The Concept of a Multipolar World as the Aestheticization of Politics

In 2001 R. Bleiker announced aesthetic turn in IR theory, which presupposed the focus on the intersection between two areas – politics and aesthetics. The vast majority of the works had the emphasis on the politicization of aesthetics in terms of Walter Benjamin, namely, on a process of instrumentalization of aesthetics for political purposes, while the opposite notion of the aestheticization of politics has remained vague. This article aims to compensate such a gap in epistemology and to show the importance of the aestheticization of politics for IR. The author proposes a theoretical and methodological framework that includes the concepts of political-aesthetic hybrids, political-aesthetic logic, superposition, blending and the work of purification as the retrospective separation of the aesthetic from the political. The article provides a ground to consider the concept of the multipolar world in the official discourse of Russia as political-aesthetic hybrid. It contains a sustainable logic linking the multipolar principle in international relations with a harmonious order at the level of the international system and within specific countries/ regions. Future research can focus on some other political-aesthetic hybrids such as "balance of power", "world order", "symmetrical response" to advance our understanding of the field of intersection between international relations and aesthetics. In addition, alternative views on the phenomenon of the aestheticization of politics may be fruitful, but only in the case of consistent conceptualization and, most importantly, operationalization of these models, since many previous theoretical constructions suffered from excessive metaphorical nature and vagueness.

1. Adler E., Pouliot V. (2011). International Practices. International Theory. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 1–36.

2. Arendt H. (1998). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 370 p.

3. Batalov J.J. (2005). O filosofii mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij [On the philosophy of international relations]. Moscow: Nauchno-obrazovatel'nyj forum po mezhdunarodnym otnoshenijam. 132 p.

4. Benjamin W. (2023). Proizvedenie iskusstva v jepohu ego tehnicheskoj vosproizvodimosti [The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction]. Kafedra istorii zarubezhnoj literatury filologicheskogo fakul'teta MGU im. M.V. Lomonosova. URL: https://forlit.philol.msu.ru/lib-ru/benjamin1-ru (accessed: 19.04.2023).

5. Bleiker R. (2001). The Aesthetic Turn in International Political Theory. Millennium. Vol. 30. No. 3. P. 509–533. Bleiker R. (2018). Aesthetic Turn in International Relations. Oxford Bibliographies. URL: http://www. oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0236.xml (accessed 19.04.2023).

6. Boileau-Despréaux N. (1937). Pojeticheskoe iskusstvo [Poetic art]. Moscow: Hudozhestvennaja literatura. 101 p.

7. Campbell D. (2007). Geopolitics and Visuality: Sighting the Darfur Conflict. Political Geography. Vol. 26. No. 4. P. 357–382. Chandler A.R. (1921). The Aesthetic Categories. The Monist. Vol. 31. No. 3. P. 409–419.

8. Crawford N.C. (2000). The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships. International Security. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 116–156.

9. Danchev A. (2011). On Art and War and Terror. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 256 p.

10. Eco U. (2004). On Beauty: A History of a Western Idea. L.: Secker & Warburg. 438 p.

11. Funnell L., Dodds K. (2017). Geographies, Genders and Geopolitics of James Bond. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 253 p.

12. Groys B.Y. (2018). «Vera v prirodnuju odarennost' i kreativnost' est' hudshaja forma social-darvinizma». Otryvok iz knigi «V potoke» filosofa Borisa Grojsa ["Belief in natural giftedness and creativity is the worst form of social Darwinism." An excerpt from the book "In the Stream" by the philosopher Boris Groys]. Inde. URL: https://inde.io/article/11495-vera-v-prirodnuyu-odarennost-i-kreativnost-esthudshaya-forma-sotsial-darvinizma-otryvok-iz-knigi-v-potoke-filosofa-borisa-groysa (accessed: 19.04.2023).

13. Inozemtsev V.L. (2012). Apostol realizma [Apostle of realism]. Rossija v global'noj politike. No. 1 (10). P. 212–219.

14. Jay M. (1992). «The Aesthetic Ideology» as Ideology; or, What Does It Mean to Aestheticize Politics? Cultural Critique. No. 21. P. 41–61.

15. Kahn С.H. (1979). The Art and Thought of Heraclitus. An Edition of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary. L.: Cambridge University Press. 354 p.

16. Laclau E. (1996). Emancipation(s). L.: Verso. 124 p.

17. Laclau E., Mouffe C. (2001). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. L.: Verso. 198 p.

18. Latour B. (2006). Novogo Vremeni ne bylo. Jesse po simmetrichnoj antropologii [We have never been modern]. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Evropejskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge. 240 p.

19. Little R. (2007). The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths, and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 328 p.

20. Livio M. (2002). The Golden Ratio and Aesthetics. Plus Magazine. URL: https://plus.maths.org/content/ golden-ratio-and-aesthetics (accessed: 19.04.2023).

21. Losev A.F. (1998). Jestetika Vozrozhdenija. Istoricheskij smysl jestetiki Vozrozhdenija [Aesthetics of the Renaissance. The historical meaning of the aesthetics of the Renaissance]. Moscow: Mysl'. 750 p.

22. Maguire J.P. (1964). The Differentiation of Art in Plato's Aesthetics. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. Vol. 68. P. 389–410.

23. Mearsheimer J.J., Alterman G. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: WW Norton & Company. 561 p.

24. Milliken J. (1999). The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 225–254.

25. Pettit P. (2017). Democracy before, in, and after Schumpeter. Critical Review. Vol. 29. No. 4. P. 492–504.

26. Poulakos J. (2007). From the Depths of Rhetoric: The Emergence of Aesthetics as a Discipline. Philosophy & Rhetoric. Vol. 40. No. 4. P. 335–352.

27. Pustovit A.I. (2006). Jetika i jestetika: Nasledie Zapada. Istorija krasoty i dobra: Uchebnoe posobie [Ethics and Aesthetics: Heritage of the West. A History of Beauty and Good: Study Guide]. Kyiv: MAUP. 680 p.

28. Rancière J. (2007). Razdeljaja chuvstvennoe [The Distribution of the Sensible: Politics and Aesthetics]. Saint Petersburg: Izdatel'stvo Evropejskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge. 263 p.

29. Ruskin J. (2016). Teorija krasoty [The theory of beauty]. Moscow: RIPOL klassik. 288 p.

30. Sartori G. (1989). The Essence of the Political in Carl Schmitt. Journal of Theoretical Politics. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 63–75.

31. Saussure F. de. (1999). Kurs obshhej lingvistiki [Course in general linguistics]. Ekaterinburg: Izdatel'stvo Ural'skogo universiteta. 432 p.

32. Schweller R. L. (2016). The Balance of Power in World Politics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. URL: https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore9780190228637-e-119 (accessed: 19.04.2023).

33. Shapiro M.J. (1988). The Politics of Representation: Writing Practices in Biography, Photography, and Policy Analysis. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 256 p.

34. Shapiro M.J. (1999). Cinematic Political Thought: Narrating Race, Nation and Gender. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 176 p.

35. Sheehan M. (1996). The Balance of Power: History and Theory. London: Routledge. 229 p.

36. Simons J. (1995). Foucault and the Political. London: Routledge. 160 p.

37. Tesauro E. (2002). Podzornaja truba Aristotelja [The aristotelian telescope]. Saint Petersburg: Aletejja. 384 p.

38. Waltz K. N. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 5–41.

39. Welsch W. (1997). Undoing Aesthetics. L.: Sage Publications Ltd. 209 p.