Anthropomorphizing the State in IR Theory

There are several problems in the modern theory of international relations that are difficult to solve, but the very existence of which leads to a certain demarcation of possible and received knowledge. These phenomena include the problem of ‘anthropomorphizing’, which is an attribution or an identification of certain human characteristics with complex social actors, including, above all, states. This research technique is often not limited to the use of any figures of speech and serves to ascertain the ontological and epistemological foundations for further theorizing. The purpose of this article is to systematize the existing approaches to ‘anthropomorphizing’ and put forward further directions for understanding this theoretical problem. The author reconstructs the three main traditions of ‘anthropomorphizing’ – back to the works of Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes and Georg Hegel. Each tradition has both a certain understanding as regards the meaning of this research technique and ontological along with epistemological consequences, which implicitly affect the result obtained. The tradition of Hugo Grotius is distinguished by a metaphorical understanding of ‘anthropomorphizing’ associated with a peculiar perception of the rights and freedoms of the individual. On the contrary, the tradition of Thomas Hobbes considers the internal characteristics of the state in comparison with a person while similarities are used to raise new research questions. Finally, the last tradition arose under the influence of Georg Hegel. It connects the problem of ‘anthropomorphizing’ with the processes of external communication of states. The article provides an orderly interpretation of ontological and epistemological consequences as well as the traditions that are linked to existing theoretical schools (as much as possible). The author analyzes the synthesis of several traditions of ‘anthropomorphizing’ presented by constructivist Alexander Wendt. The emerging tradition of ‘anthropomorphizing’ is aimed at clearly defining its own epistemological and ontological foundations while raising the theoretical status of ‘humanization’ itself. As a result, the article concludes on the possibility, limitations and prospects of revisiting and more actively using the concept of ‘anthropomorphizing’ in reflectivist and neopositivist methodologies, as well as the likelihood of hybrid versions of the three main research traditions.

1. (1866). International Policy. Essays on the foreign policy of England. London: Chapman and Hall. 636 p.

2. Abulof U. (2015). The malpractice of “rationality” in international relations. Rationality and Society. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 358–384.

3. Alekseeva T.A. (2017). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenij v zerkalah “nauchnyh kartin mira”: chtodal'she? [IR Theory Through Lenses of Scientific World Pictures: What’s Next?] Sravnitel'naja politika. Vol. 8. No. 4. P. 30–41.

4. Batalov E. Ya. (2018). Antropologija mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij [The Anthropology of International Relations]. Moscow: Aspekt Press. 352 p.

5. Beitz C.R. (1999). Political theory and international relations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 264 p.

6. Beyer A.C. (2017). International Political Psychology: Explorations into a New Discipline. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 207 p.

7. Bilgin P. (2008). Thinking Past ‘Western’IR? Third World Quarterly. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 5–23.

8. Bull H. (1976). Martin Wight and the theory of international relations: the second Martin Wight Memorial Lecture. Review of International Studies. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 101–116.

9. Bull H. (1981). Hobbes and the international anarchy. Social Research. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 717–738.

10. Burns T. (2014). Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism? Journal of International Political Theory. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 325–344.

11. Cutler A.C. (1991). The ‘Grotian tradition’ in international relations. Review of International Studies. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 41–65.

12. Epstein C. (2011). Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 327–350.

13. Fel'dman D.M. (2014). Mirovaja politika vo vlasti tolpy? [World Politics in the Hands of Crowds]. Vlast'. No. 8. P. 28–32.

14. Filippov A. F. (2009). Aktual'nost' filosofii Gobbsa. Stat'ja pervaja [Relevance of Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy: article one]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 102–112.

15. Fleming S. (2021). The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state. European Journal of Political Theory. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 5–26.

16. Friedrichs J., Kratochwil F. (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization. Vol. 63. No. 4. P. 701–731.

17. Gallarotti G. (2013). The Enduring Importance of Hobbes in the Study of IR. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/10/hobbes-is-still-extremely-relevant-for-the-study-of-ir-especially-the-cosmopolitanhobbes/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).

18. Gilpin R.G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 287–304.

19. Grotius J. (1994). O prave vojny i mira [On Law of War and Peace]. Moscow: Ladomir. 868 p.

20. Hegel G.V.F. (1959). Sochinenija [Writings]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo social'no-jekonomicheskoj literatury. 630 p.

21. Hegel G.V.F. (1970). Raboty raznyh let. V 2 tomah [Works of different years]. Vol.1. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl’. 668 p.

22. Hegel G.V.F. (1990). Filosofiya prava [Philosophy of law]. Moscow: Mysl'. 524 p. Hobbes T. (1991). Sochinenija v dvuh tomah. Tom 1 [Writings in two volumes. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl'. 713 p.

23. Hooper C. (2001). Manly States: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics. New York: Columbia University Press. 393 р.

24. Jackson P.T. (2004). Hegel's House, or ‘People are states too’. Review of International Studies. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 281–287.

25. Jeffery R. (2006). Hugo Grotius in international thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 228 p. Kahler M. (1998). Rationality in international relations. International Organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 919–941.

26. Kashyap S. (2022). Tracing Hobbes in Realist International Relations Theory. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/02/22/tracing-hobbes-in-realist-international-relations-theory/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).

27. Kataev D.S., Fel'dman D.M. (2010). Chelovek v nauke o mirovoj politike [A human being in the science of world politics]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6. P. 102–107.

28. KHarkevich M. V. (2016). Formy publichnoj diplomatii i tipy gosudarstv [Forms of public diplomacy and types of states]. Politika i obshhestvo. No. 9. P. 1244–1255.

