Forthcoming Cambridge University Press. Edited collection from scholars in sociology and IR promoting "global historical sociology." Based upon workshops held at the LSE and Yale University.

Historical Sociology, History of International Relations, International Historical Sociology, Historical and Comparative Sociology, and Historical International Relations

The ‘long nineteeenth century’ (1776–1914) was a period of political, economic, military and cultural revolutions that re-forged both domestic and international societies. Neither existing international histories nor ... more abstractThe ‘long nineteeenth century’ (1776–1914) was a period of political, economic, military and cultural revolutions that re-forged both domestic and international societies. Neither existing international histories nor international relations texts sufficiently register the scale and impact of this ‘global transformation’, yet it is the consequences of these multiple revolutions that provide the material and ideational foundations of modern international relations. Global modernity reconstituted the mode of power that underpinned international order and opened a power gap between those who harnessed the revolutions of modernity and those who were denied access to them. This gap dominated international relations for two centuries and is only now being closed. By taking the global transformation as the starting point for international relations, this book repositions the roots of the discipline and establishes a new way of both understanding and teaching the relationship between world history and international relations.

History, Historical Sociology, Modernity, and IR Theory

1989 signifies the collapse of Soviet communism and the end of the Cold War, a moment generally recognized as a triumph for liberal democracy and when capitalism became global. The Global 1989 challenges these ideas. ... more abstract1989 signifies the collapse of Soviet communism and the end of the Cold War, a moment generally recognized as a triumph for liberal democracy and when capitalism became global. The Global 1989 challenges these ideas. An international group of prominent scholars investigate the mixed, paradoxical and even contradictory outcomes engendered by these events, unravelling the intricacies of this important moment in world history. Although the political, economic and cultural orders generated have, for the most part, been an improvement on what was in place before, this has not always been clear cut: 1989 has many meanings, many effects and multiple trajectories. This volume leads the way in defining how 1989 can be assessed both in terms of its world historical impact and in terms of its contribution to the shape of contemporary world politics. Reviews 'This volume offers a seminal and strikingly original reinterpretation of the end of the Cold War. It provides not only a refreshing and revealing look back at 1989, but also a remarkably insightful look forward to the lasting impact of 1989 on the future of global politics.' Charles A. Kupchan, Georgetown University and Council on Foreign Relations, author of How Enemies Become Friends 'Like many joyous moments, 1989 has had diverse, unexpected and not always beneficial consequences. The editors of this volume ask all the right questions about 1989 as a turning point and the contributors provide many intelligent and provocative answers.' Richard Ned Lebow, James O. Freedman Presidential Professor, Dartmouth College and Centennial Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science 'This impressive collection of essays examines the place in global history of the revolutionary events of 1989, but it will also interest anyone attempting to theorize the overall trajectory of contemporary societies.' Michael Mann, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles 'This excellent book should be widely read and pondered because it addresses one of the most important issues of our time: why the triumphalism of 1989 has given way to a growing pessimism about the future of world politics.' John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago 'This book brings together a distinguished group of scholars to illuminate an important subject whose larger significance policymakers, scholars and the broader reading public think they understand but probably don't. Nearly anyone who thinks much about politics has a take on the meaning of 1989. Lawson, Armbruster, Cox and their collaborators are here to tell you that what you think you know about the implications of the Cold War's and Euro-Eurasian communism's collapse rests on tenuous conceptual or empirical foundations, or probably both.' William C. Wohlforth, Daniel Webster Professor, Dartmouth College and Editor in Chief, Security Studies

