فهم روابط جهانی از منظر کردارگرائی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استاد روابط بین الملل دانشگاه علام طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

10.22054/jrgr.2023.63363.1019

چکیده

در این مقاله سعی شده است ضمن ارائه تصویری از نظریه کردارگرائی در روابط بین‌­الملل، شاخص­‌هایی از این نظریه استخراج‌شده و محیط روابط جهانی با کمک این شاخص­ها مورد بررسی قرار گیرد. بر این اساس گرایشی از کردارگرائی برگزیده‌شده است که به مفاهیم مطرح‌شده توسط پیر بوردیو اتکا می­کند و نحوه فهم کاملاً متفاوتی از پدیده­‌های بین‌­الملل و جهانی ارائه می­‌نماید. بر مبنای ادبیات و شاخص­‌های برآمده از این نظریه تلاش شده تا نشان داده شود که روابط بین‌­الملل وارد فضای جدیدی شده است که می­‌توان نام روابط جهانی بر آن گذاشت. این فضای نوین دیگر فضای رقابت نظامی اقتصادی دولت­ها بر سر قدرت بیشتر و بر اساس محاسبۀ عقلائی سود و زیان تلقی نمی­‌شود بلکه فضایی است که در آن میدان­‌های مختلفی برای کنش بازیگران مختلف پدید آمده است. در این میدان‌های جدید عادت­واره‌­هایی تازه پیدا شده که هم نحوه ادراک بازیگران و هم شیوه عمل و کردار آن‌ها را دگرگون ساخته است. در این میدان­‌های تازه گونه‌­های مختلفی از سرمایه شکل‌گرفته و تأثیرگذار است و کنشگران با استفاده از این سرمایه‌­ها می‌­توانند در شبکه اقدام جهانی حاضر شوند. درنتیجه نه‌ فقط شیوه فهم روابط بین‌­الملل بلکه روش‌های اقدام و عمل در آن تحول‌یافته و این جریان تحول در شبکه اقدام جهانی ادامه خواهد داشت.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Understanding Global Relations from the Perspective of Pragmatism

نویسنده [English]

