1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...
1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...
1 Theorising Agency in International Relations In Hobbes's Wake ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2001). As the seat of human agency, the <strong>in</strong>dividual has attracted <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g attention from IR scholars;<br />
either as, on the one hand, the bearer of rationality (Greenhill 2008, Mercer 2005), or, on the other, as<br />
the site of non-rational yet politically salient phenomena such as emotions (Ross 2006) and their<br />
associated array of identities (Smith 2004; F<strong>in</strong>nemore and Sikk<strong>in</strong>k 2001, Lapid and Kratochwil 1996) and<br />
cultures (Lebow 2008, Jahn 2000; Katzenste<strong>in</strong> 1996).<br />
<strong>In</strong> this article the Hobbesian legacy provides the start<strong>in</strong>g place from which to exam<strong>in</strong>e the<br />
models of the <strong>in</strong>dividual that implicitly or explicitly <strong>in</strong>forms accounts of <strong>in</strong>ternational politics. The<br />
rationalist-reflectivist divide <strong>in</strong> contemporary IR scholarship (Keohane 1988) rests upon divergent<br />
conceptions of the <strong>in</strong>dividual, <strong>in</strong>sofar as the start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for reflectivist or, as it has come to be known,<br />
constructivist theoris<strong>in</strong>g was the realisation of the need to unpack the rationalist assumption that actors<br />
are ‘self-<strong>in</strong>terested’, as Alexander Wendt (1999, 215) put it, <strong>in</strong> order to exam<strong>in</strong>e who that self might be.<br />
This is what ushered <strong>in</strong> the concept of the self <strong>in</strong> the appraisal of agency, and the concept of identity for<br />
IR scholarship more broadly. The start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts for my enquiry are thus the rational actor and the self,<br />
the two archetypal <strong>in</strong>dividuals that ground rationalist and constructivist enquiries respectively.<br />
My purpose is to f<strong>in</strong>d a model of the <strong>in</strong>dividual that can provide the foundations for a non<strong>in</strong>dividualist<br />
basis for apprehend<strong>in</strong>g agency <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational politics; one that is rid of what Wendt (1999,<br />
178) himself termed a ‘rump <strong>in</strong>dividualism’ that cuts across both the rational actor and the self. A third<br />
model is afforded, I suggest, by the concept of the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject socially embedded <strong>in</strong> language that<br />
lies at the core of discourse theory. 3 Vis-à-vis constructivism, the issue is one of ontological consistency<br />
3 Discourse theory comprises three ma<strong>in</strong>, closely connected, components. First, it foregrounds language<br />
as the elementary social bond and consequently, second, a key site of political analysis. It is thus<br />
associated a wide range of methods regrouped under the head<strong>in</strong>g of ‘discourse analyses’ that focus<br />
upon the role of language <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational politics, which have been extensively elaborated elsewhere<br />
(Epste<strong>in</strong> 2008, Hansen 2006, Bially Mattern 2005, Milliken 1999). What is still lack<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> IR, however, is a<br />
theoretical demonstration of, not just how, but why language centrally matters to the understand<strong>in</strong>g<br />
2
with regards to its own found<strong>in</strong>g project to open up the enquiry <strong>in</strong>to the mutual constitution of the<br />
actors and the structures of <strong>in</strong>ternational politics. My concern, then, is to f<strong>in</strong>d a different basis for a<br />
social theoris<strong>in</strong>g about <strong>in</strong>ternational politics that unravels <strong>in</strong> full the central constructivist <strong>in</strong>sight that<br />
the dist<strong>in</strong>ctness of the social world, as opposed to the natural world, resides <strong>in</strong> that processes of social<br />
construction do <strong>in</strong> fact run, to paraphrase Wendt’s phrase (1999, 92) but where he would not venture,<br />
all the way down. 4 Alexander Wendt’s (1999) foundational effort to elaborate the first comprehensive<br />
social theory for the discipl<strong>in</strong>e, whose role <strong>in</strong> legitimiz<strong>in</strong>g the constructivist research programme cannot<br />
be underestimated, nonetheless harbours a fundamental tension, that h<strong>in</strong>ges on the dist<strong>in</strong>ction<br />
between agency and identity. <strong>In</strong>deed Wendt extensively demonstrates that actors are socially<br />
constructed rather than simply given, as they are <strong>in</strong> rationalist accounts. Yet, build<strong>in</strong>g here on a critique<br />
that has been extensively developed elsewhere (Epste<strong>in</strong> 2010, Neumann 2004, Zehfuss 2001, Lynn Doty<br />
2000, Smith 2000), he also holds off from the very constitutive logic he elaborates <strong>in</strong> the process of<br />
do<strong>in</strong>g so a pre-given, un-constructed self, posited as the seat of identity; and as the site where to<br />
relegate his rump <strong>in</strong>dividualism. <strong>In</strong> other words, the very concept that constructivism so fruitfully<br />
ushered <strong>in</strong>to IR scholarship, identity, is cordoned off from the onset from enquiries <strong>in</strong>to its own social<br />
construction. The tension thus stems from hav<strong>in</strong>g split a priori the actor from the <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong><br />
elaborat<strong>in</strong>g constructivism’s central concept of the self, and leav<strong>in</strong>g that splitt<strong>in</strong>g un-theorised. The<br />
concept of the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject, which theorises the splitt<strong>in</strong>g, addresses that gap. <strong>In</strong> do<strong>in</strong>g so it lays the<br />
agency <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational politics. Thirdly the model of the <strong>in</strong>dividual it harbours is the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject.<br />
(for an extensive development see Howarth 2000).<br />
4 To clarify a common confusion regard<strong>in</strong>g discursive approaches, the pert<strong>in</strong>ent dist<strong>in</strong>ction for social<br />
scientific enquiry is not, notwithstand<strong>in</strong>g the central role it <strong>in</strong>itially played (via Max Weber) <strong>in</strong> found<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the social sciences, between materialism and idealism (see also Parsons 2006, Bially Mattern 2005 and<br />
Epste<strong>in</strong> 2008 for extensive developments). The key import of the social constructionist <strong>in</strong>sight is that it<br />
is, rather, between the (constructed) social and the (given) natural world. Social structures for their part<br />
are both material and immaterial (only even material social structures are constructed through human<br />
<strong>in</strong>teraction rather than given). Importantly, the study of these two types of social structures is<br />
complementary rather than mutually exclusive.<br />
3
foundation for elaborat<strong>in</strong>g a type of social theoris<strong>in</strong>g that eschews <strong>in</strong>dividualism <strong>in</strong> its apprehension of<br />
agency.<br />
The Hobbesian legacy is important to this task for two sets of reasons. First, Hobbes’ state of<br />
nature is the traditional found<strong>in</strong>g myth for the rational actor. It thus provides the start<strong>in</strong>g place for<br />
engag<strong>in</strong>g with IR’s historically prior and explicitly <strong>in</strong>dividualist model of agency. Yet the critique of these<br />
realist and rationalist appropriations of Hobbes, while important, is not new. Hobbes’ political myth is<br />
important, second, because of what it actually tells us about the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s make up. Ever s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
Sigmund Freud’s discovery of the unconscious and the birth of psychoanalysis, myths have played a<br />
central role <strong>in</strong> reveal<strong>in</strong>g collective unconscious structures; for example the myth of Oedipus. Moreover,<br />
the socially embedded <strong>in</strong>dividual is the def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g object of psychoanalytic theory. Centr<strong>in</strong>g my analysis on<br />
The Leviathan I show how, with regards to the <strong>in</strong>dividual, Thomas Hobbes and Jacques Lacan, who<br />
largely furthers Freud’s discoveries, proceed down surpris<strong>in</strong>gly similar paths. Acknowledg<strong>in</strong>g this not<br />
only furthers IR theory’s understand<strong>in</strong>g of Hobbes, but enables it to better mobilise Hobbesian <strong>in</strong>sights<br />
regard<strong>in</strong>g agency. Hence strange bedfellows though they may seem at first sight, the theories of Hobbes<br />
and Lacan illum<strong>in</strong>ate one other, the former provid<strong>in</strong>g a narrative illustrat<strong>in</strong>g the relevance of Lacan’s<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>g of the structure of the human psyche for political analysis at large, the latter draw<strong>in</strong>g out<br />
how Hobbes’s formulation of the problem of political order reaches deep <strong>in</strong>to the work<strong>in</strong>gs of the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual psyche. <strong>In</strong> engag<strong>in</strong>g with Hobbes’s legacy <strong>in</strong> IR my aim is thus to reveal the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject<br />
that lies buried away <strong>in</strong> IR’s own foundations and how it can help to understand<strong>in</strong>g agency <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational politics.<br />
The article is developed <strong>in</strong> four parts. <strong>In</strong> order to locate my argument I beg<strong>in</strong> by mapp<strong>in</strong>g out the<br />
trajectory of the discipl<strong>in</strong>e’s development under the prism of its relationship to Hobbes, which has<br />
4
evolved largely around the state of nature. 5<br />
I show how, on the one hand, the Hobbesian state of<br />
nature was the site of convergence of realism and rational choice theory that yielded the strong<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividualism characteristic of rationalist approaches. On the other hand it was also the battleground for<br />
efforts to reclaim Hobbes, which have drawn out his own emphasis on sociality and language. I also<br />
show how, notwithstand<strong>in</strong>g the school’s explicit departure from the so-called Hobbesian approaches,<br />
Hobbes’ legacy implicitly resurfaces <strong>in</strong> constructivist efforts to theorise the actor’s ‘self’, where the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual still largely rema<strong>in</strong>s the exemplar for expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g state behaviour. <strong>In</strong> clos<strong>in</strong>g, Carl Schmitt’s<br />
(2008) recently translated analysis of Hobbes’s treatise, which casts the focus upon Leviathan as a<br />
symbol, provides a useful bridge between, on the one hand, IR and political theory, and on the other,<br />
given his relations with realist thought, between a realist-rationalist and a more l<strong>in</strong>guistically-m<strong>in</strong>ded<br />
read<strong>in</strong>g of Hobbes.<br />
The second part of the paper <strong>in</strong>troduces the Lacanian conceptual battery around two key<br />
features of Lacan’s thought, the primacy of the signifier and the category of the symbolic. The latter<br />
concept establishes the two pillars upon which the argument itself subsequently turns, the collective<br />
and the <strong>in</strong>dividual levels. The first movement of the argument itself, which concerns the function of the<br />
