Michael N. Barnett

Last updated
Michael N. Barnett
Born
Michael Nathan Barnett

(1960-11-10) November 10, 1960 (age 62)
Nationality American
Occupations

Michael Nathan Barnett (born November 10, 1960) is a professor of international relations at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs. [1] Known for his Constructivist approach, his scholarship and research has been in the areas of international organizations, international relations theory, and Middle Eastern politics. [2]

Contents

In 2010, Barnett was named University Professor of International Affairs and Political Science at George Washington University. [3] He is considered among the most influential IR scholars. [4] [5] His study "Power in International Politics" (co-authored with Raymond Duvall) is among the most assigned work in international relations graduate training at American universities. [6]

Career

He received his B.A. from the University of Illinois and his Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota. As he worked towards his undergraduate degree at the University of Illinois he worked as a storm chaser in Illinois and the greater Midwest area.

He has taught at the University of Minnesota, the University of Wisconsin, Macalester College, Wellesley College, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Additionally, he was a visiting scholar at the New School for Social Research and the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, and he was a visiting professor at the Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. Most recently, Barnett held the Harold Stassen Chair of International Affairs in the Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Professor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota.

His most recent books are "Paternalism beyond Borders," Cambridge University Press, 2016; Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism, Cornell University Press, 2011; Humanitarianism Contested: Where Angels Fear to Tread, with Thomas G. Weiss, Routledge, 2011; and Sacred Aid: Faith and Humanitarianism, with Janice Stein (eds.) Oxford University Press, 2012. With Emanuel Adler, he reintroduced the concept of security community to international relations.

In Rules for the World (co-authored with Martha Finnemore), Barnett argue that international organizations derive power and autonomy from their rational-legal authority and control of information. [7] International organizations are therefore purposive social agents that can act inconsistently with the intentions of the founders of the organizations (which are often states). In contrast to some realist and liberal theories of international relations, Barnett and Finnemore show that international organizations are not just a reflection of state interests and that they do not necessarily act efficiently. International organizations can develop bureaucratic cultures that result in adverse outcomes (what they call "pathologies"). They list five mechanisms that breed organizational pathologies: [8] [9]

  1. Irrationality of rationalization: when an organization sticks to existing rules and procedures regardless of circumstances rather than act in ways most appropriate for the circumstances
  2. Universalism: the application of universal rules and categories may not reflect specific contexts
  3. Normalization of deviance: deviations from existing rules can become normalized and lead to aberrational behaviors
  4. Organizational insulation: when organizations do not get feedback from the environment about their performance and are unable to update their behavior
  5. Cultural contestation: different cultures within an organization may lead to clashes that produce adverse outcomes

He is known for his study "Power in International Politics" (co-authored with Raymond Duvall), which is among the most assigned work in international relations graduate training at American universities. [6] The study presents four forms of power: [10] [11]

  1. Compulsory Power: direct control by one actor over another actor
  2. Institutional Power: control exercised by actors indirectly over other actors through diffuse relations of interaction
  3. Structural Power: the constitution of subjects' capacities in direct structural relation to one another
  4. Productive Power: the socially diffuse production of subjectivity (through discursive practices) in systems of meaning and signification

Barnett consistently ranks as one of the top-20 scholars "who has done the most interesting work in international relations in recent years" according to the yearly TRIP surveys. [4] [5]

Selected articles

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Humanitarianism</span> Relief activities to aid and assist humanity; philanthropic philosophy of active humanism

Humanitarianism is an active belief in the value of human life, whereby humans practice benevolent treatment and provide assistance to other humans to reduce suffering and improve the conditions of humanity for moral, altruistic, and emotional reasons. One aspect involves voluntary emergency aid overlapping with human rights advocacy, actions taken by governments, development assistance, and domestic philanthropy. Other critical issues include correlation with religious beliefs, motivation of aid between altruism and social control, market affinity, imperialism and neo-colonialism, gender and class relations, and humanitarian agencies. A practitioner is known as a humanitarian.

In international relations, power is defined in several different ways. Material definitions of state power emphasize economic and military power. Other definitions of power emphasize the ability to structure and constitute the nature of social relations between actors. Power is an attribute of particular actors in their interactions, as well as a social process that constitutes the social identities and capacities of actors.

