N. Yudin (email@example.com),
Lomonosov Moscow State University, 1, Leninskie Gory, Moscow, 119991, Russian Federation
Growing international tensions give new impetus to studies on power relations in world politics and pose greater demands on conceptual framework of power studies. It must be admitted, however, that at their current state the studies on power do not meet the challenges of contemporary world politics. Behind constantly emerging new “concepts” of power and intense scholarly debates, growing fragmentation of the research field and continuous erosion of its theoretical frameworks lies, which in turn makes a science-based approach to studying international relations almost impossible. The first step towards addressing these challenges implies development of an inclusive and coherent taxonomy of existing definitions of power, the one that is capable of accommodating the diversity of views without superficial and voluntaristic blurring of their distinctions. In order to achieve this goal, it seems reasonable to divert attention from sectional differences and to focus on the very basic ontological and epistemological foundations of the key conceptions of power. The first section of the paper examines two most common approaches towards mapping the power studies, that is the twofold and fourfold approaches. The former draws distinction between attributive and behaviorist definitions of power, whereas the latter generally correlates with the “four faces of power” debate. The author concludes that both of them fail to grasp the true essence and implications of the postmodernist workings on power and thus provide an oversimplified image of power studies. The second section of the paper directly addresses the basic philosophical premises of the postmodernist conceptualizations of power agenda in international relations and shows that postmodernist writings on power relations demonstrate a fundamental break with all previous traditions of power studies. Accordingly, the author outlines a threefold taxonomy of power studies, including attributive, behaviorist and postmodernist approaches as three distinct and separate lines of research, each based on a specific understanding of the essence of power, the subjectivity of actors within the power relations, the possibility of existence of objective knowledge, and each dialectically linked to one another by the law of the negation of negation.
Acknowledgements. The article has been supported by a grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR). Project № 18-311-00088.
international relations theory, conceptual analysis, power studies, concept of power, positivism, postmodernism, faces of power, M. Foucault
1. Istomin I.A. Refleksiya mezhdunarodnoi sistemy v ofitsial’nom diskurse i nauchnom osmyslenii [Evaluation of the International System in Russian Official Discourse and Academic Analysis]. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2016, no. 5, pp. 20-33.
2. Baranovsky V.G. Izmeneniya v global’nom politicheskom landshafte [Shifts in Global Political Landscape]. Pathways to Peace and Security, 2017, no. 1(52), pp. 55-63. DOI:10.20542/2307-1494-2017-1-55-63
3. Mel’vil’ A.Yu. Mogushchestvo i vliyanie sovremennykh gosudarstv v usloviyakh menyayushchegosya mirovogo poryadka: nekotorye teoretiko-metodologicheskie aspekty [Power and Influence of Modern States within the Changing World Order: Some Theoretical and Methodological Aspects]. Politicheskaya nauka, 2018, no. 1, pp. 173-200.
4. Bogdanov A.N. Amerikanskaya gegemoniya i faktory sistemnoi nestabil’nosti v XXI veke [American Hegemony and Systemic Stability]. International Trends, 2014, vol. 12, no. 38, pp. 8-22.
5. Nikitin A.I. Novaya sistema otnoshenii velikikh derzhav XXI veka: “kontsert” ili konfrontatsiya? [New System of Relations between Great Powers for the 21st Century: “Concert” or Confrontation?]. Polis. Political Studies, 2016, no. 1, pp. 44-59. DOI:10.17976/jpps/2016.01.04
6. Simoniya N.A., Torkunov A.V. Novyi mirovoi poryadok: ot bipolyarnosti k mnogopolyusnosti [New World Order: From Bipolarity to Multipolarity]. Polis. Political Studies, 2015, no. 3, pp. 27-37.
7. Shakleina T. Liderstvo i sovremennyi mirovoi poryadok [Leadership and Contemporary World Order]. International Trends, 2015, no. 3, pp. 35-58.
8. Manners I. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies, 2002, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 235-258.