symbol of the Leviathan at the collective level, is then developed <strong>in</strong> the third part of the paper. I show<br />
how what the Leviathan designates is the symbolic order at large, that is, the matrix underp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g<br />
organized political life. <strong>In</strong> this light, the formulation of the problem of political order that is relevant to<br />
theoris<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ter-state relations is to be found, I suggest, not <strong>in</strong> the state of nature, but <strong>in</strong> the other pole<br />
of the narrative. The symbol that Hobbes co<strong>in</strong>s reveals the political order stripped down to its bare<br />
5 One serious objection to my enterprise would the Sk<strong>in</strong>nerian <strong>in</strong>junction to read Hobbes aga<strong>in</strong>st his own<br />
historical context, which is a far cry from enterprises that ‘attempt to use his texts as a mirror to reflect<br />
back at ourselves our current assumptions and prejudices’ (Sk<strong>in</strong>ner 1996, 15). This, however, is a<br />
critique that would validly be addressed to the discipl<strong>in</strong>e as a whole which has constantly sought to<br />
reposition itself <strong>in</strong> relation to Hobbes. ‘The uses and abuses of Hobbes <strong>in</strong> IR’ to paraphrase Mark Heller<br />
(see also Jahn 2000), and the ways <strong>in</strong> which they have shaped the discipl<strong>in</strong>e’s th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about agency, are<br />
explicitly my object here.<br />
5
ones; to the extent that it is directly pert<strong>in</strong>ent to th<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g about the type of m<strong>in</strong>imalist, anarchical<br />
order that obta<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>ternational system. <strong>In</strong> this read<strong>in</strong>g, then, the Leviathan designates not a<br />
particular type of political order, conditioned upon sovereignty, but the very condition of possibility of<br />
ordered <strong>in</strong>teractions <strong>in</strong> the first place. It designates, <strong>in</strong> other words, the condition of possibility of<br />
political order itself, whether at the national or <strong>in</strong>ternational level. That s<strong>in</strong>e qua non, without which<br />
there is not anarchy but properly chaos, for Hobbes, is the possibility, not of act<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> concert, nor even<br />
of a common agreement, but of the actors be<strong>in</strong>g able to understand one another. It is the possibility of a<br />
set of shared mean<strong>in</strong>gs exist<strong>in</strong>g between them, however rudimentary; or, <strong>in</strong> other words, of a common<br />
language – that with which a state, for example, understands that war has been declared upon it by<br />
another. 6<br />
The corollary to this argument at the <strong>in</strong>dividual level directly speaks to the issue of conceptions<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>dividual. It is developed <strong>in</strong> the fourth and f<strong>in</strong>al part of the paper. To appraise the Leviathan, not<br />
as the state, nor as the sovereign, but as the condition of possibility or order itself, is to draw out a key<br />
function it holds with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s psyche. The Leviathan is, I suggest, the equivalent of Lacan’s<br />
Other, without which the self cannot make itself. It performs the function that designates as the ‘Name<br />
of the Father’ with regards to the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s relationship to language and her entry <strong>in</strong>to sociality.<br />
Consequently the dynamics that drive the <strong>in</strong>dividual to contract with the Leviathan are none other than<br />
those subsequently unravelled by the castration complex <strong>in</strong> Lacanian psychoanalytic theory. Implications<br />
for IR theory are considered <strong>in</strong> clos<strong>in</strong>g and specifically, what it means to apprehend the state as a<br />
speak<strong>in</strong>g subject, rather than a rational actor or a self, <strong>in</strong> the study of <strong>in</strong>ternational politics.<br />
<strong>In</strong> the Leviathan’s <strong>Wake</strong>: from the Rational Actor to the Self<br />
6 While my argumentation will rema<strong>in</strong> state-centric, both for reasons of parsimony and <strong>in</strong> order to<br />
rema<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> keep<strong>in</strong>g with the theories with which it engages, a key implication is that the state need not<br />
rema<strong>in</strong> the centre po<strong>in</strong>t of discursive approaches (see, however, Epste<strong>in</strong> 2010 to move beyond this state<br />
centrism).<br />
6
The Leviathan posits the site of the orig<strong>in</strong>al division of labour between political theory and <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
relations, which revolves around two related yet dist<strong>in</strong>ct clusters of mean<strong>in</strong>gs. IR, the discipl<strong>in</strong>e that<br />
carved its remit out as the relations between states, considers the Leviathan as the state, envisaged<br />
from without; whereas Political Theory appraises the sovereign, envisaged from with<strong>in</strong>. From there, <strong>in</strong><br />
IR, questions perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to the relationship between the Leviathan and the subject have been largely<br />
black-boxed and attention largely shifted to the other pole of the narrative; such that the Hobbesian<br />
legacy <strong>in</strong> IR has largely revolved around the state of nature rather than the figure of the Leviathan. As<br />
such the Leviathan is, via realist read<strong>in</strong>gs, both taken for granted as the discipl<strong>in</strong>e’s found<strong>in</strong>g currency<br />
yet largely lost from sight. My contention is that return<strong>in</strong>g to appraise it fully as a symbol draws out yet<br />
another level of mean<strong>in</strong>g, beyond the state or the sovereign, that reveals someth<strong>in</strong>g fundamental about<br />
the possibility of <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g politically that is pert<strong>in</strong>ent for understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternational order. 7 Before<br />
turn<strong>in</strong>g to that symbol I etch out a very brief history of the discipl<strong>in</strong>e under the prism of the relationship<br />
to Hobbes <strong>in</strong> order to show the ways <strong>in</strong> which the Hobbesian state of nature has explicitly or implicitly<br />
<strong>in</strong>formed conceptions of agency <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational politics.<br />
Hobbes the Realist<br />
Ever s<strong>in</strong>ce realism first laid claim to Hobbes’s state of nature as its found<strong>in</strong>g myth, the history of<br />
<strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> Theory (IRT) has been punctuated by a succession of efforts to recover Hobbes<br />
7 A note here to clarify my term<strong>in</strong>ology. A symbol is rhetorical trope, used especially <strong>in</strong> religion or art for<br />
example, <strong>in</strong> which representations of concrete objects serve to <strong>in</strong>voke abstract, non-figurable qualities<br />
(associated with the div<strong>in</strong>e, for example). The prefix sym (‘with’) signifies this jo<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g together. The core<br />
question explored as part of the argument itself is, once we suspend these two mean<strong>in</strong>gs conventionally<br />
attributed to it (the state and the sovereign), what else has the Leviathan been jo<strong>in</strong>ed to?<br />
A myth for its part is a literary trope that comprises a narrative, dynamic component and some form of<br />
resolution or denouement (Souriau 1990). I thus use the term ‘myth’ to refer to Hobbes’s ‘state of<br />
nature’, that place that humans leave to form a polity. When referr<strong>in</strong>g to the Leviathan I alternate<br />
between the neutral term ‘figure’ and ‘symbol’, which is thematised as part of the argument itself.<br />
7
away from the ‘Hobbesian tradition’, as it has come to be known. 8 The l<strong>in</strong>chp<strong>in</strong> to the realist claim is the<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al a nalogy drawn <strong>in</strong> Leviathan chapter XIII between <strong>in</strong>dividuals <strong>in</strong> the state of nature and<br />
sovereigns that are seen to stand similarly fac<strong>in</strong>g one another ‘<strong>in</strong> the posture of gladiators; (…) their<br />
weapons po<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g, and their eyes fixed on one another’ (Hobbes 1946 [1651], 83). Upon it h<strong>in</strong>ges the<br />
formulation of two found<strong>in</strong>g realist concerns, what drives states to behave as they do, and the problem<br />
of <strong>in</strong>ternational order. Both centrally <strong>in</strong>voke Hobbes’ natural <strong>in</strong>dividual. I consider each <strong>in</strong> turn.<br />
First, Hobbes’ ‘natural man’ [sic] lies at the core of the classical realists’ quests to f<strong>in</strong>d the prime<br />
mover of states, namely the desire for power, the sole ‘mov<strong>in</strong>g force’ driv<strong>in</strong>g the world (Morgenthau<br />
1963, 23, and especially 56l; see also Carr 1946, 112). <strong>In</strong> these realist accounts the wolfish tendencies of<br />
Hobbes’ natural <strong>in</strong>dividual expla<strong>in</strong> the permanent struggle for survival and expansion that characterises<br />
<strong>in</strong>ter-state relations. For Raymond Aron (1966, 72, emphasis <strong>in</strong> orig<strong>in</strong>al), unravell<strong>in</strong>g the logic of the<br />
Hobbesian analogy, ‘<strong>in</strong> the state of nature every entity, whether <strong>in</strong>dividual or political unit, makes<br />
security a primary objective’. <strong>In</strong>voked here, however, is not Hobbes’s <strong>in</strong>dividual per se but rather only<br />
half of it, as it were, that belong<strong>in</strong>g to the state of nature. The other half, Hobbes’ account of the mak<strong>in</strong>g<br />
of the political subject, is explicitly cast off limits as perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to the <strong>in</strong>ternal work<strong>in</strong>gs of the state.<br />
Tak<strong>in</strong>g their cue from Hobbes classical realists thus turned to the <strong>in</strong>dividual to expla<strong>in</strong> state<br />
behaviour. Given the multiple accounts of human nature that have succeeded one another <strong>in</strong> the long<br />
history of political thought, however, together with the many associated states of nature (not least<br />
Rousseau’s and Locke’s), the broader question, <strong>in</strong> terms of assess<strong>in</strong>g Hobbes’ <strong>in</strong>fluence upon the<br />
development of the discipl<strong>in</strong>e at large, is why was Hobbes’ the one that stuck for classical realists? The<br />
resonance of Hobbes’ natural <strong>in</strong>dividual owes, I suggest, not (merely) to its sombre nature that would<br />
8 As is the case with most labels <strong>in</strong> IR, ‘Hobbesian’ has tended to be attributed mostly by other schools,<br />
first by the English school (see notably Bull 1977, V<strong>in</strong>cent 1981) and then constructivists (see Kratochwil<br />
1989, Wendt 1999; see also Walker 1992).<br />
8
have somehow better lent it to realism’s <strong>in</strong>herent pessimism, but rather to the location of this humanstate<br />
analogy <strong>in</strong> the history of political thought. The Hobbesian analogy constitutes the earliest<br />
expression of an awareness of the <strong>in</strong>ternational as a dist<strong>in</strong>ct sphere of political <strong>in</strong>teractions. Hobbes’<br />
expla<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g states by way of <strong>in</strong>dividuals played a key role <strong>in</strong> found<strong>in</strong>g IR as a discrete field of enquiry<br />
