Book review Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory (R.B.J. Walker 1993) Walker, R.B.J.

. (1993), Inside/outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press, 233 p. (ISBN: 0 521 42119 5) Once in a while it is useful to revisit a classic text, even if only to be reminded that one is not quite as innovative as one sometimes believes oneself to be. As such it breeds modesty and it pushes one to work harder. Within International Relations (IR), there are a few books and articles that are commonly labelled classic, e.g. Kants essay on Perpetual Peace and Hobbes Leviathan, and, moving closer to our present age, Kenneth Waltz Theory of International Politics and Alexander Wendts Social Theory of International Politics. Aside from being classics, the texts mentioned represent mainstream ideas and thoughts; or aspire to do so, as in Wendts case. The book under review, Inside/outside by Rob Walker, also deserves to be seen as a classic. However, it will probably never attain mainstream status. It is a work of dissidence, albeit constructive dissidence. The work aims to deconstruct International Relations as a discipline and practice: it reveals reified dichotomies and the historicity of the most basic assumptions governing international relations. This deconstructive effort, however, is not nihilistic. It is supplemented with attempts to come up with alternative visions. Therefore, constructive dissidence, a label Walker would probably not mind. Let us now turn to the book and what it actually says. It is built around a few central claims that mutually reinforce one another. First it is stated that the discipline of International Relations is not descriptive of the practice of international relations, but that it is rather constitutive of it. Walker speaks of theories demarcat[ing] and disciplin[ing] the horizons beyond which it is dangerous to pursue any political action [] (p. 6) A central aspect of this constituting power of International Relations Theory is its insistence on the principle of state sovereignty. This principle represents one particularly earlymodern spatio-temporal solution to the problem of particularity versus universality. The latter is a dichotomous tension that all people of all times have to deal with. The spatio-temporal construct state sovereignty is at once elegant and problematic. Its elegance is quasi proven by its continuing presence over the last five centuries. It has turned out be a phenomenon that cannot be easily disposed off if one were to wish so. At the same time it is highly problematic, because it is no longer an adequate response due to the times changing. At the transition from late feudality to early modernity state sovereignty might have been just the answer they were looking for. Now modernity is quickly giving in ground to late or even postmodernity and therefore other spatio-temporal solutions are called for. Why?, one might wonder. The answer lies in the way state sovereignty resolves the universalityparticularity dichotomy. A spatial inside is created, demarcated by impermeable borders, to which all of the outside space is opposed. Thus, the spatial aspect, the territoriality, is central and primary in the definition of state sovereignty. The temporal aspect comes second and is conditioned on the prior spatial divisions. Peace and progress on the inside; war and eternal recurrence on the outside. Within the state the good life and its promotion (politics) are possible, and this is the subject of Political Theory. Between states one can only try with a great chance of failure to manage the relations, and this is the subject of International Relations Theory. In short: universal time in particular spaces.

