fall
easily out of sight. Consequently, there is the risk of losing the main advantages of
the recent 'turn to practice' in JR. The chapters discuss the blind spots and the kind
of questions which risk being silenced if one draws uncritically from Bourdieu's
social theory.
To summarise, the book offers more than a simple restatement of the thoughts
of Bourdieu. Together, the chapters contribute to a general rethinking of IR theory
and research. More specifically, the book offers an international political sociology,
which challenges the core ideas around which the field ofJR is (still) rotating. The
book demonstrates the importance of a continued elaboration of sociological and
reflexive perspectives within the study of international relations. The organisation
of the book into short essays. with titles that encapsulate central terms in IR,
should enhance reader accessibility and comprehension. The book can thus be
conceived either as a guidebook that onc could read in its entirety to grasp the
extensivc implications of Bourdicu's thinking for IR or, alternatively. as a volume
to draw upon selectively whcn faced with common and difficult topics in JR. such
as power. sovereignty and norms.

The organisation of the volume

The book is divided into two parts. The first part introduces Bourdicll and his most
important ideas to a wider JR audicnce. The second part subjects key IR concepts
to a Bourdieusian reinterpretation.
The first part opens with an essay by Vincent Pouliot and Frederic Merand,
presenting the main elements in Pierre Bourdieu's theory, with emphasis on its
application in studies of international politics. For the uninitiated reader this
may be a good way to become acquainted with Bourdicu's conceptual universe.
For the reader already familiar with Bourdieu, the chapter is also interesting
because it identifies six contributions that a Bourdieusian approach can make: at
the meta-theoretical level. such an approach would be characterised by a reflexive
epistemology, a relational ontology and a theory of practice - three dimcnsions
that address key theoretical debates in JR. On a more applied level. Bourdieu's
sociology enables us to study world politics as a complex of 'embedded social

IS are intrinsic to the discussion of
I to the rethinking of a particular
;ussions about the nature of social
to put his theory into practice. The
NATO. military strategy. gender.
.tcgration.
an call for auto-socioanalysis, the
19 in a critical discussion of their
:, with their various usages of
:d to read the structuralism side of
I IR's structuralism currents from
lowing the structural Bourdieu,
mtingency of any social order fall
(oflosing the main advantages of
iscuss the blind spots and the kind
'aws uncritically from Bourdieu's
imple restatement of the thoughts
'a general rethinking ofIR theory
n international political sociology,
e field of IR is (still) rotating. The
,d elaboration of sociological and
!tional relations. The organisation
encapsulate central terms in IR,
rehension. The book can thus be
j read in its entirety to grasp the
lr IR or, alternatively, as a \'olume
Ion and difficult topics in JR. such
introduces Bourdieu and his most
ond part subjects key IR concepts
:nl Pouliot and Frederic Merand,
eu's theory. with emphasis on its
;, For the uninitiated reader this
I Bourdieu's conceptual uni\'crse.
J. the chapter is also interesting
urdieusian approach can make: at
uld be characterised by a reflexive
ry of practice - three dimensions
a morc applied level, Bourdieu's
3 a complex of 'embedded social
Introduction 15
fields'. to open up the state's field ofpowcr, and to factor in the symbolic nature
of power.
The issue of how to do IR is analysed further in the subsequent chapter
'Methodology' by Vincent Pouliot. He finds that one of the most important insights
thai Bourdieu passed to social scientists is the notion that 'the social" tends to
deposit itself in two main forms: in bodies (habitus) as weII as in things (fields).
The task of IR and international political sociology. from this outlook. primarily
consists of capturing the dual character of practical logics. A key methodological
requirement is to craft research designs that can both map the space of positions
in the field under study and capture the space of position-takings therein. In the
actual practice of research, however, this rather simple approach comes with a
variety of challenges. How does onc strike the right balance betwcen focusing
on the objectified forces of the field and recovering the subjective inclinations
of habitusO The chapter reflects on the merits and limits of using a variety of
methods, including descriptive statistics, discourse analysis, qualitative interviews,
focus groups and process-tracing. to explain the sense ofone's place in international
organisations.
In the final contribution to the first part. titled 'Knowledges'. Trine Villumsen
Berling explores the role of the lR researcher and of research practices. She argues
that scientific knowledge in international relations has generally focused on
an epistemological distinction between rationalism and relativism over the last
25 years. Berling explains that this division has created a problematic double
distinction between theory/reality and theory/practice. which works as a ghost
distinction in structuring IR research. \Vhile post-positivists have emphasised
the impossibility of detached. objective knowledge production through a
dissolution of the theory/reality distinction. the theory/practice distinction has
been left largely untouched by both post-positivism and positivism. Bourdieu,
on the contrary. lets the challenge to the theory/reality distinction spill over into
a challenge to the theory/practice distinction by thrusting the scientist into the
foreground as not just a factor (discourse/genre). but as an actor. In this way,
studies of IR need to include a focus on the interrelationship between theory and
practice in specific domains. The transformation of European security in the 1990s
is taken as an example.
In the second part. the contributors illustrate further the value of a Bourdieu-
inspired approach to JR. In thc chapter on 'Power', Stefano Guzzini shows how
Bourdieu's framework of power analysis can be used to keep a wider con-
ceptualisation of power ('Lukes-plus-Foucault'), and yet overcome a series of
fallacies and problems thaI analyses of power in IR have encountered beforehand.
More specifically. Guzzini demonstrates that such a framcwork can accommodate
both the practice turn (in its handling of the agency-structure divide). and the
linguistic turn in the social sciences - centrally including the performative analysis
of power. Yet. at the samc time, the transfer of this approach to the study of an
international power elite is marred by a series of difficulties, including the question
of whether such an elite can ever be circumscribed in the first place. Finally,
Bourdicu's approach is not a guarantee for a fruitful meeting between political
16 R. Adler-Nissel!