29. KHudajkulova A., Neklyudov N. (2019). Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoj bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodnopoliticheskom diskurse [Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6 (69). P. 129–148.

30. Kuznetsov A.M. (2013). Chelovek v mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenijah: dan' vremeni ili neobkhodimaja transformacija paradigmy? [A human being in international relations: the demand of time or the demanded transformation of science?] Politicheskaja kontseptologiya. No. 2. P. 218–229.

31. Lerner A. B. (2021). What's it like to be a state? An argument for state consciousness. International Theory. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 260–286.

32. Linklater A. (1996). Hegel, the State and International Relations. In: Clark I. , Neumann I. (eds.). Classical Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan. P. 93–203.

33. Lomas P. (2005). Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: a reply to Alexander Wendt. Review of International Studies. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 349–355.

34. MacKay J., Levin J. (2018). A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation. Journal of International Relations and Development. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 75–100.

35. Marks M.P. (2011). Metaphors in international relations theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 262 p.

36. Mearsheimer J.J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York–London: W. W. Nanon& Company. 562 p.

37. Mitzen J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.

38. Bull H. (1981). Hobbes and the international anarchy. Social Research. Vol. 48. No. 4. P. 717–738.

39. Burns T. (2014). Hegel and global politics: Communitarianism or cosmopolitanism? Journal of International Political Theory. Vol. 10. No. 3. P. 325–344.

40. Cutler A.C. (1991). The ‘Grotian tradition’ in international relations. Review of International Studies. Vol. 17. No. 1. P. 41–65.

41. Epstein C. (2011). Who speaks? Discourse, the subject and the study of identity in international politics. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 327–350.

42. Fel'dman D.M. (2014). Mirovaja politika vo vlasti tolpy? [World Politics in the Hands of Crowds]. Vlast'. No. 8. P. 28–32.

43. Filippov A. F. (2009). Aktual'nost' filosofii Gobbsa. Stat'ja pervaja [Relevance of Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy: article one]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 102–112.

44. Fleming S. (2021). The two faces of personhood: Hobbes, corporate agency and the personality of the state. European Journal of Political Theory. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 5–26.

45. Friedrichs J., Kratochwil F. (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization. Vol. 63. No. 4. P. 701–731.

46. Gallarotti G. (2013). The Enduring Importance of Hobbes in the Study of IR. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/01/10/hobbes-is-still-extremely-relevant-for-the-study-of-ir-especially-the-cosmopolitanhobbes/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).

47. Gilpin R.G. (1984). The richness of the tradition of political realism. International Organization. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 287–304.

48. Grotius J. (1994). O prave vojny i mira [On Law of War and Peace]. Moscow: Ladomir. 868 p.

49. Hegel G.V.F. (1959). Sochinenija [Writings]. Vol. 4. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo social'no-jekonomicheskoj literatury. 630 p.

50. Hegel G.V.F. (1970). Raboty raznyh let. V 2 tomah [Works of different years]. Vol.1. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl’. 668 p.

51. Hegel G.V.F. (1990). Filosofiya prava [Philosophy of law]. Moscow: Mysl'. 524 p.

52. Hobbes T. (1991). Sochinenija v dvuh tomah. Tom 1 [Writings in two volumes. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Institut filosofii AN SSSR; Mysl'. 713 p.

53. Hooper C. (2001). Manly States: masculinities, international relations, and gender politics. New York: Columbia University Press. 393 р.

54. Jackson P.T. (2004). Hegel's House, or ‘People are states too’. Review of International Studies. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 281–287.

55. Jeffery R. (2006). Hugo Grotius in international thought. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 228 p.

56. Kahler M. (1998). Rationality in international relations. International Organization. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 919–941.

57. Kashyap S. (2022). Tracing Hobbes in Realist International Relations Theory. URL: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/02/22/tracing-hobbes-in-realist-international-relations-theory/ (accessed: 25.04.2022).

58. Kataev D.S., Fel'dman D.M. (2010). Chelovek v nauke o mirovoj politike [A human being in the science of world politics]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6. P. 102–107.

59. KHarkevich M. V. (2016). Formy publichnoj diplomatii i tipy gosudarstv [Forms of public diplomacy and types of states]. Politika i obshhestvo. No. 9. P. 1244–1255.

60. KHudajkulova A., Neklyudov N. (2019). Kontseptsiya ontologicheskoj bezopasnosti v mezhdunarodnopoliticheskom diskurse [Concept of Ontological Security in International Political Discourse]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. No. 6 (69). P. 129–148.

61. Kuznetsov A.M. (2013). Chelovek v mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenijah: dan' vremeni ili neobkhodimaja transformacija paradigmy? [A human being in international relations: the demand of time or the demanded transformation of science?] Politicheskaja kontseptologiya. No. 2. P. 218–229.

62. Lerner A. B. (2021). What's it like to be a state? An argument for state consciousness. International Theory. Vol. 13. No. 2. P. 260–286.

63. Linklater A. (1996). Hegel, the State and International Relations. In: Clark I. , Neumann I. (eds.). Classical Theories of International Relations. London: Macmillan. P. 93–203.

64. Lomas P. (2005). Anthropomorphism, personification and ethics: a reply to Alexander Wendt. Review of International Studies. Vol. 31. No. 2. P. 349–355.

65. MacKay J., Levin J. (2018). A Hegelian realist constructivist account of war, identity, and state formation. Journal of International Relations and Development. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 75–100.

66. Marks M.P. (2011). Metaphors in international relations theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 262 p.

67. Mearsheimer J.J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York–London: W. W. Nanon& Company. 562 p.

68. Mitzen J. (2006). Ontological security in world politics: State identity and the security dilemma. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 341–370.