Conclusion: The (Im)Possibility of Global Normative Order(s)

Abstract

In conclusion, the postfoundational ontological condition explains but also increases our experiences of paradox in global normative order(s). The hauntology of global normative order does not present an ontology of global order that explains the fixed boundaries of global social relations, nor a reason why one normative order rather than the other would be preferable to govern a ‘global space.’ Instead, a hauntology of order acknowledges the foundational need for a decision about such an ontological investment to begin with and examines the contingency of our established global social identities. Politicization as problematization and decision as free articulation are not only fundamental practices of politics but also essential components of social sciences and IR conceived in postfoundational terms. The logic of investigation changes from deduction to retroduction, that is, to inferring the conclusion for a phenomenon only ever problematically. The sort of inquiry proposed in this book can inform new understandings of the contemporary decidables, and it can inspire new areas of research for social and political theory as well as empirical studies. These would then be concerned with the contingent articulations and actualizations of possible contents that assume the role of symbolizing that which is named ‘global normative order.’