theory (governance. order and the 'political') and social theory (power. modes of
'domination' ).
Frederic Mcralld and Amclie Forget reinterpret the concept of 'Strategy'. which
is perhaps the oldest concept inlR. Firsl npplicd to the conduct of war. strategy is
now widely used 10 describe human behaviour in economics. political science,
business and sociology. The ratiomliist assumptions of military strategy have
spread 10 these fields of social inquiry. Game theory and rational choice theory. for
instance, find their roots in Cold \Var strategic studies. This chapter borrows from
8ourdieu's analysis efhow social agents strategisc (the practice) about military
strategy (the concept). For Bourdieu. a strategy is the practice of trying to reproduce
one's position in <l social field. Neither intentional nor fully determined, strategy
comcs from a sense of the game that is generated by one's habitus. In contrast to
dominant understandings of strategy in rational choice theory or strategic studies,
Bourdieu's anthropological conceptualisation is not a consequcntialist one. It
focuses on the struggles of position and position-takings in agonistic social fields.
In this perspective, we should expect the military strategy of a country to reAect
and reinforce the views of those who dominate the military-intellectual field for
cultural. social or political rensolls. We should also expect that dlallengers arc
able to promote alternative doctrines only \\'hCI1 the field is subject to an external
shock. for example military dcfea!. This argument is illustrated with a case study
of military strategists in Canada. which explores its implications beyond military
doctrine.
Didier Bigo develops an international political sociology of 'Security'.
Generally. IR literature. claiming to be pragmatist. positivist or realis!. ignores
the diversity of practiccs labelled as security. Their search for a ddinition of
security (as good) opposed to insecurity (as bad) often accepts the position of the
dominant speaker. The study of security. howcver. is done in the intcrest of
someonc. The confusion betwecn security. national interest and reason of state
continues to structure the thcoretical narrativc. This makes il diflicullto address
the web of security institutions that havc devcloped beyond national borders. For
instance. as policing at a distance has disentangled security from state sovereignty,
security is now tackled at the tnmsnationallevel, genemting competition among
professionals of politics and (in)security ovcr the existcnce ol"threats and legiti-
mate answers to them. MorcO\'er. the role of technology. especially conccrning
information exchange. has reinforced the importance of security professionals.
The chapter claims thaI security is too often reduced to an internntional relations
problem disconnectcd from other bodies of knowledge. Security practices are
collective and historic acts. and havc shaped the cvolution of the fundamental
distinction that used to define the field of IR: internal vs. external security. The
challenge for IR scholars. however. is to move beyond such divides and to create
a ne\\' space for thought and discussion which takes everyday practices of security
seriously.
Michael C. \Villiams' chapter rethinks 'Culture' through all analysis of global
terrorist networks. This chapter provides a brief survey of some of thc core com- I

poncnts of Bourdieu's cultural analysis. focusing particularly on the 'production