because it carved out, not just a dist<strong>in</strong>ct object of enquiry (the <strong>in</strong>ternational), but a style of reason<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
An endur<strong>in</strong>g effect of the Hobbesian legacy, beyond the so-called Hobbesian tradition, was thus to<br />
entrench this analogous juxtaposition of the <strong>in</strong>dividual and the state as a last<strong>in</strong>g trope of IR theoris<strong>in</strong>g. 9<br />
Second, these <strong>in</strong>teractions between these natural <strong>in</strong>dividuals provided the orig<strong>in</strong>al exemplar for<br />
conceptualis<strong>in</strong>g the problem of political order <strong>in</strong> the absence of centralised authority. As Michael<br />
Williams (1996, 213) remarks, ‘the concept of anarchy and the name of Thomas Hobbes often seem<br />
virtuously synonymous’, and the state of nature was where the synonymy was sealed. For classical<br />
realists writ<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st the backdrop of develop<strong>in</strong>g nuclear arms race, to draw here on an array of<br />
formulations of the problem, ‘manag<strong>in</strong>g peace’ <strong>in</strong> such conditions of anarchy (<strong>In</strong>is’s 1962, 3-10) had<br />
acquired ‘an urgency it never had before’ (Morgenthau 1963, 23); it was thought to be ‘the problem of<br />
the 20 th<br />
century’ (Waltz 1959, 11). Moreover the cold war, a term that was seen to express the<br />
qu<strong>in</strong>tessence of what ‘[Hobbes] took to be the permanent relationship of nations’, acutely brought<br />
home the relevance of his state of nature to contemporary <strong>in</strong>ternational politics s<strong>in</strong>ce, as David Gauthier<br />
(1969, 207) further puts it, ‘the major nuclear powers share the equality of Hobbesian men [sic]– they<br />
can utterly destroy one another’.<br />
9 See also Beate Jahn (2001, xi), who shows the endur<strong>in</strong>g centrality of the state of nature to ‘Liberal as<br />
well as Realist <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> Theory’. I suggest this also has to with the way <strong>in</strong> which the state<br />
of nature foregrounds the <strong>in</strong>dividual as a basis for theoriz<strong>in</strong>g a universal human nature, that is, with the<br />
usefulness of the epistemological trope. Historically Hobbes’ was the first, and arguably both Locke,<br />
Sp<strong>in</strong>oza and Rousseau elaborated their own aga<strong>in</strong>st his.<br />
9
Classical realism thus cast its lenses upon Hobbes’ natural <strong>in</strong>dividual and revealed a highly<br />
atomised <strong>in</strong>ternational system of ever-potentially collid<strong>in</strong>g units like billiard balls to use Wolfer’s (1962,<br />
19) classic metaphor.<br />
The State of Nature and the E- Rational <strong>In</strong>dividual<br />
The state of nature was a key site for the convergence of realism <strong>in</strong> IR and rational choice theory<br />
<strong>in</strong> political science, who further elaborated the tools to study the state, locked <strong>in</strong> as IR’s unit of analysis.<br />
This convergence yielded the strong <strong>in</strong>dividualism that characterises current rationalist traditions<br />
(neorealism and neoliberalist <strong>in</strong>stitutionalism; see Keohane 1988). 10 <strong>In</strong>sofar as these rationalist read<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
have played an important part <strong>in</strong> mov<strong>in</strong>g attention away from the role of language and sociality <strong>in</strong><br />
Hobbes’ <strong>in</strong>dividual, it is worth consider<strong>in</strong>g them here at some length here. 11<br />
The Hobbesian state of nature has provided the foundations for theoriz<strong>in</strong>g the rational, self<strong>in</strong>terested<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual (Neal 1987, Hampton 1986, Brams 1985:139-46; Kavka 1983: 17-18; MacLean<br />
1981:339-51; Gauthier 1977, 1969). Specifically, it is considered as the traditional exemplar of the<br />
prisoner’s dilemma situation (Hampton 1986, McLean 1983). Extensive work has thus been undertaken<br />
to model the behaviour of Hobbes’s ‘natural man’ [Sic] as the archetypal ‘e-rational’ (economically<br />
rational) agent, to borrow Patrick Neal’s (1987) expression. The state of nature, rather than the<br />
10 To be clear, I thus use ‘rationalist’ to mean centered upon the utility-maximiz<strong>in</strong>g rational actor, as <strong>in</strong><br />
Keohane (1989), who <strong>in</strong>cluded under this term both neorealism and neoliberal <strong>in</strong>stitutionalism. This is<br />
quite dist<strong>in</strong>ct from the English School’s usage of the term, as entrenched by Mart<strong>in</strong> Wight’s (1992) three<br />
traditions, where ‘rationalism’/the Grotian tradition is opposed to ‘realism’/the Machiavelli or<br />
Hobbesian tradition and to ‘revolutionism’/ the Kantian tradition ( see also V<strong>in</strong>cent 1981, Buzan 2004).<br />
Rationalism is thus, the context of my argument, synonymous with realist thought writ wide.<br />
11 These close l<strong>in</strong>ks are recognized from the other end as well, by rational choice theorists who readily<br />
cross over onto IR’s terra<strong>in</strong>; one recalls here the appendix David Gauthier (1969, 207-212) devotes to<br />
‘Hobbes on <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>’ (for a critique from with<strong>in</strong> political theory, see Malcolm 2002).<br />
10
Leviathan, lies once aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> focus as it showcases the natural <strong>in</strong>dividual <strong>in</strong> her raw, self-<strong>in</strong>terested,<br />
utility-maximis<strong>in</strong>g form. 12<br />
Patrick Neal <strong>in</strong> his ‘Hobbes and Rational Choice Theory’ identifies <strong>in</strong>dividualism and<br />
<strong>In</strong>strumentalism as two of the theory’s core tenets, which he traces directly to Hobbes. By<br />
‘<strong>in</strong>dividualism’ Neal (1987, 637) means that ‘antecedently def<strong>in</strong>ed selves’ stand prior to all ‘sociopolitical<br />
relations and <strong>in</strong>stitutions’. The <strong>in</strong>dividual is therefore the ‘foundation or <strong>in</strong>dependent variable’ of<br />
rationalist analyses (Neal 1987, 637). These <strong>in</strong>dividuals or ‘separate selves’, moreover, ‘are understood<br />
to be rationally self-<strong>in</strong>terested maximizers of utility’ (Neal 1987, 637-638).<br />
‘<strong>In</strong>strumentalism, then’, Neal (1987, 637) cont<strong>in</strong>ues, ‘must deny that human be<strong>in</strong>gs are <strong>in</strong> any<br />
<strong>in</strong>herent or <strong>in</strong>tr<strong>in</strong>sic sense social be<strong>in</strong>gs’. Further, ‘<strong>in</strong>strumentalism seeks to understand relations <strong>in</strong><br />
terms of selves, not selves <strong>in</strong> terms of relations’ (Neal 1987, 637). Under these rationalist lenses, cast<br />
upon the state of nature, Hobbes becomes, by way of his ‘natural man’ the founder of a ‘radical<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividualism’ that entrenches the <strong>in</strong>dividual and the wide gamut of its behaviour as the legitimate<br />
object of political analysis (Hampton 1986). David Gauthier (1977, 139) for his part captures this<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividualist ontology <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g terms:<br />
‘(…) <strong>in</strong>dividuals human be<strong>in</strong>gs not only can, but must, be understood apart from society. The<br />
fundamental characteristics of men are not products of their social existence….man is social<br />
because he is human, not human because he is social. <strong>In</strong> particular, self-consciousness and<br />
language must be taken as conditions, not products, of society.’<br />
It is noteworthy that Hobbes is once aga<strong>in</strong> a reference po<strong>in</strong>t. Thus Jean Hampton (1986, 6) for her part<br />
writes:<br />
12 To the extent that the Leviathan does enter <strong>in</strong>to the analysis, for example <strong>in</strong> Morton Kaplan (1956,<br />
405), it is to limit any hold it might have on the <strong>in</strong>dividual by conclud<strong>in</strong>g to the absence of any ‘extra<strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
source of obligation’ <strong>in</strong> Hobbes political treaty. Such conclusion however is premised on<br />
Hobbes political subject and his ‘natural man’ be<strong>in</strong>g two different persons, rather than two facets of the<br />
same <strong>in</strong>dividual mov<strong>in</strong>g out of the state of nature, as does Hobbes’ natural man.<br />
11
Gauthier is right to f<strong>in</strong>d <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’s theory a very strong brand of <strong>in</strong>dividualism, one that<br />
regards <strong>in</strong>dividual human be<strong>in</strong>gs as conceptually prior not only to political society but also to all<br />
social <strong>in</strong>teractions<br />
One important implication of the rationalist-<strong>in</strong>dividualist ontology is that language, as all other social<br />
<strong>in</strong>stitutions, is but one <strong>in</strong>strument put to maximiz<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>terests of an e-rational, a-social actor. <strong>In</strong>sofar<br />
as language-based analyses cast the primary focus upon the social bond itself and thus between the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividuals, they stand fundamentally at odds with these <strong>in</strong>dividualist, rationalist analyses. Significantly<br />
these differences were honed on Hobbes’ Leviathan.<br />
Pav<strong>in</strong>g the Way towards Sociality: the English School’s Cooperative Gladiators<br />
The state of nature provided the battleground for the <strong>in</strong>itial attempts to recover Hobbes away<br />
from this <strong>in</strong>dividualist ontology and the billiard board model of anarchy it had yielded. The <strong>in</strong>itial critique<br />
of its ‘uses and abuses <strong>in</strong> IR’ as Mark Heller (1980) put it, was two pronged. First, scholars from both IR<br />
and political theory at large have extensively underl<strong>in</strong>ed the limits Hobbes is careful to set upon his own<br />
analogy immediately after establish<strong>in</strong>g it (see Malcolm 2002, Williams 1996, Kratochwil 1989, V<strong>in</strong>cent<br />
1981, Heller 1980 Bull 1977). 13 That Hobbes himself fell short of extend<strong>in</strong>g the logic of his solution to the<br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational level was not an oversight but rather <strong>in</strong>dicates his awareness of the differences between<br />
that sphere and the state of nature, which has been largely brushed aside as the analogy became<br />
<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly entrenched <strong>in</strong> realist thought .<br />
Second, scholars from the English School tradition more specifically sought to dig up the seeds<br />
of a relatively peaceful <strong>in</strong>ternational society <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’ own state of nature (Bull 1977; V<strong>in</strong>cent 1981,<br />
Boucher 1990; Wight 1992; Williams 1996). They po<strong>in</strong>t to the other dimensions of Hobbes’ ‘natural<br />
man’, beyond his wolfish tendencies, that also govern <strong>in</strong>teractions between Leviathans, notably a<br />
13 The key sentence here fore grounded by critics is ‘it does not follow from it that misery which<br />
accompanies the liberty of particular men’ Hobbes (1946, 83)<br />
12
natural propensity towards cooperation, amongst other ‘articles of peace’ that Hobbes explores <strong>in</strong> his<br />
subsequent chapter fourteen (1946, 84 et seq.). Root<strong>in</strong>g the prospects for <strong>in</strong>ternational cooperation<br />
with<strong>in</strong> Hobbes’s own conception of natural law thus enables them to reclaim this author for the cannon<br />
of <strong>in</strong>ternational law (Bull 1977, V<strong>in</strong>cent 1981; see also Kratochwill 1989 3-4).<br />
The English school sought to reclaim Hobbes as a founder of <strong>in</strong>ternational society. However the<br />