In international relations, the liberal international order (LIO), also known as the rules-based international order (RBIO), or the rules-based order (RBO), describes a set of global, rule-based, structured relationships based on political liberalism, economic liberalism and liberal internationalism since the late 1940s. More specifically, it entails international cooperation through multilateral institutions and is constituted by human equality, open markets, security cooperation, promotion of liberal democracy, and monetary cooperation. The order was established in the aftermath of World War II, led in large part by the United States.

New institutionalism is an approach to the study of institutions that focuses on the constraining and enabling effects of formal and informal rules on the behavior of individuals and groups. New institutionalism traditionally encompasses three major strands: sociological institutionalism, rational choice institutionalism, and historical institutionalism. New institutionalism originated in work by sociologist John Meyer published in 1977.

International political economy (IPE) is the study of how politics shapes the global economy and how the global economy shapes politics. A key focus in IPE is on the distributive consequences of global economic exchange. It has been described as the study of "the political battle between the winners and losers of global economic exchange."

The national interest is a sovereign state's goals and ambitions, taken to be the aim of government.

Alexander Wendt is an American political scientist who is one of the core social constructivist researchers in the field of international relations, and a key contributor to quantum social science. Wendt and academics such as Nicholas Onuf, Peter J. Katzenstein, Emanuel Adler, Michael Barnett, Kathryn Sikkink, John Ruggie, Martha Finnemore, and others have, within a relatively short period, established constructivism as one of the major schools of thought in the field.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comparative politics</span> Field in political science

Comparative politics is a field in political science characterized either by the use of the comparative method or other empirical methods to explore politics both within and between countries. Substantively, this can include questions relating to political institutions, political behavior, conflict, and the causes and consequences of economic development. When applied to specific fields of study, comparative politics may be referred to by other names, such as comparative government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen D. Krasner</span>

Stephen David Krasner is an American academic and former diplomat. Krasner has been a professor of international relations at Stanford University since 1981, and served as the Director of Policy Planning from 2005 to April 2007 while on leave from Stanford.

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. A critical juncture may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.

In international relations (IR), constructivism is a social theory that asserts that significant aspects of international relations are shaped by ideational factors. The most important ideational factors are those that are collectively held; these collectively held beliefs construct the interests and identities of actors.

The English School of international relations theory maintains that there is a 'society of states' at the international level, despite the condition of anarchy. The English school stands for the conviction that ideas, rather than simply material capabilities, shape the conduct of international politics, and therefore deserve analysis and critique. In this sense it is similar to constructivism, though the English School has its roots more in world history, international law and political theory, and is more open to normative approaches than is generally the case with constructivism.

<i>Theory of International Politics</i> 1979 book by Kenneth Waltz

Theory of International Politics is a 1979 book on international relations theory by Kenneth Waltz that creates a structural realist theory, neorealism, to explain international relations. Taking into account the influence of neoclassical economic theory, Waltz argued that the fundamental "ordering principle" (p. 88) of the international political system is anarchy, which is defined by the presence of "functionally undifferentiated" (p. 97) individual state actors lacking "relations of super- and subordination" (p. 88) that are distinguished only by their varying capabilities.

Martha Finnemore is an American constructivist scholar of international relations, and University Professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. She is considered among the most influential international relations scholars. Her scholarship has highlighted the role of norms and culture in international politics, as well as shown that international organizations are consequential and purposive social agents in world politics that can shape state interests.

Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) is a theoretical approach to the study of institutions arguing that actors use institutions to maximize their utility, and that institutions affect rational individual behavior. Rational choice institutionalism arose initially from the study of congressional behaviour in the U.S. in the late 1970s. Influential early RCI scholarship was done by political economists at California Institute of Technology, University of Rochester, and Washington University. It employs analytical tools borrowed from neo-classical economics to explain how institutions are created, the behaviour of political actors within it, and the outcome of strategic interaction.