 In/rodllc/ion 17

"fbelief' and the operation of symbolic and cultural power by looking specifically
at the concept of charisma. The chapter explores how Bourdieu's insights may be
applied to the question of global terrorist networks. such as Al Qaeda. To this end.
three elements of Bourdieu's understanding of charisma and political culture are
central - what he calls the: 'work of enunciation', the 'mystery of the Ministry'
and a leadership strategy based around the 'oracle effect'. The chaptcr concludes
with an assessmcnt of how these concepts may help in understanding the role of
violence as a symbolic action in <I world of 'scopic media', characteristic of AI
Qaeda.
Vivienne Jabri opens her chapter on 'Gender' with an analysis of Bourdieu's
A1ascllline Domina/ion (2001), This book was a statement on what he refers to as
the 'phallonarcissistic vision of the world' - the inscription upon the body of
relations of power enacted through the socially constructed category of gender. For
Bourdieu, a gender habitus permeates social life and impacts upon 'symbolic
capital' as this is manifested in different contexts and fields. While gender, like
class and race, may be considered as a 'generaliscd' social field it has enormous
significance in the specificities and distinctions of particular fields. The aim in this
chapter is not so much to 'appropriate' Bourdicli for fcminist purposes in JR, but
to explore the issues of gender, agency and subjeclivity as these rclate to the
specificities of 'the international". While it is all too easy to 'mainstream' gcnder
in Bourdieu, the more challenging prospect is in hiking the distinctiveness of 'the
interJ1ntional' seriously. The chnptcr takes up this challenge by focusing, in
particular. on the gendering impact of 'I he international' and its differential imprint
upon bodies and populations. Where the focus might. at first hand appear to be
gender. the chapter argues thaI, in the context of 'the international", the process or
'gendering' might best be conceptualised in terms of racc, or more accurately,
racialisation.
Charlotte Epstein takes stock orlhe central role 'Norms' has played in develop-
ing constructivism's empirical research agenda. She shows that two decades of
norms research has revealed a highly agentie approach to norms, appmised as
capabilities that enable actors to 'do things'. The chapter then contrasts this with
an understanding of the normative as an underlying order that both enables and
constrains actors' inreractions, as cncapsulated by Bourdieu's 'nomos'. The inter-
national politics of whaling illustrates the concept's empirical reach. 'Nomos' cap-
tures the de-normalisation of whaling and the ways in which the International
Whaling Commission (IWe) was fundamenrally re-ordered from a 'society of
whaling states' to 'a society of anti-whaling states'. Ultimately what 'nol11os'
draws out in a \\'ay that norms do not. is a fundamcntal and persistcnt 'desire to
belong' underpinning actor behaviour. As the casc of some \\!haling states illus-
trates. such desire to belong can in fact override considerations of selfish interest-
maximisation, to the extent that the actors can be led to act againstlheir material
interests for the sake of continuing to belong to lhat particular social field because
I of the ways in whieh it defincs them. This has two significant consequences for the

I study of interests <lndidentities, two key conSlruct ivisl concerns. First. it draws alit
the extent to which the normative order is constitutive of the actor's identities. and
18 R. Adler-Nissen
therefore its understanding of its interests. Second, it emphasises a collective,
social dimension to interest formation that moves beyond the individualistic
understanding of interests that still prevails within constructivist scholarship.
Rebecca Adler-Nissen takes issue with the lR theory's obsession with
'Sovereignty' in her chapter. Sovereignty is not merely constitutive of the inside!
outside divide, it 15also part of the daily stnlgglcs to monopolise legitimate sym-
bolic power. Bourdicu argued that sovereignty implies that the state has pre-
eminence over other areas of society: it has 'meta-capital'. Importing this insight
into lR implies, somewhat paradoxically. that the state is understood in relative
terms. The question then becomes: how does state sovereignty play out in relation
to other articulations of authority in the worldo This is illustrated through an anal-
ysis of competing articulations of political authority, focusing on the EU's new
diplomatic service, which challenges the very idea of a national interest.
Overlapping claims to authority involves rivalry to represent 'the people'. In the
struggle to shape structures of perception and cognition, sovereignty refers both to
a set of institutions and to the state's embodiment or what Bourdieu called 'minds
of state'. This understanding has the potential to provide a rather more nuanced
account of variations in authority and statehood than the languages of, for exam-
ple, 'world community' or 'post-sovereignty'.
Niilo Kauppi proposes a structural constructivist conception of regional
'Integration', This perspective has the potential to provide us with a multifaceted
picture of integration that challenges intergovernmentalist, neofunctionalist and
social constructivist accounts. Building on a study of the European integration
process, with particular focus on the European Parliament, the chapter argues that
one of the theoretical advantages of this alternative account of integration is that
it does not force the scholar to choose between state-centric and supranational
visions of EU politics or between rationality and identity. As a central concept in
sociology, political science, international relations and European studies,
integration is conspicuously missing in Bourdieu's work. Several reasons can
explain this. First, sociology integration is a concept developed by functionalist
theorists such as Durkheim and Parsons, Second Bourdieu's ambition of creating
his own distinctive social theory prevented him from adapting concepts that he
considered unnecessary. Third in the French context integration is a politically
loaded term (republican integration). Founh, and most importantly for this chapter,
integration refers to a consensus model of society, whereas Bourdieu is a proponent
ofa conflict model of society. In its \""idestsense, integration refers to the formation
of social groups and power through political struggles and alliances that aim to
define the legitimate principles of social domination. Integration always involves
exclusion. The dialectical interaction between consensus and conflict as a key
dimension of regional integration and exclusion has until now been insufficiently
analysed. IR scholars have concentrated on political conflict, neglecting analysis
of consensus (and topics such as negotiation and compromise) as a condition of
possibility of socially organised physical and symbolic conflict.
In the final chapter. Virginic Guiraudon addresses the ways in which lR scholars
have taken up the issue of 'Citizenship'. Using inunigration policy as a way to