English school has, I suggest, fallen short of be<strong>in</strong>g able to fully mobilise Hobbes as a social theorist, for<br />
two sets of reasons. First, these scholars were restricted <strong>in</strong> their efforts <strong>in</strong> that direction so long as the<br />
state of nature rema<strong>in</strong>ed the terra<strong>in</strong> of their engagement. Centrally, the possibility of a social theoris<strong>in</strong>g<br />
about <strong>in</strong>ternational politics was born of the recognition of a fundamental difference between the laws<br />
of nature and the constructed, historically cont<strong>in</strong>gent and thus non-natural laws govern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
society (see especially Wendt 1999). Hence for all their <strong>in</strong>valuable empirical <strong>in</strong>sights on the work<strong>in</strong>gs of<br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational society, and to echo a common constructivist critique (see for example F<strong>in</strong>nemore 2001),<br />
that thick ontological difference, between natural laws as patterns of regularities and human laws as<br />
social constructs, has rema<strong>in</strong>ed under-theorised <strong>in</strong> the English school. To restate the same po<strong>in</strong>t<br />
somewhat differently, <strong>in</strong> view of his strong structuralist bend, Hobbes lent himself to realist theoris<strong>in</strong>g<br />
about an <strong>in</strong>ternational system (Waltz 1979, see also Williams 1996, Walker 1992). Draw<strong>in</strong>g out the social<br />
dimension of that structure was difficult to achieve while at the same ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the focus exclusively<br />
upon the term of the Hobbesian b<strong>in</strong>ary that designates a-sociality.<br />
My second l<strong>in</strong>e of critique is that, despite a substantial shor<strong>in</strong>g up of the foundations for its<br />
social theoris<strong>in</strong>g by a second generation of scholars <strong>in</strong> the wake of constructivism, the English school has<br />
cont<strong>in</strong>ued to shy away from foreground<strong>in</strong>g the role of language <strong>in</strong> processes of social construction. Bary<br />
Buzan, for example, has significantly expanded the English School’s theoretical toolkit by turn<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
Speech Act theorists and notably John Searle’s (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. Yet even while<br />
13
he mobilises Searle’s dist<strong>in</strong>ction between ‘brute’ and ‘<strong>in</strong>stitutional’ facts to shed further light upon<br />
Headley Bull’s primary <strong>in</strong>stitutions of <strong>in</strong>ternational society, Buzan fall short of br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g Searle’s core<br />
<strong>in</strong>sight to bear upon them that language constitutes the primary social <strong>in</strong>stitution. ‘Language’, writes<br />
Searle (1995, 59), ‘is essentially constitutive of <strong>in</strong>stitutional reality’ and the necessary condition for<br />
<strong>in</strong>stitutions to emerge <strong>in</strong> the first place, s<strong>in</strong>ce without language there is no <strong>in</strong>stitution (see especially<br />
Searle 1995, 59-78). Three out of Bull’s five primary <strong>in</strong>stitutions of <strong>in</strong>ternational society explicitly<br />
foreground language, <strong>in</strong>sofar words oil the work<strong>in</strong>gs of diplomacy, <strong>in</strong>ternational law and even the<br />
balance of power. Language is also arguably constitutive of the other two, s<strong>in</strong>ce war, for one, is a state<br />
of the <strong>in</strong>ternational system that is first declared (and it needs to be declared <strong>in</strong> order to be recognised as<br />
an <strong>in</strong>ter-state war, as opposed to a simple conflict).<br />
<strong>In</strong> sum, to f<strong>in</strong>d the seeds of sociality <strong>in</strong> Hobbes requires, I suggest, look<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stead to the role of<br />
language and to the Leviathan rather than the state of nature alone.<br />
Words <strong>in</strong> the State of Nature<br />
Hobbes’ state of nature lies at the heart of epistemological storms that cont<strong>in</strong>ued to rage with<strong>in</strong><br />
and beyond IR. Aga<strong>in</strong>st early appropriations of Hobbes as ‘the protopositivist’ by rational choice<br />
theorists, <strong>in</strong>terpretive-m<strong>in</strong>ded political theorists emphasised aspects of his thought that posit him<br />
<strong>in</strong>stead as ‘a precursor to the l<strong>in</strong>guistic turn’ (Ball 1985). Hobbes was – not unlike Searle – <strong>in</strong><br />
Terrence Ball’s (1985, 740) words, ‘a th<strong>in</strong>ker acutely aware that social and political reality is l<strong>in</strong>guistically<br />
made’. These broader debates converged with recent constructivist and post-structuralist efforts with<strong>in</strong><br />
IR to tease out some l<strong>in</strong>guistic elements of the Hobbesian state of nature. Friedrich Kratochwil (1989, 3-<br />
6) framed his Hobbesian engagement by way of the norms and rules that <strong>in</strong>here <strong>in</strong> the natural state,<br />
while Michael Williams (1996) focussed on the epistemic agreement that the Leviathans must first come<br />
to <strong>in</strong> order to cooperate. Both factors centre upon language as their primary medium and both authors<br />
14
partake <strong>in</strong> the effort to give their full weight to immaterial factors <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational politics. Centrally,<br />
Williams (1996, 230) draws out that truth, for Hobbes, is a historically cont<strong>in</strong>gent l<strong>in</strong>guistic construct<br />
that is absent from the state of nature and sealed only by contract<strong>in</strong>g with the Leviathan.<br />
Among post-structuralists David Campbell (1998, 53-60) explicitly apprehends Hobbes’s<br />
treatment of the state of nature as the foundational, performative ‘discourse of danger’ by which<br />
identities are produced through particular strategies of <strong>in</strong>clusion that serve to demarcate a ‘self’ from an<br />
‘other’. His treatment of identity pushes the juxtaposition of the <strong>in</strong>dividual and the state to the limit<br />
s<strong>in</strong>ce they are almost superimposed. This is made possible by the absence of any presumption regard<strong>in</strong>g<br />
the ‘pre-given’ selves of either actor, a perspective afforded by cast<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>itial focus upon discourses.<br />
To the extent that these more recent re-engagements with Hobbes <strong>in</strong> IR emphasize, not merely<br />
cooperative elements and sociality, but the role of l<strong>in</strong>guistic phenomena <strong>in</strong> organiz<strong>in</strong>g Hobbes’s world,<br />
my read<strong>in</strong>g is <strong>in</strong>scribed <strong>in</strong> their wake. The aim here, however, is to mobilise these disparate <strong>in</strong>sights<br />
towards a more systematic social theory of agency.<br />
Mov<strong>in</strong>g away from Hobbes to f<strong>in</strong>d the State’s Self<br />
These exceptions aside, Hobbes has not been central to theoris<strong>in</strong>g self-other relations <strong>in</strong><br />
constructivism, <strong>in</strong>sofar as do<strong>in</strong>g so required depart<strong>in</strong>g from what had been associated with Hobbes <strong>in</strong><br />
rationalist thought. Mov<strong>in</strong>g away from Hobbes to f<strong>in</strong>d the state’s self, however, constructivism also<br />
moved away from the role of language <strong>in</strong> the constitution of the self. A common critique of Wendt’s<br />
social theory is that it ‘forgets about the contribution of language to the social construction of political<br />
reality’ that was centrally <strong>in</strong>tuited <strong>in</strong> constructivism’s early days (Drulak 2010, 77; see notably Kratochwil<br />
1989, Onuf 1989). My po<strong>in</strong>t here concerns more specifically its contribution to the very notion that<br />
Wendt tables, namely, that of the ‘self’ of the state.<br />
15
What did carry over from Hobbes , moreover, is once aga<strong>in</strong> the analogous juxtaposition of the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual and the state that centrally underp<strong>in</strong>s Alexander Wendt’s (1999, 215-245) elaboration of the<br />
notion that the state has a ‘Self’ that constitutes both the seat of a core, fixed identity and the place<br />
from which it enters <strong>in</strong>to <strong>in</strong>teractions with an ‘Other’. After all states, for Wendt (1999, 215, 221), are<br />
people too; this ‘anthropomorphiz<strong>in</strong>g’ of the state is rooted <strong>in</strong> the Hobbesian state of nature. Although<br />
Wendt (215-221) extensively elaborates this concept of personhood as a corporate or collective rather<br />
than an <strong>in</strong>dividual form of agency, this is also the po<strong>in</strong>t <strong>in</strong> Wendt’s social theory where the <strong>in</strong>dividual is<br />
split <strong>in</strong> two, between the actor and the self. On the one hand this elaboration serves to stake out<br />
actorhood as the terra<strong>in</strong> upon which to deploy the constitutive logic that characterises enquiries <strong>in</strong>to<br />
processes of social construction. On other hand, by the same token, it serves to hold off the self from<br />
such enquiries. For Wendt, as an actor of <strong>in</strong>ternational politics the state may be socially constructed, but<br />
its’ self is not.<br />
<strong>In</strong> IR at large, the legacy of Hobbes’s Leviathan has largely revolved around the state of nature.<br />
The Leviathan po<strong>in</strong>ts to a bl<strong>in</strong>d spot on the horizon of IR theory, both with<strong>in</strong> the so-called Hobbesian<br />
traditions and those critical of it. Yet the ‘serious engagement with his thought rather than a cursory<br />
dismissal’ to which Michael William’s (1996, 233) enjo<strong>in</strong>s ‘those critical of positivist-<strong>in</strong>spired theories<br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational relation’ requires, I argue, br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g back the other pole of the narrative.<br />
Look<strong>in</strong>g for the Leviathan: The Misadventures of Carl Schmitt<br />
Br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g the figure of the Leviathan back <strong>in</strong> requires stepp<strong>in</strong>g out of IR and <strong>in</strong>to political theory.<br />
To this effect, the figure of Carl Schmitt provides a useful bridge; first, because Schmitt’s own thought<br />
<strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>gly straddled the two discipl<strong>in</strong>es (see also Schwab 2008); second, <strong>in</strong> view of his recognised<br />
l<strong>in</strong>eage with<strong>in</strong> classical realism, as per Morgenthau’s ‘hidden dialogue’ with him (Scheuerman 1999, 62).<br />
I focus specifically on his The Leviathan <strong>in</strong> the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Mean<strong>in</strong>g and Failure of a<br />
16
Symbol. Schmitt’s perspective is useful for cast<strong>in</strong>g the focus upon the Leviathan as a symbol, that is, as a<br />
l<strong>in</strong>guistic trope, and for operat<strong>in</strong>g the shift from consider<strong>in</strong>g the Leviathan as the symbol of a particular<br />
political order bound up with sovereignty to the symbol of order, at the national and <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
levels.<br />
Schmitt’s concern, as per his subtitle, is with understand<strong>in</strong>g the true mean<strong>in</strong>g of this ‘strongest<br />
and most powerful image’ <strong>in</strong> the ‘long history of political theories’; one, moreover, that, however ‘rich <strong>in</strong><br />
colorful images and symbols, icons and idols, paradigms and phantasms, emblems and allegories’ has<br />