Ours, however, is a time of speed and acceleration, in which space is compressed and borders are becoming less significant. Any spatio-temporal construct that does not take this transformation into account, as is the case with the concept of state sovereignty, is bound to loose its relevance. In concomitance with unpacking state sovereignty, Rob Walker writes about the discipline called International Relations. He does so from the margins, as he does not really see himself as an IR theorist; he would probably rather label himself as being involved in Political Theory or World Politics. His most controversial claim concerning the discipline is that its dominant tradition is not Political Realism, but rather Idealism or Utopianism. (p. 22) A first argument in favour of this viewpoint is given by an interesting reading of Machiavelli, who is said to be mainly concerned with the virtuous behaviour of the prince and the citizens within the city-state, and who is said to have the relations between states only as a secondary focus. Secondly, he argues that also contemporary theoreticians are idealists at heart. So-called liberalists see Universalism inevitably prevailing throughout space over time. Political Realists might be less optimistic, yet they also promote universalism, albeit in its restricted form, i.e. within their state. Their depiction of the international arena as anarchic and their call for vigilance serves to preserve order and justice within the state. These themes are developed in eight chapters, including an introductory one. All chapters repeat the same arguments, focussing on different aspects and applications. We will not consider them in detail as this would cause us to repeat the same thoughts over and over again. However a short overview of the different subjects can quickly be given: Machiavelli, ethics and/in international relations, history versus structure, Realism and change, the territorial state, democracy, and the politics of forgetting. Walkers analysis of IR/iri appears to be basically correct. Still, some room is left for critique. First, it should be noticed that the book is part of a wave of reflectivist scholarship in International Relations, which has as one of its main features and self-proclaimed strengths a greater philosophical awareness. This quality cannot be denied in Inside/outside, yet I would have expected less conceptual confusion with regard to a threefold of words: epistemology, ontology and methodology. Rob Walker claims to be most concerned with ontology and less with matters of epistemology and methodology. This is striking because he focuses on change and transformation, on time being in flux, and on the historical nature of constitutive principles. He shares this focus with Iver Neumann, amongst others, who cites this focus as a reason for moving away from ontology to epistemology ii. It is clear that both authors use different definitions of ontology and epistemology. Walkers definition is problematic because he appears to equate epistemology with methodology, hence ascribing to it a conservative bias. A second remark relates to the putative causes of state sovereignty becoming inadequate. Walker emphasises the impact of temporal accelerations on world politics (as described above). The solution he comes up with (but which is not really developed in Inside/outside), hinges on the potential of (transnational) social movements as political actors. It is not clear, however, how one can be sure that social movements will per se promote salutary policies. Whats more, they are mostly western movements, promoting western ideals. As such Walker does not escape a cultural bias, which might be a grave mistake in light of a growing number of articles and books reporting on Chinas rise to great power status. As it becomes more and more powerful, the country will have more and more impact on international society, possibly bringing new spatio-temporal solutions to the universalist / particularist dichotomy to the fore. These might be just as challenging as whatever temporal acceleration. These two points of criticism do not undermine the value of the book. When it was written, it was original in content. Thirteen years later it remains as relevant as ever. Anyone who reads it, will be pushed to work harder. A classic indeed.
i

IR refers to the discipline of International Relations; ir refers to the practice of international relations; IR/ir refers to the mutual constitution of theory and practice. ii A lengthy quote from Neumanns work will be clarifying. Ontologi og epistemologi her er to begreper som ofte brukes som anststsstener nr diskursanalytikere skal signalisere sin stammetilhrighet og spesifisere hva som karakterisrer den type tilgang som brukes. Ontologien er lren om det vrende hva verden bestr av. For diskursanalytikeren er det, som jeg

kommer tilbake til i kapittel to, et utgangspunkt for studiet av det politiske og det sosiale at verder fremtrer oss som mer eller mindre omskiftelig i fluks. Det gir ingen mening si at verder bestr av dette eller hint uten spesifisere hvorledes det ble slik, hvorledes denne verdenen opprettholdes, og hvorledes den utfordres av andre muligheter. Diskursanalytikeren er derfor ikke frst og fremst optatt av det vrende, men av det vordende, av hvorledes og hvorfor ting fremtrer som de gjr. Det er dermed epistemologiske sprsml hvorledes vi kan ha kunnskap om verden som str i sentrum for analysen, mens det ontologiske trenges i bakgrunnen. (Neumann, 2001: 14) Ontology and epistemology Discourse analysts often make use of these concepts when they shall express their allegiance and when they have to explain the specificity of their approach. Ontology is the study of that what is that what the world consists of. For discourse analysts, as I will stress in chapter two, the shifting nature of all things political and social is the starting point of their research. It is not useful to say that the world consists of this or that, without specifying how it became as such, how this world is kept intact, and how it is challenged by other possibilities. That is why discourse analysts are not foremost concerned with that what is, but rather with that what is becoming, with how and why thing appear to us as they do. Therefore, it are epistemological questions how we can gain knowledge about the world that are at the heart of the analysis, while the ontological is pushed into the background. (Reviewers translation) Additional literature: HANSEN, Lene (1997), R.B.J. Walker and International Relations: deconstructing a discipline 316-336 in NEUMANN, I. en WVER, O. (eds.) The future of international relations. Masters in the making, London: Routledge, 400 p. NEUMANN, Iver (2001), Mening, materialet, makt: en innfring i diskursanalyse, Bergen: Fagbokforlaget, 205 p. {Jorg Kustermans}