Second it emphasises a collective,
moves beyond the individualistic
ithin constructivist scholarship.
the IR theory's obsession with
ot merely constitutive of the inside/
;gles to monopolise legitimate sym-
nty implies that the state has pre-
neta-capital". Importing this insight
t the state is understood in relative
;tate sovereignty play out in relation
? This is illustrated through an anal-
uthority, focusing on the EU's new
vcry idea of a national interest.
Iry to represent 'the people'. In the
:ognition, sovereignty refers both to
ent or what Bourdieu called 'minds
I to provide a rather more nuanced
,d than the languages of, for exam-
i1ructivist conception of regional
11 to provide us with a multifaceted
lernmentalist. neofunctionalist and
study of the European integration
Parliament. the chapter argues that
lative account of integration is that
:en state-centric and supranational
nd identity. As a central concept in
relations and European studies,
rdieu's work. Several reasons can
:oncept developed by functionalist
lei, Bourdieu's ambition of creating
m from adapting concepts that he
context integration is a politically
ld most importantly for this chapter,
ty, whereas Bourdieu is a proponent
:, integration refers to the formation
;truggles and alliances that aim to
lation. Integration always involves
1 consensus and conflict as a key
n has until now been insufficiently
litical conflict, neglecting analysis
.nd compromise) as a condition of
~/mbolic conflict.
:sses the ways in which lR scholars
.g immigration polic-y as a way to
Introducliol1 19
rethink citizenship in JR, the chapter borrows from the work of Bourdieu and the
Algerian sociologist Ahdelmayek Sayed. Bourdieu and Sayed were not only
friends, they also shared the view that immigration and citizenship policies reveal
what states think of themselves, the pel/see d 'Etal. The chapter argues that
to understand citizenship as it plays out in international relations, we need a
micro-level of analysis to look out for transnational individuals whose lives arc
(in part) determined by interstate relations. \Ve need to examine issues of
transnational citizenship such as marriage, pensions, property, asylum and
military service - issues that most IR scholars may consider 'low politics',
yet they are very much linked to modern state functions. By examining such
issues, the chapter explores 'state interest' in praxis and, over time, fleshes out the
role of citizenship in international politics. The chapter's auto-socioanalysis
focuses on the very Frenchncss of Bourdieu that affects the ways in which his
concepts travel.
Together, these essays show that Bourdieu is more relevant than ever for
the development of I R. By rethinking key concepts, the contributors reRect upon
the legacies of Bourdieu, to critically extend his social theory. In addressing many
of the most pressing questions in contemporary IR theory, they also help develop
new issues and topics for further analysis. \Vhat emerges is not just a restatement
of Bourdieu's theory, but also a transformation of his thinking and a different
understanding of 'the international'.
:\'otes
It has often been argued that constructivism is less a theory of internalional politics. and
more a mela-theoretical position that embodies nonnative claims about what 'good'
social science should be (see Wight 2006: 163). Bourdicu calls his 0\'111 approach 'struc-
tural constructivism', indicating both his interest in the daily human experiences of
taste, knowledge. humiliation and its intersubjective character and the social construc-
tions and more permanent structures of domination, such as the education system.
which partly determines the individual and collective ways of thinking (Pouliot and
~\!Icrand this volume).
2 For a Lacan-inspired critique of IR readings of the individual, Hobbes and anarchy. see
Epstein. forthcoming.
3 For a feminist analysis of Bourdicu.s notion of the conscious and unconscious aspect of
the gendcrcd habitus, sce McCall (1992: 849-85 I).
4 For a discussion of Bourdieu's critique of Foucault, sec Callewaert (2006).
5 Confusingly, it is often described in literature as 'The Third Great Debate' by those who
reject the description of the inter-paradigm debate as a Great Debate (Lapid 1989).
6 As Anthony King (2000) notes, Bourdieu's work allows for two different types of read-
ing: a practice- and agency-oriented read (largely 10 be found in the early works) and a
structuralist read (largely in the later works).
References
Abramamscn, R. and M.e. Williams (2011) 'Privatization in Practice: Power and Capital in
the Field of Global Security', in E. Adler and V. Pouliot (cds.) International Practices,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
F 20 R. Adler-Nissen

