Despite the lack of an update at its website, I am now the Chair of the International Studies Association (ISA) Theory Section.
Obviously, all ISA members should join and contribute $5 to our budget. But the reason for this post is that we’ve promised public discussion of the wording of our new book award. I’ve set up a page for the section at the Duck of Minerva, but the comments aren’t working. So I’m putting the basic text here and inviting comments.
We also need to figure out if we are honoring a “distinguished scholar” next year. Suggestions on both the text of the award and possible honorees are welcome.
The proposed text:
The ISA Theory Section Book Prize is awarded to the book that makes the most significant contribution to the theorization of international politics. Nominees must have a copyright date within the previous two years. Single-authored, multi-authored, and edited books are all eligible for the award.
Daniel H. Nexon is a Professor at Georgetown University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Government and the School of Foreign Service. His academic work focuses on international-relations theory, power politics, empires and hegemony, and international order. He has also written on the relationship between popular culture and world politics.
He has held fellowships at Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation and at the Ohio State University's Mershon Center for International Studies. During 2009-2010 he worked in the U.S. Department of Defense as a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. He was the lead editor of International Studies Quarterly from 2014-2018.
He is the author of The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change (Princeton University Press, 2009), which won the International Security Studies Section (ISSS) Best Book Award for 2010, and co-author of Exit from Hegemony: The Unraveling of the American Global Order (Oxford University Press, 2020). His articles have appeared in a lot of places. He is the founder of the The Duck of Minerva, and also blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
- Dan Nexonhttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/dhnexon
Only grand theorists need apply? ;)
Is the two years thing standard? Also, you are on a role. Congratulations, Mr. President.
Two year thing is standard because of the vagaries of book publication — books that come out later in the year may miss the deadline for the following year, so the two-year thing-ma-bob covers that eventuality.
Two year thing is standard because of the vagaries of book publication — books that come out later in the year may miss the deadline for the following year, so the two-year thing-ma-bob covers that eventuality.
I think we should say more about the criteria by which we want to judge “the
most significant contribution to the theorization of international
politics”? Otherwise we leave the judgment totally up to the award committee’s whims. Are there any ideas about criteria out there?
I kept things vague to spark discussion, but given the breadth of what the section covers I wonder if there’s a problem with a minimalist approach. Or, to put it another way, I’m not sure what language would exclude so-called “middle-range theory” but also be sufficiently inclusive to cover the range of stuff (not just “grand theory,” Steve) that would fit the prize.
I kept things vague to spark discussion, but given the breadth of what the section covers I wonder if there’s a problem with a minimalist approach. Or, to put it another way, I’m not sure what language would exclude so-called “middle-range theory” but also be sufficiently inclusive to cover the range of stuff (not just “grand theory,” Steve) that would fit the prize.
I think vague makes sense for a new prize, FWIW. A growing section, but with a devoted core of committed folk…that’s how a prize and a subfield establish themselves… IPS might be a good example there. By contrast, naming what we want is inviting the same kind of ‘disciplining’ that groups like ISA theory emerged to dig the field out of, no? Put another way: would one even know what ‘middle range’ international theory looks like just yet? Is it people who interpret Schmitt for IR, say, developing generalized accounts of ‘the political’ on the basis of fieldwork and secondary sources? That feels wrong to me, like we’re reproducing early Deutsch or early Waltz. I don’t want to reproduce those images of thought too blindly… maybe we do because that’s the sociology of the academy, but for my part, I want to leave the door open to other things.
What do we want the ‘distinguished scholar’ title to recognize? Someone who’s still working, or someone whose longstanding legacy is apparent after they’ve stopped working? Ie, are we thinking of someone like a Connolly or a Lebow — out there, still going strong, with a stack of impressive books — or someone whose particular contributions shaped the field even if they aren’t doing so much anymore? It might help us to think through _what_ it is we want to honor. (I missed part of the ISA Theory meeting, so if this was covered, bring me up to speed…)
These are precisely the kind of questions that we *don’t* have an answer to.
right, I figured, so I’m puttin’ it out there… To my mind, the section wants to create connections with folks who are still working — the ‘international theorists _avant la lettre_, so to speak…the folk who, because of what they’ve been doing for a long time, we now have a name for what we’re doing…but are still doing new stuff. So a Chris Brown, a Kim Hutchings, a Bill Connolly, a Ned Lebow… (if it’s not too crude to name names…)
The wording of the book award is a bit too general for my taste. What is implied by “significant” and what by theoritization? What about rephrasing it in a manner that actually defines these things? E.g. the following “is awarded to the book that opens up new avenues for theorizing and abstracting the international or reconfigures how we think about international relations.”
For the distinguished scholar I suggest Iver Neumann or Fritz Kratochwil, since both are distinguished scholars who have exactly lived up to the criteria just described…
I agree: “significance“ is difficult to assess, especially with a book that is more or less fresh out of print. To me, “opening new avenues” etc. at least leaves the actual impact to the academic community, e.g. whether it is possible to use the piece for empirical purposes – but a jury should be able to judge originality or theoretical elegance or whatever one can think of.
Regarding the distinguished scholar award: I would prefer if s/he was still *actively* contributing to IR – perhaps judged by publications during the last decade. So, sorry, but this would rule out a posthumous award for, say, Hobbes, and also those who could pick up the award themselves but who earned their laurels in a previous century.
I like Christian’s suggestion for the language on the book award. It is still very broad and leaves it open to the judgement of the committee, but it is a bit clearer on what exactly the book is meant to recognize.
But are those things what the book award is “meant” to recognize? And what is “the international” anyway? And for that matter, is there a difference between “opening up new possibilities” and making good on them? We are a very diverse section, and I worry about language that locks in a particular vision at a specific time.
Are there alternatives out there that are more inclusive and/or less potentially opaque?
Here’s some food for thought partially cribbed from ENMISA’s book award, a section with similarly diverse substantive empirical and analytical foci. It’s not stealing, as I helped write it when I was on their excom.
The Theory Section Book Award recognizes the best book published over the past two years in the theoretical study of the international politics. Criteria for the award include originality of the argument presented, quality of the research, application of insights from multiple disciplines, and innovative methods or syntheses. The Award Committee is particularly interested in scholarship that crosses traditional analytical or paradigmatic boundaries.