left many a political theorists ponder<strong>in</strong>g over this particular one (see also Brown 1980, Ball 1985,<br />
Stillman 1995, Spr<strong>in</strong>gborg 1996). Carl Schmitt alone however, to my knowledge, dedicates an entire<br />
book to apprais<strong>in</strong>g it as a symbol, albeit without actually develop<strong>in</strong>g the concept. Schmitt (2008, 19)<br />
sets out to record all the mean<strong>in</strong>gs of this ‘mythical totality’ by glean<strong>in</strong>g references to it, first <strong>in</strong> the text<br />
itself, then <strong>in</strong> the broader historical context of the treatise’s writ<strong>in</strong>g. He f<strong>in</strong>ds only three mentions <strong>in</strong> the<br />
text itself. He does not hide his disappo<strong>in</strong>tment: ‘the explanation is very brief and does not correspond<br />
to the great expectation that a mythical blend<strong>in</strong>g of god and animal, animal and man, man and mach<strong>in</strong>e<br />
evokes’ (Schmitt 2008, 20). Once he has exhausted all possible sources of mean<strong>in</strong>g with<strong>in</strong> and beyond<br />
the text Schmitt concludes to the symbol’s failure; an astound<strong>in</strong>g conclusion, given its deep resonance <strong>in</strong><br />
the history of political thought, Schmitt’s own motivations <strong>in</strong> try<strong>in</strong>g to appraise its power. Schmitt’s<br />
somewhat deflated conclusion appears, rather, to express his own unease <strong>in</strong> the face of profound<br />
ambiguity <strong>in</strong> the ‘old myth’ that ultimately eludes his best efforts to p<strong>in</strong> down all its mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
The ambiguity and polysemy at work <strong>in</strong> this symbol, Schmitt senses, is <strong>in</strong>tended by Hobbes;<br />
uncerta<strong>in</strong> though he rema<strong>in</strong>s as to how to tackle it. Schmitt’s approach, I suggest, actually leads him<br />
astray from be<strong>in</strong>g able to grasp the function of the Leviathan <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’s political thought. I propose a<br />
different way of apprais<strong>in</strong>g this mythical totality. Rather than wr<strong>in</strong>g the symbol for all its mean<strong>in</strong>gs,<br />
17
with<strong>in</strong> and beyond the text, it is <strong>in</strong>stead to embrace its ambiguousness as a start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t. The Leviathan<br />
operates as the central signifier at work <strong>in</strong> his political treatise; that much Schmitt would not disagree<br />
with, albeit <strong>in</strong> a different language. To cont<strong>in</strong>ue to usher <strong>in</strong> here the l<strong>in</strong>guistic term<strong>in</strong>ology, his is an<br />
effort to map out the field of significations, or ‘signified’, conjured by the signifier. The attitude I<br />
propose, however, is, rather than rather than seek to exhaust its significations, is to appraise how it<br />
operates as an open-ended signifier. This ambiguousness and polysemy are an <strong>in</strong>tegral part of its<br />
constitution as, and this is the core of argument, the master signifier of the symbolic order itself (terms I<br />
am about to expla<strong>in</strong>). As such it cannot be p<strong>in</strong>ned down to one signification nor <strong>in</strong>deed rid of its<br />
ambiguousness. Rather, its ability to condense as many mean<strong>in</strong>gs as possible is central to its function<strong>in</strong>g<br />
as the master signifier that underp<strong>in</strong>s the possibility of signification itself. To develop this argument,<br />
however, I first require <strong>in</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g Lacan’s broader categories of the symbolic and the primacy of the<br />
signifier, <strong>in</strong> order to show the Leviathan constitutes <strong>in</strong> fact the symbol, or signifier, designat<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
political order at large, whether at the national or <strong>in</strong>ternational level.<br />
<strong>In</strong>troduc<strong>in</strong>g Jacques Lacan<br />
From the Symbol to The Symbolic<br />
‘The symbolic’ <strong>in</strong> Lacanian term<strong>in</strong>ology designates the political order at large. What, then, is dist<strong>in</strong>ctive<br />
about this understand<strong>in</strong>g of the social, and why is it pert<strong>in</strong>ent to <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g Hobbes? Three key<br />
features are helpful to contextualiz<strong>in</strong>g this notion of the symbolic <strong>in</strong> Lacan’s body of thought, namely, its<br />
language-based, cl<strong>in</strong>ical, and developmental dimensions.<br />
First, for Lacan the def<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g characteristic of humans as political animals is speech. The ability to<br />
speak is all at once the basis of all social and political life, and what makes <strong>in</strong>dividual identity, <strong>in</strong>deed all<br />
life as a political animal, possible. Language thus stands at the centre of his theoriz<strong>in</strong>g because it is the<br />
foundation of the social order itself. Here he is uncannily close to Hobbes (1946, 18) when he writes that<br />
18
‘the most notable <strong>in</strong>ventions of all was that of speech (…) without which, there had been amongst men<br />
neither common wealth, no society, nor contract, nor peace, no more than amongst lions, bears or<br />
wolves.’ The centrality of language is the dist<strong>in</strong>ctive feature of Lacanian psychoanalytic thought, a large<br />
part of which developed as a re<strong>in</strong>terpretation of Sigmund Freud’s discoveries <strong>in</strong> order to draw out the<br />
efficaciousness of language. It is also what lends a dist<strong>in</strong>ctively collective, which is to say, political,<br />
dimension to his theoriz<strong>in</strong>g (Stavarkakis 1999, Edk<strong>in</strong>s 1999). If the task of psychoanalytic theoriz<strong>in</strong>g can<br />
be understood as the effort, <strong>in</strong> Freud’s wake, to uncover the deep structures of the human psyche on<br />
the one hand, <strong>in</strong> order to understand, on the other, how the <strong>in</strong>dividual relates (or fails) to the world<br />
around her, then one of Lacan’s key contribution was to draw out the extent to which these two<br />
dimensions, the <strong>in</strong>dividual and the collective, are tightly bound up. That contribution <strong>in</strong> turn rests on his<br />
foreground<strong>in</strong>g language as the primary social bond. Language, that dist<strong>in</strong>ctly human trait, is what leads<br />
humans out of the state of nature and makes all social (<strong>in</strong> Hobbes) and <strong>in</strong>dividual (<strong>in</strong> Lacan) life possible<br />
<strong>in</strong> the first place<br />
Second, although Lacan centrally foregrounds language, it is important to bear <strong>in</strong> m<strong>in</strong>d that his is<br />
fundamentally applied theory. His theoris<strong>in</strong>g is geared towards analytical practice, not towards<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>g literary texts or language per se. It mobilises the key <strong>in</strong>sight, common also to speech act<br />
theory, that words do th<strong>in</strong>gs, to echo Aust<strong>in</strong>’s (1962) formulation. Theory and practice are here tightly<br />
bound up as <strong>in</strong> few other contemporary spaces for theoriz<strong>in</strong>g the political. Here too there is a closeness<br />
to the realm of practice that is ak<strong>in</strong> to that of Hobbes who, writ<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g the English civil war (1642-<br />
1651), stood before a civil order that was com<strong>in</strong>g undone, and thus at a juncture where the task of<br />
political theoriz<strong>in</strong>g was more directly efficacious than <strong>in</strong> these societies today. Both constitute bodies of<br />
thought developed with the press<strong>in</strong>g urgency of an ailment to cure, <strong>in</strong> the political and <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
body respectively. Lacan’s start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t is thus the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s experience; he sets out to uncover the<br />
deep structures undergird<strong>in</strong>g her relationship to the world around her.<br />
19
This expla<strong>in</strong>s, second, the diachronic or developmental perspective by which he seeks to<br />
understand how an <strong>in</strong>dividual is born <strong>in</strong>to these structures, driven by that imperative to diagnose the<br />
source of her contemporary ailments. <strong>In</strong> this he positions himself <strong>in</strong> a somewhat similar stance to<br />
Hobbes’s, at the orig<strong>in</strong> of the social order. Both similarly develop diachronic perspectives, <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’s<br />
case, to retrace the passage from a pre-social to a social order. <strong>In</strong> Lacan, the trajectory of the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s<br />
development and her account of it become the analytical material itself. Timel<strong>in</strong>es are thus central<br />
operative pr<strong>in</strong>ciples both <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’s treatise and <strong>in</strong> Lacan’s cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice, but theirs are diachronic<br />
rather than historical perspectives s<strong>in</strong>ce history is mythical <strong>in</strong> both <strong>in</strong>stances. What matters is not the<br />
accuracy of the narrative so much as history’s function as a myth at the collective level (<strong>in</strong> Hobbes) or its<br />
narration by the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject as that which the analyst and analysand can work on (<strong>in</strong> Lacan).<br />
The Three Axes of the Lacanian Symbolic<br />
The symbolic is then, is the social order <strong>in</strong> a simplified sense. Hav<strong>in</strong>g etched out the logic of<br />
Lacanian theoris<strong>in</strong>g now enables us to flesh out this complex concept more substantially, along three<br />
axes. It was co<strong>in</strong>ed to capture, first, the ensemble of symbols that constitute a culture, apprehended<br />
as a structured totality. At a more generic level, it designates the matrix or organiz<strong>in</strong>g pr<strong>in</strong>ciple<br />
undergird<strong>in</strong>g all social life. Language and the law are its primary sites of expressions, and they are<br />
tightly bound up. <strong>In</strong>deed, Lacan developed the concept by build<strong>in</strong>g on Freud’s (1913) analysis of the<br />
<strong>in</strong>cest taboo and the role of the father figure as the found<strong>in</strong>g stone for the social order at large. 14 The<br />
father’s <strong>in</strong>itial, symbolic (rather than actually pronounced; and therefore forever potentially<br />
reiterated) pronouncement of the <strong>in</strong>cest prohibition is the mythical found<strong>in</strong>g speech act that, by<br />
draw<strong>in</strong>g the first l<strong>in</strong>e between the forbidden and the authorised, founds the law and thus the<br />
14 To be clear this father figure, or symbolic father, does not refer to the actual, real genitor; but rather<br />
simply to an <strong>in</strong>stance constitutive of the human psyche. As such, there is no implication whatsoever that<br />
this person need be a male; but rather any person who simply takes on this symbolic function <strong>in</strong> the<br />
development of the child.<br />
20
possibility of social life. The symbolic designates the broader grid onto which the <strong>in</strong>dividual is hooked,<br />
as it were, as part of her becom<strong>in</strong>g a social, which is to say political be<strong>in</strong>g. This process of hook<strong>in</strong>g<br />
onto or <strong>in</strong>scription is illustrated by the function of nam<strong>in</strong>g (Lacan 1977, 74). The acquisition of a<br />
proper name marks the moment when the child is <strong>in</strong>scribed <strong>in</strong>to the symbolic order. This is the<br />