Adkins. L. (2004) 'Introduction: Feminism. Bourdicll and After'. in L. Adkins and

8. Skcggs (cds.) Feminism (~/ier BOlfrdie/l. Oxford: Blackwell.
Adler. E. (2008) 'The Spread of Security Comlllunities: Communities of Practice. Self.
Restraint. and ~ATO's Post-Cold WarTransfofmation'. EI/ropean JOImwl a/International
Re/ations 14(2): 195.
Adler. E. and V. Pouliot (2011) 'International Practices", /mcrJuJliol1{// Them:\' 3(1):
1-36.
Adler-Nissen. R. (20lla) 'On a Field Trip with Bourdicu', forum contribution tn
ll1lemmiolla! Political Socialogl'. 5(3): 327-330.
Adler-Nissen. R. (2011b) 'Opling Out or an Ever Closcr L;nion: The Integration Doxa ami
the ManagcllH ..'nt of Sovereignty', li-est European Politics 34(5): 1092-1113.
Ashley. R.K. (1989) 'Living on Border Lincs: Man, Post-strllctllraliSIll, and War', ill J. Ocr
Ocrian and ~1. Shapiro (cds.) IlltenwliOl1ullilll('rtexluul Relations: Pastll/odern Rl'adings
a/World Politics, New York: Lexington Books.
Berling, T.V (forthcoming) 'Capitalizing on Bomdieu: Boundary-setling, Agency, and
Doxic Battles in IR'.
Sigo, o. (2002) 'Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Govermnel1lality or
Unease', Alternatives 27( 1): 63- 69.
Bigo. O. (2005) 'Globalized in-security: the Field and the Ban-Opticon'. in J. Solomon and
N. Sakai (cds.) Trallslmiml, Philosophy alld Colollial /)ijli'rence. Traces: A Multilil/gual
Series olCulluml Thcmy. Hong Kong: I-long Kong Univcrsity Press.
Sign. D. and R.S.J. \Valker(2007) 'Political Sociology and the Prohlem of the International'.
Millelllli/(11135(3): 725-739.
Bourdiell. I~ (1977) Ow/ille o/a Them:\' 0/ Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Bourdieu. P. (1986) Distillctioll: A Social Critique 0/ the Judgmenl of Taste, London:
Routledge and Kcgan Paul.
Bourdieu. P. (1989) La Nublesse I) '£Iat: Grallde." Ecoles 1:."tI::spril De Corps. Paris:
Editions de :\-1inuiL
Bourdicu. P. (1992) Lallguage and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: PolilY Press.
Bourdieu. p. (1993) La Miseredll MOl/cie. Paris: l~ditiollS dll Scuil.
Bourdicu. P. (2001) Masculille I)omillatioll. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13ourdieu. I~ (2002) Eill so::.iologischer Sel/)s(\'ersllch. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
Bourdieu. P. (2004) Science o{Sciellce alld RC!.llexivi~v.Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
BounJicll. P.. J-c. Chamboredon and J-c. Passe ron (1991) The CJ'(~/iof Sociology:
I:..;JiSlemologicalPreliminaries. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Bull. H. (1966) 'International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach', JI't)r1dPolitics
18(2): 361-377.
Butler. J. (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics oft/Ie PClji.Jrmative. London and New York:
ROlliledge.
Callcwacrt, S. (2006) 'l3ourdicu. Critic of FOllcault: The Case of Empirical Social Science
againsl Double-Game-Philosophy', Theory: Cullllre & Socie~\' 23(6): 7],-98.
Cameron. A. and R. Palan (1999) 'The Imagined Economy: Mapping Transformation in the
Contemporary Slale'. MillelllliIl1ll28(2): 267-2Sg.
Chandler. D. (2010) Torget Foucault. Forget Foucault Forget Foucault .. :. Imenltlti01wl
Polilicol Sociology' 4(2): 205-207.
Checkel. J.1'. (2005) 'International Institutions and Socialization in Europe: Introduction
and Framework'. illlemaliollalOrgalli::.ativlI 59(4): SO 1-826.
 /11Iroduction 21

