Abstract
The English School’s contribution to the study of international relations is often seen as a set of descriptively rich concepts that may be employed within a variety of theoretical approaches.1 Nevertheless, few scholars think that this conceptual vocabulary is adequate. Some take the extreme view that the problems with it are so serious that we should use a different set of concepts, such as ‘global society’ or ‘global civil society’, to replace familiar English School ideas such as ‘international society’.2 But that is a very sweeping judgment and one that threatens to overlook the value of, among others, the historical insights of the English School. A much more common approach is to begin with the conceptual apparatus provided by the school, expanding or redefining some of its central terms. This has been done from a variety of social theoretical perspectives.3 A prominent recent example is Alexander Wendt’s refashioning of Martin Wight’s ‘three traditions’ of ‘international theory’ into an account of three different kinds of ‘international social structure’, depending on whether the predominant form of interaction involves enmity (Hobbesian), rivalry (Lockean) or friendship (Kantian).4 More recently still, Barry Buzan has tried to build the English School’s tripartite distinction between international system, international society and world society into a more robust taxonomy, embracing, for example, a distinction between global and regional international societies, and firming up the school’s rather ambiguous idea of world society, in order to create a framework that will allow us to monitor structural changes in international relations particularly with a view to charting processes of globalization.5
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
Richard Little, ‘The English School’s Contribution to the Study of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations (Vol. 6, 2000 ), pp. 395–422.
Martin Shaw, ‘Global Society and Global Responsibility: The Theoretical, Historical and Political Limits of “International Society”’, Millennium (Vol. 21, 1992 ), pp. 421–434.
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 ).
Hedley Bull, ‘International Relations as an Academic Pursuit’, Australian Outlook (Vol. 26, 1972 ), p. 259.
Adam Watson, The Evolution of International Society ( London: Routledge, 1992 ), p. 196.
Edward Keene, Beyond the Anarchical Society: Grotius, Colonialism and Order in World Politics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002 ).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Edward Keene
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Keene, E. (2009). International Society as an Ideal Type. In: Navari, C. (eds) Theorising International Society. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234475_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234475_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-36150-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-23447-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)