In Negotiated Revolutions, George Lawson marks a definitive departure in the study of radical change, presenting a comparative analysis of three transformations from authoritarian rule to market democracy. Through the... more abstractIn Negotiated Revolutions, George Lawson marks a definitive departure in the study of radical change, presenting a comparative analysis of three transformations from authoritarian rule to market democracy. Through the lens of international historical sociology, the book brings three apparently distinct transformations, from disparate regimes and geographies, under a common rubric. Reviews '…a new advance in the study of radical change…Lawson identifies a set of transitions located in three continents that accompanied the end of the cold war in the late 1980s and early 1990s. While insisting on differences of history and political culture, Lawson nonetheless shows comprehensively how the global political context combined with the maturing of internal tensions to produce a new variant of revolutionary outcomes.' Professor Fred Halliday, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK 'This is a very important book. George Lawson provides by far the best comparative and international discussion of the negotiated revolutions that took place at the end of the Cold War, and analyses these events in light of his considerable insights into the on-going debates about theories of revolution.' Professor O.A. Westad, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK 'This is a timely, important, insightful and well-written book…it produces novel insights into the conception of revolution that all scholars interested in the topic should take heed of. Perhaps most significantly, it provides an excellent bridge between the complementary, though often sealed off, disciplines of Macro-Sociology/Historical Sociology and International Relations…I strongly recommend this book.' John M. Hobson, University of Sheffield, UK '…a valuable tool to criticize past research on revolutions for a number of shortcomings…[Lawson] provides a strong case for an "international sociology" as a conceptual framework for studying change in international relations as but a case of more comprehensive social change. His case-studies are highly readable, condensed accounts…' International Affairs 'Lawson does readers a favor by creating a model of revolution that allows one to retain what is useful from the past and combine it with what has changed in the present. Such scenarios may allow better predictions of future revolutionary activities…Recommended.' Choice 'Overall, the author succeeds in his analysis: the cases provide effective and convincing illustrations…of the importance and usefulness of the concept of negotiated revolution…this is a refreshing read…provides an excellent weaving together of theory and evidence…' Political Studies Review '[Lawson's] case for the emergence of negotiated revolutions…is compelling and the discussion of the three cases well argued. Negotiated Revolutions thus marks a valuable contribution to the study of revolutions and social change generally in the post-Cold War era.' Political Science Quarterly

This response concentrates on two sets of issues raised by the contributors to the symposium: the first centers around theory, the second around history. On the former, our argument is that, contrary to some of the co... more abstractThis response concentrates on two sets of issues raised by the contributors to the symposium: the first centers around theory, the second around history. On the former, our argument is that, contrary to some of the comments made by our interlocutors, the book contributes to theoretical debates ranging from issues of causation to those concerning history as a theoretical enterprise. We use these arguments to engage with, and extend, historical questions raised about the book, paying particular attention to the issue of comparisons across time. Our overarching reaction to the symposium is positive – the book has generated an exciting range of responses. This makes us hopeful that The Global Transformation will stimulate both intra-and inter-disciplinary conversations, even if these conversations sometimes emerge from frustration with paths not taken and issues not addressed.

History, International Relations Theory, and Modernity

More Info: Barry Buzan and George Lawson, 'Theory, History, and the Global Transformation', International Theory 8(3) 2016: 502–522

Recent years have seen renewed interest in the study of revolutions. Yet the burgeoning interest in revolutionary events has not been matched by a comparable interest in the development of revolutionary theory. For th... more abstractRecent years have seen renewed interest in the study of revolutions. Yet the burgeoning interest in revolutionary events has not been matched by a comparable interest in the development of revolutionary theory. For the most part, empirical studies of revolutions remain contained within the parameters established by the ‘fourth generation’ of revolutionary theory. This body of work sees revolutions as conjunctural amalgams of systemic crisis, structural opening, and collective action, which arise from the intersection of international, economic, political, and symbolic factors. Despite the promise of this approach, this article argues that fourth generation scholarship remains an unfulfilled agenda. The aim of this article is to work within – and beyond – fourth generation theory in order to establish the theoretical foundations that can underpin contemporary work on revolutions. It does so in three ways: first, by promoting a shift from an attributional to a processual ontology; second, by advocating a relational rather than substantialist account of social action; and third, by fostering an approach that sees revolutions as inter-societal ‘all the way down’.

International Relations, Historical Sociology, International Relations Theory, Revolutions, Social movements and revolution, and 1 more

Journal Name: Sociological Theory 34(2): 106-127.

This article combines insights from the literature on revolutions with that on non-violent protest in order to assess the causes and outcomes of the Arab Uprisings. The article makes three main arguments: first, inter... more abstractThis article combines insights from the literature on revolutions with that on non-violent protest in order to assess the causes and outcomes of the Arab Uprisings. The article makes three main arguments: first, international dynamics were the precipitant cause of the Arab Uprisings; second, because the region’s ‘neo-patrimonial’ regimes were particularly vulnerable to shifts in state-military relations, the hold of elites over state coercive apparatuses played a decisive role in determining the outcomes of the revolutions; and third, the organizational character of the protest movements, including their use of information and communication technologies, helped to raise levels of participation, but limited their capacity to engender major transformations. Of particular interest to scholarship on non-violent movements, the article demonstrates the ways in which, as the revolutionary wave spread around North Africa and the Middle East, protestors in states outside the original onset of the crisis overstated the possibilities of revolutionary success. At the same time, regimes learned quickly how to demobilize their opponents. The lesson is clear: the timing of when movements emerged was just as important as their organizational coherence and levels of participation.