Cohn. C. (2006) 'J\'lotivcs and ~1cthods: Using Muhi-Cilcd Ethnography to Study 7\!ational
Security Discourses', in B.A. Ackerly and J. True (cds.) Feminist MerllOdofogiesjor
1111t>n111/j()J1l/1Reilitions. Cambridge: Cambridge Cni\'crsity Press.
'I Dezalay. Y. and B.G. Garth ( 1995) . ~1crchanlS of Law as Moral Entrepreneurs: Constructing
International Justice from the Competition for Transnalional Business Disputes', La\\' &
Society Rel'jell' 2lJ( 1): 27 64.
Dczalay. Y. and B.G. Garth (2002) The IIIf('l"l/(uiOllllli:::afioll (?FPalace Iihrs: LUIlY"""".
, EcoJlomists. ami ,!II.' COlflest 10 Tnlll.~'1iJl'JIILali" America" STales. Chicago: Chicago
Cni\'cr:-.it)' Press.
Dunne. T. (lOIO) 'ThL' English School". in T. Dunne. M. Kurki and S. Smith (cds.)
1"'''I'II(1liol/al He/alium Thcln:\': lJi.\dplill/! lIlId lJil'/!rsil.I', Oxford: Oxford Univer~ity
Press,
s Edkins,.1. and l\'. Vaughan-Williams (2010) 'introdlll:tion', in J. Edkins and N. Vaughan-
Williams (cds.) Cdliml Thcorists andlllfCm(lIiulIlIl RelllfiollS, London: ROlltlcdge. "
j Epstein. C. (forthcoming) 'Theorising Agcncy in 11lIernationai Rdations in Hohl:H':S'S Wake:
The Rational Actor. the Sl'lf and the Speaking Suhjcct'. IlIIt'nll/liol/al O'X(lIIi::ltfitm.
f Fairclough. N, (1l)l)X) 'Political Disl'ourse in the ~1cdia: An Anulytical Framework'. in A.
Bell ~ll1dP. Garrett (cds.) AI'ln'otic/lc.'" to Mcdia Discoursl', London: Blackwdl.
j Foucaull. 7\1. ( 1972) 711('Archc/('ology o(A'wnl1l'c!gl'. New York: Ilarpl'r & Row.
1 Germain. R.D. and ~1. Kcnny (199X) 'Engaging (iramsci: Internatiollal Rdations Theory
and the :\ew (iramscians'. Rel'ieu' o/IIIIl'l'IItllifllwl SlIIdies 24{ 1): 3 21.
Guuini. S. (21)()1))A Rl'l'ollstructilllll)fC'I\llslructivi"lll in Inlertlati(Hlal Relations. 1:'111'('1)('(111
JOllJ'lwl o(jllt/!J'lWtiOllCll Relatiolls 6{ 2): 147 I X2.
; Hansen. L. (2()()6) Scct/rif.I'lIS IJI'l/clicl': /)i."('IJfI1".\'(' Al1a~\'.\isallll fhl' /J(,sniall 1$'111'. Lond()ll:
Routledge.
Heisler. !\t1.(). (2001) ';\ow and Then. Here anu There: \Iligration and the Transformalion
of Identilil'~, Bonkrs. and Orlil'rs", ill M. Alhl'rts. D. Jal:ob:-ell and Y. I.apid (l'US.)
s Ic!elllilk .••./Jorc!ers, Orelen: Relhillking, l,ul'l'Ill1li(J/ICII Relalirms 7hl'()/:", ~inneapolis:
Univl'rsily of jvlillllesota Press.
Hopr. T. (2002) Social ('oll."/l'IIclio/l or 11I/('l'lllIlifllllll l'olilit'S: Idl'l/lilie.' (l1Ic! i'i)rei:,;"
Polic/l'\'. '\/0.\('011: IY55 (/mIIWY. Ithaca. :\Y: Cornl'lll;niwrsity Prc~~.
Hoy. D.C. (2003) Cd/iml /?esi.\"f(l1Ice:1';711J1 Pm/-sll'llClIIl'lIli,""IIII() Pml-critiqlll'. Camhridge.
~'1f\:l1ld London: \.111' Press.
Hudson, Vf"vl.(2005) 'Foreign Policy Analysis: J\Llm-Speciflc Theory anu Ihe (jround of
lnt('rnatiollal Relations'. FOI'{'lgn Polh:\' AI/(I~\ ..••. is I: I 30.

