Abstract:
The paper scrutinizes the possibilities of using conceptual history in the study of
International Relations (IR). Although there are many notable exceptions, in general,
the field of IR is characterized by a historical use of concepts and is largely bereft of
any serious attempt at studying the origin, multiple meanings and contextual changes
of its central concepts. The ambiguities brought about by translations and conceptual
re-descriptions are usually not emphasised. The fulcrum of my study is the
acknowledgement of conceptual change and its usefulness for studying IR. I argue that
the so-called linguistic turn that has affected many social sciences deeply, has not
reached IR in its full extent and that it would be incumbent on us to do more thorough
conceptual/linguistic research in IR. Against this backdrop, the paper outlines some
methodological concerns for an interdisciplinary research programme more suitable for
the study of heterogeneous practices and contesting formulations, as well as alterations
and transformations within the concepts. Firstly, the paper addresses the question why
there has not been this kind of research focus in IR. An argument is made that even the
more historically oriented approaches to IR (like the so-called English school of
International Relations) are not linguistically sensitive enough. Secondly, the approach
known as conceptual history is presented and its suitability for the study of International
Relations is scrutinized. Thirdly, the relatively recent approach known as Comparative
Political Theory (CPT) is also presented, and its usefulness considered from the
perspective of concepts and language. The paper concludes by listing the pros and cons
of carrying out research of this nature. As a result, the paper proposes a methodology
that would be more linguistically sensitive than most studies in IR, more comparatively
and widely oriented than most conceptual histories, and more strictly focused on
concepts than comparative political theory.