constitutive moment for the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s identity, the one that makes possible all ulterior identities.<br />
Centrally, this passage from the biological, or the state of nature, to the social order is operated by a<br />
signifier.<br />
Second, the symbolic constitutes one of three ontological categories that structure the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual’s relationship to the world, or her ‘reality’. It is thus best understood <strong>in</strong> relation to, on the one<br />
hand, ‘the real’ (which is thus not to be confused with ‘reality’), and ‘the imag<strong>in</strong>ary’ on the other. The<br />
category of the real has been considered Lacan’s central contribution to philosophy (Juranville 1984). It<br />
designates that which is irreducible to words and thus to our efforts to apprehend the world around us.<br />
For to know is to put words to th<strong>in</strong>gs; it is an act of symbolisation. The real thus marks the hard limit of<br />
symbolization; grossly simplified, where words flounder. Examples would be the experience of death or<br />
natural disasters. The imag<strong>in</strong>ary and the symbolic for their part stand <strong>in</strong> relation each another as the<br />
orders of nature and culture respectively. The imag<strong>in</strong>ary constitutes the realm of identifications and<br />
imag<strong>in</strong>ary projections. It is what which humans share with animals. <strong>In</strong> the animal k<strong>in</strong>gdom imagos and<br />
lures form an <strong>in</strong>tegral part of the biological mechanisms of survival and reproduction, notably <strong>in</strong> the use<br />
of camouflage. <strong>In</strong> a developmental perspective, the imag<strong>in</strong>ary is where the <strong>in</strong>dividual dwells before she<br />
enters the social order and which she never completely leaves beh<strong>in</strong>d. <strong>In</strong> that sense it rema<strong>in</strong>s the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual’s primary doma<strong>in</strong>, ruled by images and lures, rather than by symbols, which are dist<strong>in</strong>ctly<br />
human trait. The imag<strong>in</strong>ary is thus, as will be shown more extensively <strong>in</strong> the next section, the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual’s very own state of nature.<br />
21
The imag<strong>in</strong>ary is also the site where these primitive projections have been repressed onto an<br />
unconscious level. This <strong>in</strong>vokes the more applied dimension of Lacan’s work, where the symbolic<br />
constitutes, third, the realm of the analytical cure. The cure itself largely consists <strong>in</strong> mak<strong>in</strong>g those<br />
imag<strong>in</strong>ary projections lodged <strong>in</strong> the unconscious (especially those revolv<strong>in</strong>g around processes of<br />
identification, see Epste<strong>in</strong> 2010 for an extensive development), which can play the analysand’s despite<br />
herself and at great expense of suffer<strong>in</strong>g, pass <strong>in</strong>to the symbolic order. There they can be worked on<br />
with analyst, fully circumscribed, and ultimately put at a remove. The cure illustrates the extent to which<br />
language is performative for Lacan. It is doubly performative, as both the primary material of and the<br />
medium for the cure. Language both reveals the source of the ailments on the one hand (when the<br />
analysand talks), and it constitutes the means of the therapeutic <strong>in</strong>tervention on the other (the analysts’<br />
<strong>in</strong>tervention). The aim of the cure is the symbolization of the imag<strong>in</strong>ary material expressed <strong>in</strong> the<br />
analysand’s speech. The <strong>in</strong>tervention of the analyst consists <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terrupt<strong>in</strong>g these imag<strong>in</strong>ary projections<br />
<strong>in</strong> which the speaker rema<strong>in</strong>s trapped. The Lacanian analysis thus rests on a particular type of speech<br />
act. 15<br />
To summarise, the symbolic plays out along three key axes <strong>in</strong> Lacan’s thought. It is the realm of<br />
the cure, whose basic operative pr<strong>in</strong>ciple is symbolization. The second and third axes outl<strong>in</strong>e the two<br />
directions <strong>in</strong> which my argument proper will unfold <strong>in</strong> the third and fourth parts of this paper, where I<br />
will show that the Leviathan constitutes the master signifier that enables all signification. These are that,<br />
at the collective level, second, the symbolic designates the social order itself. At the level of <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
experience this corresponds, third, to the Other for the self. Develop<strong>in</strong>g my argument first requires<br />
however, add<strong>in</strong>g another piece to this toolkit, the Lacian notion of ‘primacy of the signifier’ (la primauté<br />
15 The expression used by Ala<strong>in</strong> Juranville (1984), awkward <strong>in</strong> English yet effective, is ‘a speech that takes<br />
action’ (une parole qui prend acte).<br />
22
du signifiant). I expla<strong>in</strong> it <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g section by locat<strong>in</strong>g it with<strong>in</strong> the broader l<strong>in</strong>guistic turn from<br />
which it emerged.<br />
The Primacy of the Signifier<br />
Language then, is foundational to Jacques Lacan’s entire enterprise. He was largely <strong>in</strong>fluenced,<br />
first, by developments contemporary philosophy of language (Heiddegger’s writ<strong>in</strong>gs on speech or<br />
Sprache and Logos <strong>in</strong> particular, see Juignet 2003). These <strong>in</strong> turn need to be understood <strong>in</strong> relation to<br />
the broader shatter<strong>in</strong>g of the correspondence theory of the world that signalled the advent of modern<br />
conceptions of language, which is also at the orig<strong>in</strong>s of constructivism <strong>in</strong> IR. Words were no longer seen<br />
to mirror the th<strong>in</strong>gs they <strong>in</strong>voked; and the (social) world was no longer that fixed referent outside of<br />
language that was ultimately underp<strong>in</strong>ned, <strong>in</strong> a medieval post-Aristotelian ontology, by god itself. The<br />
advent of the l<strong>in</strong>guistic turn was brought on by the realization that words do not merely reveal but<br />
partially constitute the social world. 16 While the term itself tends to be used to characterizes a latemodern<br />
developments <strong>in</strong> the philosophy of languages, it appears, as Terence Ball (1985, 741) has<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ted out ‘almost as a <strong>in</strong>stance of uncoord<strong>in</strong>ated simultaneous discovery’ across the social sciences<br />
and humanities <strong>in</strong> the late 20 th century, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> IR. Or rather, Ball’s argument is that it was <strong>in</strong> fact a<br />
long drawn out discovery that extends back to Hobbes, <strong>in</strong> whom he sees the precursor to this l<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
turn <strong>in</strong> late modernity.<br />
Developments <strong>in</strong> structuralism, <strong>in</strong> particular Ferd<strong>in</strong>and de Saussure’s (1916) discoveries <strong>in</strong><br />
structural l<strong>in</strong>guistics (and, later, Claude Levi Strauss’s structural anthropology) comprise the second key<br />
<strong>in</strong>fluence on the emergence of Lacanian thought. Saussure took this modern conception of language one<br />
step further. Work<strong>in</strong>g up close with words, or signs, he showed that the relationship between the word<br />
and the world constitutes the wrong start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t altogether for understand<strong>in</strong>g the mak<strong>in</strong>g of mean<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
16 The term ‘l<strong>in</strong>guistic turn’ is attributed to Richard Rorty’s 1967 anthology The L<strong>in</strong>guistic Turn. Essays <strong>in</strong><br />
Philosophical Method (see Ball 1985), who <strong>in</strong> turn attributes it to Gustave Bergmann.<br />
23
or signification. 17 The word does not reveal the world because, and this was his central contribution, the<br />
relationship between the signifier and the signified is purely arbitrary (l’arbitraire du signe), s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
different languages feature different signs for the same the same referent. That is, that relationship is<br />
neither given nor automatic; rather it is grounded solely <strong>in</strong> social conventions. As a result language<br />
should be appraised not <strong>in</strong> its relation to the world but on its own terms, as a system of differential<br />
elements. Signs hold no <strong>in</strong>herent mean<strong>in</strong>g outside of the broader signify<strong>in</strong>g system which they implicitly<br />
br<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to play when used; and that mean<strong>in</strong>g is both yielded and exhausted by the play of difference<br />
between them. The mean<strong>in</strong>g of ‘hot’ is given by contrast with ‘cold’ and vice versa, and on its own the<br />
phoneme ‘hot’ does not trigger any mean<strong>in</strong>gful association <strong>in</strong> the m<strong>in</strong>d of someone who does not speak<br />
English. Thus mean<strong>in</strong>g, signification, emerges from a cont<strong>in</strong>gent relationship between signifiers.<br />
Lacan’s blended together the l<strong>in</strong>guistic turn <strong>in</strong> philosophy with Saussure’s work on the l<strong>in</strong>guistic<br />
sign, on whose term<strong>in</strong>ology he drew extensively. Saussure’s analysis of language as a structured system<br />
provided the matrix for Lacan’s central contribution to psychoanalytic knowledge, the discovery of the<br />
structure of the unconscious. Contrary to naturalist <strong>in</strong>terpretations that developed <strong>in</strong> the wake of<br />
Freud’s discovery, though his cl<strong>in</strong>ical practice Lacan established that the unconscious was not simply the<br />
recipient of bl<strong>in</strong>d biological drives.<br />
18<br />
<strong>In</strong>stead it too presents a basic structure ak<strong>in</strong> to the structure of<br />
language as revealed by Saussure (l’<strong>in</strong>conscient est structuré comme un language). <strong>In</strong> that sense it<br />
cannot be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as the pre-social or natural site with<strong>in</strong> the human psyche.<br />
The effect of Saussure’s discovery was to cast the focus upon the signifier, and its relationship to<br />
other signifiers, rather than on the relationship between the signifier and the signified. <strong>In</strong> his wake the<br />
17 A sign <strong>in</strong> Saussurian l<strong>in</strong>guistics is composed of a signifier and a signified. Importantly, the signified is<br />
not the real object denoted by the sign – the referent – but a psychological entity, a mental<br />
representation of the object.<br />
18 Which is not to say that Lacan denies that the vital energy mobilized by the drives; but rather these<br />
are not reducible to biological mechanisms alone. What dist<strong>in</strong>guishes them from biological needs is that<br />
they can never be satisfied (see Lacan 1964).<br />
24
signifier takes center stage <strong>in</strong> Lacan. But what is known as ‘the primacy of the signifier’ <strong>in</strong> Lacanian<br />
thought (la primauté du signifiant) implies someth<strong>in</strong>g more. <strong>In</strong> Saussure, the world out there rema<strong>in</strong>s a<br />
distant referent for the signified. Lacan goes one step further still <strong>in</strong> shear<strong>in</strong>g the relationship between<br />
the signifier and the signified, and <strong>in</strong> cast<strong>in</strong>g the focus upon the signifier alone. Lacan f<strong>in</strong>ds that what the<br />