Hllysmans, J. (2002) 'LJdining Social Con"trllelivlslll in Security Studies: The

:\orlllatiw (Jiknuna ufWriting Security'. Alh'l'IlCI/iI.e.••. : G/f/hlll. I.oml. Polilic'al27( I):
s 41 62.
J-1uysmans. J. (2006) 71/(' I'olilic,,,' or 11I.\'('('/lri'.I':Fcw: .\/igralioll (/lief ,'bylllll! ill Ihl' I~'U.
London: Routledge.
Jackson, P. (20()~) 'Picrn.' Bourdieu. the "Cultural Turn" ami the Praclil:e or International
, History', Rl'l'/c\I" (~(lIIf('1'lIltlirl/llll StUtlll'.••.34( I): 155 IXI.
Jackson. P. (20()1J)'Picrre BOllrdiell', in J. Edkins and;'\l. Vaughan-Williams (cds.) C"ilical
e 71te(}ri.••.
,., lIlItI lill('rl/lIliOlwl Relafiolls. London: ROlltll'dg,c.
Jcnkin:-, R. (2002) I'h'rn' I!o/tn!l('/(, London: Routledge.
Kauppi.:\'. (2()03) 'Bollrdieu's Political Sm.:iology and the Polilics ot'l.:urope:Jnlntcgration',
TI/(-'(J/:\'alld Socidy 32(5.6): 775 7~9.
King. A. (2(00) 'Thinkmg With Bourdil'll Against Bourdieu: A "Practical Critiquc" orthc
Iltlhitu~'. SOclologint! The(II:I' Il'i(3): -117.
 22 R. Adler-Nissen

Kirsey, N.J. and D. Stokes (cds.) (20 I 0) Foucault and International Relations: New Critical
Engagements, London: Routledge.
Lapid. 0. (1989) 'The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-
positivist Era', International Sffldies Quarter(v 33: 235-254.
Leander, A. (2002a) 'The Cunning of Imperialist Reason: Using a Bourdicu Inspired
Constructivism in IPE', COPRI Uvrking Paper 33: 4--32.
Leander, A. (2002b) 'Do We Really Need Reflexivity in IPE? BOllrdieu's Two Reasons
for Answering Affirmatively', Re\'iew of ill/ernational Political Economy 9(4):
601.-609.
Leander, A. (2005) 'The Power to Construct International Security: On the Significance
of Private Military Companies'. Millennium 33(3): 803-825.
Leander, A. (2006) 'The "Realpolitik of Reason": Thinking International Relations through
Fields, Habitus and Practice'. Working Paper no. 83, Department of Intercultural Com-
munication and Management, Copenhagen Business School.
Leander, A. (2008) 'Thinking Tools: Analyzing Symbolic Power and Violencc'. in A. Klotz
and D. Prakash (cds.) Qualitative Methods in imel'llationol Relations: A Pluralist Guide,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Leander, A. (2010) 'Practices (Re)producing Orders: Understanding the Role of Business
in Global Security Governance', in M. Ougaard and A. Leander (cds.) Business and
Global Gowmance. London: Routledge.
Lewin, I~and N.G. Schiller (2004) 'Conceptualizing Simultaneity: A Transnational Social
Field Perspective on Society'. IllIernational Migration Review 3}:(3): 1002- 1039.
Madsen, M.R. (20 II) 'Reflexivity and the Construction of the International Object: The
Case ofHurnan Rights'. International Political Sociology 5(3): 259~ 275.
McCall, L. (1992) 'Does Gender Fit? Bourdieu. Feminism, and Conceptions of Social
Order'. Themy and Socie~1' 21(6): 837-867.
Mcrand, E (2006) 'Social Reprcsentations in the European Security and Defence Policy',
Cooperation and Cm!f1ict 41 (2): 131-152.
Mcrand, f. (2008) Elfl'Opean De.lenCl~Policy Beyond the Natio/h":;tute. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Mcrand, F. (2010) 'Pierre 80urdicu and the Birth of ESDP'. Security Studies 19(2):
342-374.
Merlingen, M. (2006) 'Foucault and World Politics: Promises and Challenges or
Extending Governmcntality Theory 10 the European and Beyond'. Millennium 35( I):
181-196.
Nash. R. (1999) "'Habitus", and Educational Research: Is It All Worth the Candle?',
British Journal (~rS()ciology of Education 20(2): 175-187.
Neumann, 1.8. (2002) 'Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy',
Millennium 31(3): 627-51.
Neumann, 1.8. and 1.0. Sending (2007) 'The International as Governmcntality'. Millennium
35(3): 677-70 I.
Neumann, 1.B. and \~ Pouliot (2011) 'Untimely Russia: Hysteresis in Russian-Western
Relations over the Past Millennium', Security Studies 20(1): 105-137.
Pouliot. V (2007) '''Sobjectivism'': Toward a Constructivist Methodology', international
Studies Quarrer(v 51 (2): 359-384.
Pouliol. V (2008) 'The Logic ofPracticalily: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities',
imernaliollal Organization 62(2): 257-288.
Pouliot, V. (20 I0) International Security in Practice: The Politics uJ NATO-Russia
Diplomacy, Cambridge: Cambridge L:nivcrsity Press.
 Inlroduction 23
. (