Revolutions, Social movements and revolution, Non violence, and Arab Uprisings

More Info: Mobilization 20(4) 2015: 453-470.

Although contemporary theorists of revolution usually claim to be incorporating international dynamics in their analysis, ‘the international’ remains a residual feature of revolutionary theory. For the most part, inte... more abstractAlthough contemporary theorists of revolution usually claim to be incorporating international dynamics in their analysis, ‘the international’ remains a residual feature of revolutionary theory. For the most part, international processes are seen either as the facilitating context for revolutions or as the dependent outcome of revolutions. The result is an analytical bifurcation between international and domestic in which the former serves as the backdrop to the latter’s causal agency. This paper demonstrates the benefits of a fuller engagement between revolutionary theory and ‘the international’. It does so in three steps: first, the paper examines the ways in which contemporary revolutionary theory apprehends ‘the international’; second, it lays out the descriptive and analytical advantages of an ‘intersocietal’ approach; and third, it traces the ways in which international dynamics help to constitute revolutionary situations, trajectories, and outcomes. In this way, revolutions are understood as ‘intersocietal’ all the way down.

International Relations, Historical Sociology, Revolutions, and International Historical Sociology

More Info: Theory and Society 44(4) 2015: 299-319.

The two centuries old hegemony of the West is coming to an end. The ‘revolutions of modernity’ that fuelled the rise of the West are now accessible to all states. As a result, the power gap that developed during the n... more abstractThe two centuries old hegemony of the West is coming to an end. The ‘revolutions of modernity’ that fuelled the rise of the West are now accessible to all states. As a result, the power gap that developed during the nineteenth century and which served as the foundation for a core-periphery international order is closing. The result is a shift from a world of ‘centred globalism’ to one of ‘decentred globalism’. At the same time as power is becoming more diffuse, the degree of ideological difference among the leading powers is shrinking. Indeed, because all great powers in the contemporary world are in some form capitalist, the ideological bandwidth of the emerging international order is narrower than it has been for a century. The question is whether this relative ideological homogeneity will generate geoeconomic or geopolitical competition among the four main modes of capitalist governance: liberal democratic, social democratic, competitive authoritarian and state bureaucratic. This article assesses the strengths and weaknesses of these four modes of capitalist governance, and probes the main contours of inter-capitalist competition. Will the political differences between democratic and authoritarian capitalists override their shared interests or be mediated by them? Will there be conflicting capitalisms along the lines of the early part of the twentieth century? Or will the contemporary world see the development of some kind of concert of capitalist powers? A world of politically differentiated capitalisms is likely to be with us for some time. As such, a central task facing policy makers is to ensure that geoeconomic competition takes place without generating geopolitical conflict.

More Info: Barry Buzan and George Lawson, 'Capitalism and the Emergent World Order', International Affairs 90(1) 2014: 71–91.

Despite the prominent place of intervention in contemporary world politics, debate is limited by two weaknesses: first, an excessive presentism; and second, a focus on normative questions to the detriment of analysis ... more abstractDespite the prominent place of intervention in contemporary world politics, debate is limited by two weaknesses: first, an excessive presentism; and second, a focus on normative questions to the detriment of analysis of the longer-term sociological dynamics that fuel inter- ventionary pressures. In keeping with the focus of the Special Issue on the ways in which inter- vention is embedded within modernity, this article examines the emergence of intervention during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, assesses its place in the contemporary world, and considers its prospects in upcoming years. The main point of the article is simple – although intervention changes in character across time and place, it is a persistent feature of modern international relations. As such, intervention is here to stay.

More Info: George Lawson and Luca Tardelli, ‘The Past, Present and Future of Intervention’, Review of International Studies 39(5) 2013: 1233–1253.