Sociological institutionalism is a form of new institutionalism that concerns "the way in which institutions create meaning for individuals." Its explanations are constructivist in nature. According to Ronald L. Jepperson and John W. Meyer, Sociological institutionalism

treats the “actorhood” of modern individuals and organizations as itself constructed out of cultural materials – and treats contemporary institutional systems as working principally by creating and legitimating agentic actors with appropriate perspectives, motives, and agendas. The scholars who have developed this perspective have been less inclined to emphasize actors’ use of institutions and more inclined to envision institutional forces as producing and using actors. By focusing on the evolving construction and reconstruction of the actors of modern society, institutionalists can better explain the dramatic social changes of the contemporary period – why these changes cut across social contexts and functional settings, and why they often become worldwide in character.

World polity theory is an analytical framework for interpreting global relations, structures, and practices. The theory views the world system as a social system with a cultural framework called world polity, which encompasses and influences the actors under it. According to the theory, world polity provides a set of cultural norms and directions that actors of the world society follow in dealing with problems and general procedures.

In international relations, international order refers to patterned or structured relationships between actors on the international level.

The logic of appropriateness is a theoretical perspective to explain human decision-making. It proposes that decisions and behavior follow from rules of appropriate behavior for a given role or identity. These rules are institutionalized in social practices and sustained over time through learning. People adhere to them because they see them as natural, rightful, expected, and legitimate. In other words, the logic of appropriateness assumes that actors decide on the basis of what social norms deem right rather than what cost-benefit calculations suggest best. The term was coined by organization theorists James G. March and Johan Olsen. They presented the argument in two prominent articles published by the journals Governance in 1996 and International Organization in 1998.

Rational choice is a prominent framework in international relations scholarship. Rational choice is not a substantive theory of international politics, but rather a methodological approach that focuses on certain types of social explanation for phenomena. In that sense, it is similar to constructivism, and differs from liberalism and realism, which are substantive theories of world politics. Rationalist analyses have been used to substantiate realist theories, as well as liberal theories of international relations.

References

  1. Barnett, Michael L. (2018). Gheciu, Alexandra; Wohlforth, William C (eds.). "Constructivism". The Oxford Handbook of International Security. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198777854.001.0001. ISBN   9780198777854.
  2. "Michael Barnett". home.gwu.edu. Retrieved 2021-05-01.
  3. Mandel, Seth (June 2016). "Jewsplaining". Commentary . Retrieved 7 September 2017.
  4. 1 2 Maliniak, Daniel; Oakes, Amy; Peterson, Susan; Tierney, Michael J. (February 2007). "The View from the Ivory Tower: TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in the United States and Canada" (PDF). www.wm.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 January 2020. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
  5. 1 2 "Department's International Relations Program Acclaimed | Department of Political Science | The George Washington University". politicalscience.columbian.gwu.edu. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 15 December 2016.
  6. 1 2 Colgan, Jeff D. (2016-09-01). "Where Is International Relations Going? Evidence from Graduate Training". International Studies Quarterly. 60 (3): 486–498. doi:10.1093/isq/sqv017. ISSN   0020-8833.
  7. Blyth, Mark; Helgadottir, Oddny; Kring, William (2016-03-17). Fioretos, Orfeo; Falleti, Tulia G; Sheingate, Adam (eds.). "Ideas and Historical Institutionalism". The Oxford Handbook of Historical Institutionalism. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199662814.001.0001. ISBN   9780199662814 . Retrieved 2021-02-28.
  8. Barnett, Michael; Finnemore, Martha (2012). Rules for the World. Cornell University Press. doi:10.7591/9780801465161. ISBN   978-0-8014-6516-1.
  9. Ege, Jörn (2020-11-23). "What International Bureaucrats (Really) Want: Administrative Preferences in International Organization Research". Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations. 26 (4): 577–600. doi: 10.1163/19426720-02604003 . ISSN   1942-6720.
  10. Barnett, Michael; Duvall, Raymond (2005). "Power in International Politics". International Organization. 59 (1): 39–75. doi: 10.1017/S0020818305050010 . ISSN   0020-8183. JSTOR   3877878. S2CID   3613655.
  11. Payne, Rodger A.; Samhat, Nayef H. (2012-11-26). "International Organizations and Power". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.454. ISBN   9780190846626 . Retrieved 2021-05-01.