9. Mead W.R. America’s Sticky Power. Foreign Affairs. 29.10.2009. Available at: https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/29/americas-sticky-power/ (accessed 08.10.2018).
10. Nye J.S. Soft Power: Means to Success in World Politics. New York, Public Affairs Group, 2004. 192 p.
11. Nye J.S. The Future of Power. New York, Public Affairs, 2011. 300 p.
12. Nye J.S. How Sharp Power Threatens Soft Power. Foreign Affairs, 24.01.2018. Available at: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-01-24/how-sharp-power-threatens-soft-power (accessed 08.10.2018).
13. Fels E., Kremer J.-F., Kronenberg K. Power in the 21st Century: International Security and International Political Economy in a Changing World. Berlin, Springer, 2012. 319 p.
14. Berenskoetter F., Williams M. J. Power in World Politics. London, Routledge, 2007. 316 p.
15. Lukes S. Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. 192 p.
16. Barnett M., Duvall R. Power in Global Governance. Power in Global Governance. Barnett M., Duvall R., eds. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 1-32.
17. Baldwin D. Power and International Relations. Handbook of International Relations. Carlsnaes W., Risse T., Simmons B.A., eds. London, SAGE Publ., 2013, pp. 273-297.
18. Baldwin D. Power and International Relations. A Conceptual Approach. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2016. 223 p.
19. Mearsheimer J.J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York, Norton, 2001. 555 p.
20. Morgenthau H.J. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York, Knopf, 1948. 489 p.
21. Sprout H., Sprout M. Foundations of National Power: Readings on World Politics and American Security. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1945. 774 p.
22. Waltz K. Theory of International Politics. London, Addison-Wesley Pub., 1979. 251 p.
23. Schmidt B. Competing Realist Conceptions of Power. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 2005, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 523-549. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298050330031401
24. Dahl R. The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, 1957, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 201-215. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303
25. Mattern J.B. The Concept of Power and the (Un)discipline of International Relations. The Oxford Handbook of International Relations. Reus-Smit C., Snidal D. eds. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 691-698.
26. Bachrach P., Baratz M.S. Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science Review, 1962, vol. 56, pp. 947-952. DOI:10.2307/1952796
27. Haugaard M. Rethinking the Four Dimensions of Power: Domination and Empowerment. Journal of Political Power, 2012, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 33-54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2012.660810
28. Davydov Yu.P. Ponyatie “zhestkoi” i “myagkoi” sily v teorii mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [“Hard” and “Soft” Power in International Relations Theory]. International Trends, 2004, no. 4, pp. 69-80.
29. Parshin P.B. Dva ponimaniya “myagkoi sily”: Predposylki, korrelyaty i sledstviya [Two understandings of “soft power”: prerequisites, correlates and consequences]. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 2014, no. 2 (35), pp. 14-21.
30. Yudin N.V. Zhestkii vzglyad na “myagkuyu silu”. Kriticheskii analiz monografii Dzh. Naya “Budushchee vlasti” [Hard Look at Soft Power: Critical Reflections on “The Future of Power” by Joseph S. Nye]. Moscow University Bulletin of World Politics, 2014, no. 2, pp. 134-163.
31. Digeser P. The Fourth Face of Power. The Journal of Politics, 1992, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 977-1007. DOI:10.2307/2132105
32. Paolini A. Foucault, Realism and the Power Discourse in International Relations. Australian Journal of Political Science, 1993, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 98-117. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00323269308402228
33. Hayward C. 2000. De-Facing Power. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 226 p.
34. Akram S., Emerson G., Marsh D. (Re)conceptualizing the Third Face of Power: Insights from Bourdieu and Foucault. Journal of Political Power, 2015, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 345-362. DOI:10.1080/2158379X.2015.1095845
35. Sterling-Folker J., Shinko R. Discourses of Power: Traversing the Realist-Postmodern Divide. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 2005, vol. 33, no. 3, pp 637-664. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/03058298050330031801
36. Hardy N. The Contingencies of Power: Reformulating Foucault. Journal of Political Power, 2015, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 411-429. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2015.1099210
Registered in system SCIENCE INDEX