Shadowboxing: Weberian historical sociology vs state-centric international relations theory

Abstract

The perception that traditional frameworks used to study international relations have failed to grasp both the nature of international relations and the direction of major trends of change in the international system has stimulated a more searching critique of dominant approaches in the field, a wider appreciation for critical theory, and a renewed interest in history. International relations theorists of all schools now recognize that conventional analytical distinction made between international and domestic levels of analysis obfuscate empirically and theoretically significant interdependencies of interstate and domestic systems. Consequently, there is growing awareness of the need for a broader and more inclusive paradigm - one which can capture these interdependencies and the interacting and evolving systems which are increasingly transforming national systems and international relations. This awareness has helped to blur the boundaries among paradigms and to encourage a more fluid interaction among social science disciplines. This is good news for the field of political science, since many of its traditional concerns (e.g., war and social change) connect with and overlap a number of disciplinary fields. In 'The historical sociology of the state and the state of historical sociology in international relations,' J.M. Hobson joins a growing number of international relations theorists who are calling for a critical sociology of international relations. Disputing the claim that Weberian analysis is 'merely a sociological form of neorealism,' Hobson sets out to present 'a defense of Weberian historical sociology as applied to the study of intemational relations.' His aim is, first, to define a framework for 'multicausal and multi-spatial analyses of complex change' based on principles drawn from Weberian historical sociology; and, second, to apply this framework to three phenomena: the shift to protectionism in late nineteenth century Europe, the link between war and revolution, and international systems change. Hobson's framework, however, is not a set of theoretically-linked propositions but only a collection of analytical positions culled from the