Recd-Danahay, D. (2004) Locating 8ourdieu, Bloomington, IX Indiana University Prcss.

Selby, J. (2007) 'Engaging Foucault: Discourse, Liberal Governance and Ihe Limits of
foucauldian IR'.lnternaTional Relations 21(3): 324-345.
Shapiro. M.J. (2002) 'Bourdieu, tbe State and Method', Review oflJlternllti01wl Political
Economy 9(4): 610-618.
Singer, D.J. (1961) 'The Level-of-Analysis Problcm in International Rehllions'. World
Politics 14( I): 77-92.
Smith. S. (2007) 'Introduction' in T. Dunne. ~l. Kuki and S. Smith (ed~.) Illtel'll(l(iOlwl
Relations Theories: Discipline and Di\'ersity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swartz. D. (1997) Cultlfre and Power: The Sociology of Pierre BOllrdiell. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Swartz, D. (2004) 'From Critical Sociology 10 Public Intellectual: Pierrc Bourdieu and
Politics'. ThcUI:"(i/ul Sociezv 32(5-6): 791--823.
\Vacquant. L. (2006) 'Pierre 8ourdieu', in R. Sioncs (eli.) Kl.:l' COlIleml)(JI'(lI)'Thinkas.
i'\cw York: Macmillan.
Walker. :-.i. (2003) 'Latc Sovereignt)' in the European Union'. in N. Walker (cd.)
S()I'l'reignZl'ill Transitioll. Portland OR: Hart Publishing.
Walkcr. R.B.J. (1995) 'lntemational Relations and the Possibility or Ihe Political'. in
K. Bocllh and S. Smith (cds.) Intematiollal Relations Them:\' Today, Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Wallace. W. (j(J96) 'Truth and Power, Monks and Techno(.'rats: Theory and Practice in
International Relalions', Rel'iell' olllllemaliOlwf Studies 22(3): 301-32l.
\Vehcr, C. (1995) Siml/latillg SOl'l.'l'eignzl': IlIIel'\'elltioll. Ihe' Statl' ami the ,~l'/Ilholic
Exchange, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wight. C. (2006) Agel/ts and Slructures in IlIlel'lWlio1/al RelatiollS Themy: Polilics as
Ol/toto}!.,\'.Camhridge: Cambridge Univcrsity Press.
Williams, M.e. (2003) 'Worlis. Images, EIH:mics: Securitization anli World Politics',
IJI(el'l/(/(iol/ol Studies QU(/l'Il'r~1'4 7( 4): 51 I. 53 I.
Williams. M.e. (20U7) CutW1'l! lIml Secllrity: ,;)'lIIholic PO\l'l.'I'(lnd (hI! Polilit.'s (~r
IlIIem(lIiol/al Sel.'lIl'i~,',New York: Routledge.