International Relations (IR) has an ‘orthodox set’ of benchmark dates by which much of its research and teaching is organized: 1500, 1648, 1919, 1945 and 1989. This article argues that IR scholars need to question the... more abstractInternational Relations (IR) has an ‘orthodox set’ of benchmark dates by which much of its research and teaching is organized: 1500, 1648, 1919, 1945 and 1989. This article argues that IR scholars need to question the ways in which these orthodox dates serve as internal and external points of reference, think more critically about how benchmark dates are established, and generate a revised set of benchmark dates that better reflects macro-historical international dynamics. The first part of the article questions the appropriateness of the orthodox set of benchmark dates as ways of framing the discipline’s self-understanding. Sections two and three look at what counts as a benchmark date, and why. We systematise benchmark dates drawn from mainstream IR theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism/English School and sociological approaches) and then aggregate their criteria. Part four of the article uses this exercise to construct a revised set of benchmark dates which can widen the discipline’s theoretical and historical scope. We outline a way of ranking benchmark dates and suggest a means of assessing recent candidates for benchmark status. Overall, the article delivers two main benefits: first, an improved heuristic by which to think critically about foundational dates in the discipline; second, a revised set of benchmark dates which can help shift IR’s centre of gravity away from dynamics of war and peace, and towards a broader range of macro-historical dynamics.

Publication Name: Barry Buzan and George Lawson, 'Rethinking Benchmark Dates in International Relations', European Journal of International Relations 20(2) 2014: 437-462.

Unlike many other social sciences, International Relations (IR) spends relatively little time assessing the impact of the 19th century on its principal subject matter. As a result, the discipline fails to understand t... more abstractUnlike many other social sciences, International Relations (IR) spends relatively little time assessing the impact of the 19th century on its principal subject matter. As a result, the discipline fails to understand the ways in which a dramatic reconfiguration of power during the ‘long 19th century’ served to recast core features of international order. This paper examines the extent of this lacuna and establishes the ways in which processes of industrialization, rational state-building, and ideologies of progress served to destabilize existing forms of order and promote novel institutional formations. The changing character of organized violence is used to illustrate these changes. The paper concludes by examining how IR could be rearticulated around a more pronounced engagement with ‘the global transformation’.

More Info: Barry Buzan and George Lawson, 'The Global Transformation: The Nineteenth Century and the Making of Modern International Relations', International Studies Quarterly, 57(3) 2013: 620–634.

On one level, history is used by all parts of the International Relations (IR) discipline. But lurking beneath the surface of IR’s approach to history lies a well-entrenched binary. Whereas mainstream positions use hi... more abstractOn one level, history is used by all parts of the International Relations (IR) discipline. But lurking beneath the surface of IR’s approach to history lies a well-entrenched binary. Whereas mainstream positions use history as a means to fill in their theoretical frames (seeing history as a kind of ‘scripture’ of abstract lessons), many post-positivists reduce history to a pick-and-mix of contingent hiccups (a ‘butterfly’ of what-ifs and maybes). Interestingly enough, this binary is one reproduced throughout the social sciences. As such, there is a bigger story to the apparently ‘eternal divide’ between history and social science than first meets the eye. This article uses the various ways in which history is used — and abused — in IR to probe more deeply into the relationship between history and social science as a whole. This exploration reveals four frameworks, two drawn from history (context and narrative) and two drawn from social science (eventfulness and ideal-typification) which illustrate the necessary co-implication of the two enterprises. The article employs these tools as a means of re-imagining the relationship between history and social science (including IR), conceiving this as a single intellectual journey in which both are permanently in view.

More Info: European Journal of International Relations 18(2) 2012: 203–226

Publication Name: John Hobson and George Lawson, 'What is History in International Relations?’, Millennium 37(2) 2008: 415–435.

International Relations, Historical Sociology, Revolutions, International Historical Sociology, and Historical and Comparative Sociology

IR Theory

Historical Sociology, History and International Relations, International Historical Sociology, and Historical and Comparative Sociology

Introduction by Richard Ned Lebow, King’s College London. 3 Review by Edward Keene, Christ Church, The University of Oxford. 6 Review by Jennifer Mitzen, Ohio State University. 9 Review by Ayşe Zarakol, University of ... more abstractIntroduction by Richard Ned Lebow, King’s College London. 3 Review by Edward Keene, Christ Church, The University of Oxford. 6 Review by Jennifer Mitzen, Ohio State University. 9 Review by Ayşe Zarakol, University of Cambridge. 13 Author’s Response by Barry Buzan and George Lawson, London School of Economics and Political Science. 15

International Relations, International Relations Theory, and History of International Relations

Historical Sociology, International Historical Sociology, and Historical and Comparative Sociology

H-Diplo Roundtable Vol. VII, Nr. 11 (2015)

Diplomatic History, Napoleonic Wars, Napoleonic Europe, Metternich Era, Peacemaking, and 3 more

Publication Date: Jan 30, 2015