  • Hossein Salimi
Professor, Department of International Relations, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Among the various theories that are used to understand the new conditions in the world of politics and economics, the theory of practice theory, has received less attention. Mainstream theories usually try to use the same classical frameworks which they invented to understand international relations to global relations and emerging phenomena in the space of global relations. But Practice theory has completely different bases for understanding these new conditions. In this article, after examining the fundamental concepts of functionalism theory, an attempt has been made to understand international relations based on the concepts derived from this theory. Practice is both an action and a thought, the thought that is formed during the action and the actions that rely on it after the formation of the thought. If the concept of practice can be a basis for understanding international relations, new important questions like this case will be raised in the field of international studies: Has a new field of social relations been formed in the 21st century? Has it created new capitals? Are we witnessing the emergence of a new space of social relations? Are global relations as same as the new atmosphere of social relations that will lead to different habitus and actions? These are the questions that we will try to answer in this article. Our primary answer in this article is that from the perspective of practice theory, fields, habitus, network of action, new capitals have emerged in the global arena, which have changed the basis of international relations. After examining the fundamental concepts of practice theory, it has been endeavored to understand international relations based on the concepts derived from this theory. In this article, it has been shown that the basis of understanding international relations from this point of view is completely different, and the investigated topics and the focal points of the world are different from what is expressed in the mainstream theories of international relations. In this theory, there are concepts such as habitus, capital in a different sense, field and symbolic forms, from which international relations can be understood. In addition, the concept of practice, which is a different understanding of action at the international level, is proposed based on these new meanings. Based upon this, it has been explained in this article that the evolution of international relations towards global relations can be well understood from the point of view of practice theory. Relying on the current information and facts in the world, it has been stated how new habitus, capital, and symbolic forms have emerged in the global arena, which creates another type of action and, in a better word, practice in the environment of global relations. The new habitus that have formed in the space of social networks as well as new interconnected economic and political networks in the global area, indicate the emergence of a different environment that has changed the basis of human social life. These habitus have grown in new fields. These new fields are not only in the field of politics. Rather, new fields for global action have emerged in the cultural, scientific, and economic fields, which have brought new awareness and new actions. Examining these new fields shows that if we look at the world politics and economics from the perspective of practice theory, we will find that the new field that is in our view is not only an international but a global. In general, it can be said that from the point of view of practice theory in the international relations of the world, the arena of rational action (in the sense of individual calculation of benefits and losses) and profit-seeking of states and their competition for military and economic power is no longer considered. The world is a network of different fields in which different habitus and capitals flow. Various and complex beliefs have been formed that emerge and flow during life and action. The global communication and economic and political networks have created new fields beyond the national borders in which new habitus and new capitals are formed. New habitus are formed during the actions of all kinds of actors in the global field and they follow different knowledge and behavior. Capital is no longer considered economic capital in the Marxist sense, but capital has entered the public space in various cultural, economic and political forms. The action of international actors is realized in the new fields which have emerged in the world arena and creates both a different mentality and objectivity. In addition, it rejects the duality between structure and agent because actions are both the manifestation of habits and structures in different fields and influence their construction.
In the new world, new habitus and new actors have been formed, and the fields of action have become so diverse and different that they have drawn a different scene for international relations. A scene where any actor, if he does not know the rules and doxas during the action, will practically go into isolation and will lose the possibility of effective action. According to all the pillars of understanding international relations will be transformed with this theory. The actors are no longer just governments, the concept of governance is changing, the international system no longer means the distribution of power between sovereign states, power and capital have completely different meanings, and Space and action rules will have a different meaning. In other words, practice theory has fundamentally changed the basis of understanding international relations.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Pragmatism in International Relations
  • Fields of Global Relations
  • Global Habits
  • Capital in Global Relations
فارسی
بوردیو, پ. (1380). نظریه کنش دلایل عملی و انتخاب عقلایی. ترجمه م. مردیها. تهران: نقش و نگار.
بوردیو, پ. (1391). تمایز نقد اجتماعی قضاوت های ذوقی. ترجمه ح. چاوشیان, تهران: نشرنی.
جمشیدی ها، غ و پرستش. (1386). دیالکتیک منش و میدان در نظریه عمل پی یر بوردیو. نامه علوم اجتماعی, 30, 1-32.
فنی, ز. (1392). فضا، مقیاس و جهانی شدن با تحلیل تئوری شبکه کنشگران (ANT) دوره ۴، شماره ۱۲، پاییز، صص ۹۳ – ۱۰۶. مطالعات راهبردی جهانی شدن, 12(4), 93-106.
فوکو, م. (1389). تولد زیست سیاستترجمه ر. ن. زاده, تهران: نشرنی.
فوکو, م. (1390). سیاست و خرد. ترجمه م. ا. منش, تهران: جامی.
میلر, پ. (1384). سوژه استیلا و قدرت: در نگاه هورکهایمر، مارکوزه، هابرماس و فوکو. ترجمه ن. س. دیده، تهران: نشر نی.
References
Adler, E. (2005). Communitarian International Relations. New York: Routledge.
Buchholz, L. (2021, 5 21). What is a Global Field? Rethinking Bourdieu’s Field Theory beyond the Nation-State. Retrieved from https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/history-culture-society-workshop/files/buchholz_what_is_a_global_field.pdf: https://projects.iq.harvard.edu
François Goxea, Ulrike Mayrhoferb, Olli Kuivalainen. (2021). Argonauts and Icaruses: Social networks and dynamics of nascent international entrepreneurs. Interntional Buisiness Review.
Frank Gadiner and Christian Berger. (2018). International Practice Theory. New York: Palgrave.
Jason Troop & Keith Murphy. (2002). Bourdieu and phenomenology: A critical assessment. Anthropological Theory.
Siisiäinen, M. (2000). Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. ISTR Fourth International Conference. Dubline: Trinity college.
Teodore Schatzki, Karin Cetina, Eike Savigny. (2001). The PracticeTurn in Contemporary Theory. New York: Routledge.
UNCTAD. (2019). Trade and Development. New York: UNCTAD.
UNCTAD. (2020). World Investment Report. New York: UNCTAD.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K.. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.