signifier uttered by the <strong>in</strong>dividual is conjur<strong>in</strong>g is not always merely the world out there. Recall here that<br />
his perspective is the <strong>in</strong>dividual and her speech (la parole, <strong>in</strong> the Saussurian term<strong>in</strong>ology), as opposed to<br />
the collective perspective of Saussure and the philosophers of language (la langue). Not only does it not<br />
straightforwardly mirror the world out there (as <strong>in</strong> Saussure 1916), but, for Lacan, that speech also<br />
po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong>stead to the <strong>in</strong>ner world of the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject, the unconscious level of <strong>in</strong>articulate desires.<br />
Hence what the signifier can capture, and <strong>in</strong> fact what it alone can capture, is her desire; that same<br />
desire that the analyst seeks to tease out from amidst the mesh of images, identifications, and<br />
repressive mechanisms, <strong>in</strong> order to shepherd it towards symbolization. Bound up as it is with vital<br />
energy and basic needs, that desire is forever express<strong>in</strong>g itself; often at the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s expense, notably<br />
<strong>in</strong> so called Freudian slips or actes manqués. The task of the analyst is thus to hear the desire that<br />
sometimes eludes the analysand and yet expresses itself <strong>in</strong> her speech. The analyst is listen<strong>in</strong>g out for<br />
the key signifiers, expressive of another level of signification, that erupt at times through the<br />
analysand’s speech, and work both at the surface level of what the analysand <strong>in</strong>tends to say (often<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g about the world), while also offer<strong>in</strong>g a w<strong>in</strong>dow onto her unconscious. Piec<strong>in</strong>g these together<br />
she can beg<strong>in</strong> to map out the cha<strong>in</strong>s of significations structur<strong>in</strong>g the person’s desire.<br />
On the one hand Lacan’s analytical thought and practice foregrounds primacy of the signifier, on<br />
the other Hobbes’s political treaty features one primary signifier, the Leviathan. These Lacanian<br />
conceptualizations of the symbolic and the signifier provide the start<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts for develop<strong>in</strong>g the first<br />
part of my argument, which is that the Leviathan is the signifier of the symbolic order at large.<br />
25
Part III: The Leviathan as the signifier of the symbolic<br />
<strong>In</strong> this section I show how the Leviathan functions as the signifier of the symbolic order itself, by way of<br />
two different theories of language, that of Lacan and speech act theory. Start<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the state of nature,<br />
argument unfolds follow<strong>in</strong>g the movement of the Hobbesian narrative itself, out of that state.<br />
The State of Nature, Where the Sound and Fury Signify Noth<strong>in</strong>g<br />
An <strong>in</strong>herent disconnect between the signifier and the signified lies at the core of Hobbes’s moral<br />
philosophy and of what John Watk<strong>in</strong>s (1989, 104) has called his ‘humpty dumpty theory of mean<strong>in</strong>g’.<br />
This resonates strongly with Lacan’s conception of language. <strong>In</strong> the state of nature, which, as Watk<strong>in</strong>s<br />
(1989, 104) puts it, ‘consists of a multitude of humpty dumpties’, words mean only what the utterer<br />
<strong>in</strong>tends them to. Consider this well-known passage from Leviathan’s (1946, 32) chapter VI:<br />
But whatsoever is the object of any man’s appetite or desire, that is it which he for his<br />
part calleth good: and the object of his hate and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile<br />
and <strong>in</strong>considerable. For these words of good, evil, and contemptible, are ever used with<br />
relation to the person that useth them: there be<strong>in</strong>g noth<strong>in</strong>g simply and absolutely so;<br />
nor any common rule of good and evil, to be taken from the nature of the objects<br />
themselves; but from the person of man, where there is not commonwealth; or, <strong>in</strong> a<br />
commonwealth, from the person that representeth it (…)<br />
That, <strong>in</strong> the state of nature, the mean<strong>in</strong>g of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are to be taken from the ‘person of man<br />
[sic]’ po<strong>in</strong>ts uncannily <strong>in</strong> the same direction than Lacan’s signifier. Signifiers here are naturally empty;<br />
and <strong>in</strong> the state of nature they are appropriated by <strong>in</strong>dividuals for whatever suits their purpose, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>in</strong><br />
it noth<strong>in</strong>g fixes moral predicates to a set of commonly accepted mean<strong>in</strong>gs of what constitutes the good.<br />
That is precisely the role of the Leviathan. 19<br />
The state of nature is, <strong>in</strong> the strongest possible sense, a space of mean<strong>in</strong>glessness. No collective<br />
action is possible. Humans cannot understand each other s<strong>in</strong>ce the same words hold different mean<strong>in</strong>gs<br />
19 A century ahead of Kant, the Leviathan is also a personification of the Kantian moral imperative and<br />
thus the found<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t for the law.<br />
26
for every person. While there are utterances (s<strong>in</strong>ce Hobbes’ natural man seems speak) there is <strong>in</strong> fact no<br />
language, <strong>in</strong> the sense of a collective, transmittable sets of mean<strong>in</strong>g that can provide the basis of a<br />
common understand<strong>in</strong>g and thus for collective action. <strong>In</strong> the state of nature there is only sound and<br />
fury, signify<strong>in</strong>g noth<strong>in</strong>g.<br />
This mean<strong>in</strong>gless or topsy-turvism also constitutes the most robust objection to tak<strong>in</strong>g the state<br />
of nature at face value as the found<strong>in</strong>g paradigm for apprais<strong>in</strong>g the space of <strong>in</strong>ter-state relations.<br />
Tempt<strong>in</strong>g though the image may be that space is not quite populated by ‘a multitude of humpty<br />
dumpties’, and history, as amply emphasized by <strong>in</strong> English School read<strong>in</strong>gs of Hobbes, has provided<br />
sufficient evidence of successful collective action between states. <strong>In</strong> that space language and mean<strong>in</strong>g<br />
still obta<strong>in</strong>; that is, despite the multiplicity of languages, the possibility, if not always the actuality, of a<br />
common understand<strong>in</strong>g rema<strong>in</strong>s.<br />
<strong>In</strong> this read<strong>in</strong>g, what the state of nature represents is the solipsistic world of the <strong>in</strong>fant,<br />
etymologically the pre-speak<strong>in</strong>g be<strong>in</strong>g (<strong>in</strong>-fans). 20<br />
The <strong>in</strong>dividual that Hobbes’ natural <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
captures, then, is not even the child, but the <strong>in</strong>fant, a po<strong>in</strong>t to which I return below. An implication of<br />
that argument here is that apprehend<strong>in</strong>g the state (<strong>in</strong> realism) or the <strong>in</strong>dividual (<strong>in</strong> rational choice<br />
theory) on the model of Hobbes’s ‘natural man’ [sic] is tantamount to <strong>in</strong>fantiliz<strong>in</strong>g them, <strong>in</strong> the sense of<br />
negat<strong>in</strong>g the constitutive and central role of language <strong>in</strong> their ability to act politically.<br />
The Leviathan as The ‘Quilt<strong>in</strong>g Po<strong>in</strong>t’ Fasten<strong>in</strong>g the Social Order<br />
Hobbes’s state of nature thus features the same <strong>in</strong>herently loose relation between the signifier<br />
and signified that characterizes a Lacanian conception of language. <strong>In</strong> Lacan (1956), this constant<br />
slippage is temporarily arrested by what he terms ‘quilt<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts’ (po<strong>in</strong>ts de capiton), or (literally)<br />
upholstery buttons. These constitute key signifiers <strong>in</strong> the discourse of the ‘normal’ (non-psychotic)<br />
20 <strong>in</strong> as <strong>in</strong> prior to; fans as the present participle of fari, to speak.<br />
27
subject that function as anchor<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts, where the signifier and the signified are knotted together. The<br />
analogy here is that the upholstery button is a place where the mattress-maker’s needle has worked to<br />
prevent a shapeless mass of stuff<strong>in</strong>g from shift<strong>in</strong>g about. It becomes the organiz<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t runn<strong>in</strong>g<br />
through broader discourses, a form of overarch<strong>in</strong>g referent po<strong>in</strong>t for multiple <strong>in</strong>dividual utterances; not<br />
unlike the l<strong>in</strong>es radiat<strong>in</strong>g from the upholstery button on the mattress’s surface. While Lacan co<strong>in</strong>ed the<br />
concept to analyse the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s discourse, the concept was developed <strong>in</strong> his wake to analyse political<br />
discourses at large (Laclau and Mouffe 1985, Edk<strong>in</strong>s 1999, Stavrakakis 1999, Zizek 2003). It constitutes a<br />
key signifier that unifies the discursive field, fix<strong>in</strong>g the mean<strong>in</strong>g of otherwise open-ended and often<br />
ambiguous terms, or ‘essentially contested concepts’ as Walter Gallie’s called them (see Gellner 1974<br />
for a discussion), ‘such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. Slavoj Zizek (2003, 282), for example, shows how,<br />
under communism, certa<strong>in</strong> signifiers, such as ‘democracy’, ‘freedom’ and ‘the state’, acquired a<br />
particular mean<strong>in</strong>g when ‘quilted’ by the signifier/po<strong>in</strong>t de capiton ‘communism’. The same words rang<br />
quite differently <strong>in</strong> the West where they were ‘quilted’ otherwise.<br />
These signifiers, however, designate a political order, not the order underly<strong>in</strong>g the possibility of<br />
politics itself. This is precisely what Hobbes nailed with the Leviathan. What the signifier-Leviathan<br />
designates <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’s political thought is noth<strong>in</strong>g short of the symbolic itself. As such, and albeit to<br />
Schmitt’s dismay, it has to be open-ended, its mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>exhaustible. It necessarily eludes all attempts<br />
to p<strong>in</strong> it down to a set number of signified, because it operates as the master signifier that designates<br />
the symbolic at large. Just as the ‘quilt<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>t’ is the po<strong>in</strong>t at which a signifier is knotted to the<br />
otherwise <strong>in</strong>determ<strong>in</strong>ate and float<strong>in</strong>g signified, the Leviathan is the <strong>in</strong>stance that fastens the otherwise<br />
ever shift<strong>in</strong>g and always relative mean<strong>in</strong>g of ‘good’ to a fixed, objective and commonly agreed upon set<br />
of understand<strong>in</strong>gs as to what constitutes the Good.<br />
28
Importantly, this needs to be understood aga<strong>in</strong>st Hobbes’s broader theory of language<br />
developed two chapters prior to this passage, <strong>in</strong> his Chapter IV, ‘Of Speech’. Hobbes <strong>in</strong>sistence on the<br />
‘necessity of def<strong>in</strong>itions’ makes it clear that this is a feature of language as a whole and not merely of<br />
moral predicates. This fasten<strong>in</strong>g together of signifiers and signifieds is a precondition for language to be<br />
able to function as the effective social bond that can conta<strong>in</strong> the threat of disorder perta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g to the<br />
