Conference Program

The primary question of this paper is to what extent Gramsci's theory of the intellectuals is helpful for contemporary self-reflexive IR (sociology of IR). In this way, it looks into Gramsci's notes on the intellectual as, at the very least, valuable points of departure for dealing with the issue of disciplinary dominance (both in its materialist/institutional and ideational/intellectual dimensions). It seeks to restart debates on the Western hegemony within the discipline by advancing a Gramsci-inspired idea of the "hegemonic combatants" within IR, i.e., agents of disciplinary dominance. The specificity of its approach unfolds via the internalist application of the idea, namely related to the discipline's own societal dimension, isolated, at least partially and analytically, from the everpresent peculiar externalism of IR noted by Weaver over two decades ago. It is hoped that such a conceptual innovation would help bridge the growing gap between the self-reflexive literature's normative-emancipatory imperatives and its empirical aspirations to reflect on the discipline sociologically. The latter gap, in part, has its roots in a peculiar absence of a "linking concept," allowing to connect the former's emancipatory critique to the empirical data and providing conceptual guidance for escaping the prison of invariant bibliometrics

Social Constructivism has become one of the most influential metatheories applied in the study of non-Western IR, with numerous authors attempting to approach the problem through constructivist lenses. This is evident in the works of Mathian Albert, Barry Buzan, and Michael Zürn, who have endeavored to 'deconstruct' IR following the principles based on differentiation theory. However, in our view, there are two tendencies in theorizing in IR: firstly, a predominant focus on ontology, and secondly, a tendency to conflate the domains of ontology and epistemology. Instead of primarily concentrating on ontology, as most constructivist authors do, our emphasis lies more on meta-methodology. For that, we propose the application of the principles of New Systems Theory (NST), whose potential, in our view, has not been fully explored by the IR community. The value of NST is that it provides the conceptual means that, in opposition to classical systems theory, go beyond causal theorizing and also focus on constitutive theorizing. This makes NST a viable tool for studying non-linearity in the social sciences. To test our proposal, we decided to use the Sub-Saharan Africa region and the concept of 'othering,' as it is a region that has been omitted in the domain of IR theorizing.

Several scholars including Robert Kaplan asserted that violent conflicts and the collapse of state authority will exacerbate local and regional 'anarchy' in the Global South; while Francis Fukuyama declared the ascendance of neoliberalism as the “End of History” that will usher democratic peace and political order. This paper argues that while both Kaplan and Fukuyama’s ontologies of liberal intervention may provide some insight into regional political crises; their Eurocentric analytical gaze does not rigorously engage the historicity of Global South’s encounter with Europe through coloniality, enslavement and the persisting practices of neoliberal interventions. Drawing on empirical cases of major power interventions in the Sahara-Sahel (Africa) and Afghanistan (Central Asia), we argue that neoliberal interventions under the rubrics of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ and the coercive ‘Global War on Terror’, more often than not, have unintended consequences including human displacement and structural violence that undermine state cohesion. We draw insights from two theoretical perspectives: Global security assemblages as deployed by Rita Abrahamsen and Subaltern Realism by Mohammed Ayoob to unpack the perils and implications of major power interventions in a world of flux, and uncertainty; that fuel the politics of grievance. The paper concludes that decolonizing the political space equally requires decolonizing the economic, intellectual/knowledge and cultural fields to ensure development, self-determination and human security in the Global South. The paper contributes to our understanding of the limitations of Eurocentric ontologies about the crises of states and state formation in the Global South; thereby expanding the possibilities of new theorization in International relations scholarship.

The argument this paper makes is that West Germany has employed science diplomacy – similarly to how it has used development aid – not simply as a political tool in the Cold War, but also as an instrument of postwar power projection into the Third World. Based on the historical sources of the German federal ministry of science and technology (BMFT) from 1950 to 1990, this paper will present a chronology of West German science diplomacy, its evolving aims, instruments and partnerships. The author will especially look at the science diplomatic relationships of Bonn with Washington, Moscow and the emerging powers in the Global South. The paper will connect the development of this policy area with the debate about German civilian power and ask if and how West German science diplomacy can be understood as an ersatz policy for “Weltpolitik”, the global ambitions of a budding Great Power before the World Wars. The author regards the postwar Federal Republic of Germany as a “Weltwissenschaftsmacht”, i.e. “a global science power” – as West German science diplomacy until 1990 (and, arguably, until today) includes elements of prewar grandeur as well as postwar humility.