Modernity, Postmodernism and International Relations

Abstract

There is a certain irony in discussing postmodernism and the social sciences in relation to the study of international relations. This results from the subject matter of international relations and the manner in which it is approached. As Philip Windsor has noted, international relations ‘literally considers the fate of the world’. As such, ‘it is bound to be comprehensive by virtue of its preoccupation, but it can not be unitary because of its preoccupation’ (Windsor, 1987: 187). It has a unifying concern, but no unifying methodology or philosophy. The result is a subject area which it is difficult at times to hold together. In consequence, international relations is by nature a fragmented ‘discipline’. This fragmentation is unavoidable. However, it is not necessarily a weakness and may even be seen as desirable.

In this paper this term is used as synonymous with ‘international politics’, ‘world politics’ and ‘global politics’. However, it is worth noting that the term ‘international relations’ is a contentious one. Coined by Bentham in the nineteenth century to denote activity among nations, it has come to be understood in both very narrow and very broad terms. The narrow definition views international relations as concerned only with formal political relations between states. Broader definitions extend the units of analysis beyond the state to include non-state actors and the issues beyond the military-political to the economic. The broadest definitions understand the term to cover the internationalised or global dimensions of social, economic, political and cultural phenomenon. It is the latter definition which informs this paper. When used with lower case initials, the term refers to this phenomenon of international relations; when used with upper case, it refers to the study of that phenomenon.