natural state. The Leviathan is this fasten<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>stance.<br />
This enables us to revisit <strong>in</strong> a new light is readily most notorious passage of Hobbes (1946, 82)<br />
political treatise for IR, the passage <strong>in</strong> Chapter XIII describ<strong>in</strong>g the state of nature:<br />
<strong>In</strong> such condition, there is no place for <strong>in</strong>dustry; because the fruit thereof is uncerta<strong>in</strong>:<br />
and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities<br />
that may be imported by the sea; no commodious build<strong>in</strong>g; no <strong>in</strong>struments of mov<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
and remov<strong>in</strong>g, such th<strong>in</strong>gs as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth,<br />
no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, cont<strong>in</strong>ual<br />
fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man [sic], solitary, poor, nasty, brutish<br />
and short.<br />
The grammatical negative, functions here, to draw on a photographic metaphor, as the negative vis-à-vis<br />
the pr<strong>in</strong>t. The f<strong>in</strong>al picture of the state of nature captures exactly <strong>in</strong>verted what makes the symbolic<br />
order itself. <strong>In</strong>deed Hobbes is careful to <strong>in</strong>clude the major card<strong>in</strong>al po<strong>in</strong>ts undergird<strong>in</strong>g social life:<br />
markers of time and space, the possibility of cultivat<strong>in</strong>g the earth and <strong>in</strong>deed all cultural productions,<br />
the possibility of knowledge and <strong>in</strong>deed all peaceful <strong>in</strong>teractions (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g at the <strong>in</strong>ternational level).<br />
The Leviathan, <strong>in</strong> turn, is the centre po<strong>in</strong>t of that symbolic order. It both refers to (signifies) and makes<br />
possible the symbolic order itself: it is the master signifier that guarantees the possibility of all<br />
signification.<br />
The Performativity of the Leviathan<br />
The performativity of the symbol Leviathan achieves can also be illum<strong>in</strong>ated from with<strong>in</strong> speech<br />
act theory. It operates on two different levels, on the level of what Hobbes achieved, first, and second,<br />
29
<strong>in</strong> terms of what the Leviathan achieves. With regards to the first, as Patricia Spr<strong>in</strong>gboard (1995, 353)<br />
notes, Hobbes is credited for ‘lexical <strong>in</strong>novation’ by the Oxford English Dictionary for co<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g what<br />
became common currency <strong>in</strong> the English language for represent<strong>in</strong>g the British Commonwealth. His<br />
creative act consisted <strong>in</strong> ty<strong>in</strong>g together the concrete biblical image (the whale) with this abstract political<br />
notion (a commonwealth). As for the second, John Watk<strong>in</strong>s (1989, 111) for his part has underl<strong>in</strong>ed the<br />
ways <strong>in</strong> which speech and action are co-extensive <strong>in</strong> the figure of the Leviathan. 21<br />
‘<strong>In</strong> declar<strong>in</strong>g<br />
someth<strong>in</strong>g to be right or wrong, a sovereign is not describ<strong>in</strong>g it or mak<strong>in</strong>g a statement about it. His<br />
declaration is, to use John Aust<strong>in</strong>’s term, a “performative”’. The function of the Leviathan, <strong>in</strong> other<br />
words, is not merely one of reveal<strong>in</strong>g a pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g natural or div<strong>in</strong>e order (as <strong>in</strong> correspondence theory<br />
of the world), but of actual constitution. There are thus two parallel levels of constitution at play.<br />
Hobbes’s sovereigns actually ‘make the th<strong>in</strong>gs they command [sic]’. What the leviathan makes, above all<br />
is the social order itself, that which makes possible all ulterior conventions.<br />
Tak<strong>in</strong>g this l<strong>in</strong>e of argument beyond Watk<strong>in</strong>s (1989) and <strong>in</strong>deed Aust<strong>in</strong> (1962) himself, the type<br />
of performative power implied <strong>in</strong> the sovereign speech act could be said to be pre-locutionary. It is not<br />
simply an act that is supported by social conventions, as <strong>in</strong> illocutionary acts (such as the judge who<br />
pronounces a sentence). Rather, it is one that makes all social conventions possible <strong>in</strong> the first place. It is<br />
also therefore what enables perlocutionary acts to take effect (acts that operate by way of consequence<br />
rather than conventions per se, as <strong>in</strong> offend<strong>in</strong>g someone by <strong>in</strong>sult<strong>in</strong>g them), to name the other key type<br />
of speech act <strong>in</strong> speech act theory. Watk<strong>in</strong>s for his part develops his argument by way of the act of<br />
nam<strong>in</strong>g, compar<strong>in</strong>g the Leviathan’s speech act to that of the clergyman who christens a child.<br />
Remarkably, <strong>in</strong> a Lacanian perspective, the act of nam<strong>in</strong>g is precisely what <strong>in</strong>scribes the child <strong>in</strong>to the<br />
22<br />
22 For a different critique of Watk<strong>in</strong>’s use of performatives see Weiler 1970.<br />
30
symbolic order. This <strong>in</strong>itial <strong>in</strong>scription (whether performed by a clergyman or not) is what makes all<br />
social existence and <strong>in</strong>deed identity possible for the <strong>in</strong>dividual, as we will see <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g section.<br />
However the clergyman operates on pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g conventions. The Leviathan, for its part, is the signifier<br />
that ‘names’ the symbolic order; that is, it br<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong>to existence the symbolic order itself. Thus far ahead<br />
of Lacan, <strong>in</strong> co<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the symbol Hobbes names the <strong>in</strong>stance that makes all nam<strong>in</strong>g possible. The<br />
Leviathan is, to sum up the argument so far, the signifier that makes all signification possible.<br />
The Leviathan as the Master Signifier that Makes All Signification Possible<br />
The Leviathan as Lacan’s Other<br />
The function that the Leviathan performs at the collective level is that it is the master signifier<br />
that designates the symbolic at large – and thus the very possibility of such a level exist<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the first<br />
place. The second movement of my argument concerns the function it performs at the <strong>in</strong>dividual level. A<br />
key problem for Hobbes was to f<strong>in</strong>d the basis of the relationship between the <strong>in</strong>dividual and the<br />
sovereign with<strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dividual herself, <strong>in</strong> order to expla<strong>in</strong> and legitimise her entry <strong>in</strong>to the social<br />
contract as an <strong>in</strong>ternal necessity. <strong>In</strong> the words of the historian of political thought Michel Foucault (75,<br />
my translation):<br />
What, <strong>in</strong>deed, was the sovereign (…) for Hobbes? (…) [it was] the <strong>in</strong>stance capable of say<strong>in</strong>g no to<br />
the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s desiderata; the problem then be<strong>in</strong>g how this ‘no’ (…) could be legitimate and<br />
founded <strong>in</strong> this <strong>in</strong>dividual’s very own will.'<br />
Donn<strong>in</strong>g these Lacanian lenses allows us to see the extent to which Hobbes achieves exactly that; and<br />
far more so than Foucault had actually gauged. This part of my argument rests upon the third axis of the<br />
symbolic <strong>in</strong> Lacanian thought, flagged but left under-developed <strong>in</strong> the previous section, the symbolic as<br />
the order of the Other. I first return to flesh out that category <strong>in</strong> order to that show that the Leviathan<br />
designates the Other; which is also to say that it corresponds to the ‘Name of the Father’ <strong>in</strong> the Lacanian<br />
framework.<br />
31
The symbolic, as we have seen, is the order of the Other. The order <strong>in</strong>to which the <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
is <strong>in</strong>itially <strong>in</strong>scribed by be<strong>in</strong>g ‘named <strong>in</strong>to it’ is, <strong>in</strong>itially, fundamentally alien to the speechless <strong>in</strong>fant.<br />
The words that the <strong>in</strong>fant acquires <strong>in</strong>itially belong, quite literally, to a foreign world; an order that<br />
pre-exists it and where these words already hold given mean<strong>in</strong>gs. To learn to speak is to step <strong>in</strong>to this<br />
alien order. The symbolic is that world. It designates the place of the Other, constitut<strong>in</strong>g all at once<br />
the reservoir of pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g signifiers (its ‘treasure chest’ as Lacan (2006, 336) also calls it) and the<br />
orig<strong>in</strong>al addressee, that is, the <strong>in</strong>stance with whom the <strong>in</strong>fant first <strong>in</strong>teracts and <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g with<br />
whom it learns how to speak (the figure of the mother). To speak, to convey mean<strong>in</strong>g (to another<br />
social be<strong>in</strong>g) is only ever to draw upon pre-exist<strong>in</strong>g signifiers. To draw upon, or better said <strong>in</strong> a<br />
Lacanian sense to borrow: becom<strong>in</strong>g a social animal rests on a foundational debt; ‘the Great Debt’ as<br />
Lacan (2006, 74) called it. This is the symbolic debt that one <strong>in</strong>curs <strong>in</strong> borrow<strong>in</strong>g signifiers from the<br />
Other <strong>in</strong> order to be able to be understood, and therefore to be acknowledged as be<strong>in</strong>g part of (and<br />
function<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>) that symbolic order. Lacan (2006, 66-67) emphasises the mythical orig<strong>in</strong> of the<br />
‘symbol’ as both ‘a gift’ and a ‘pact’ that all at once <strong>in</strong>debts and b<strong>in</strong>ds together those who receive it<br />
(the Argonauts <strong>in</strong> his example), creat<strong>in</strong>g the basic social bond. 23<br />
What, then, underwrites this debt, and whence does it draw its power? This ‘stepp<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to’<br />
the Symbolic is not merely the acquisition of a positive, dist<strong>in</strong>ctly human, neurological capacity of<br />
speech a la Chomsky (1981). To the contrary, what Lacan draws out is that it is premised on a<br />
constitutive loss. Alienation with<strong>in</strong> the symbolic order is a basic condition of one’s becom<strong>in</strong>g a social<br />
23 Rites and celebrations, such as Christmas celebrations, offer a good place to observe the symbolic<br />
reproduce itself. The giv<strong>in</strong>g of gifts, to children <strong>in</strong> particular, can be read as <strong>in</strong>stantiat<strong>in</strong>g, with a happy<br />
face, the debt that is be<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>curred by their <strong>in</strong>sertion <strong>in</strong>to the symbolic order, by their becom<strong>in</strong>g<br />
adults (which will then lead them to ‘give back’ to other children <strong>in</strong> order to observe the rite, and<br />
thereby <strong>in</strong> turn partake <strong>in</strong> the further perpetuation of the symbolic).<br />
32
e<strong>in</strong>g. Lacan captures this foundational loss, or lack, with his concept of castration. To be clear, it has<br />
noth<strong>in</strong>g to do with the physical act of mutilation; we are not here <strong>in</strong> the realm of the real here but<br />
rather with<strong>in</strong> the symbolic. This is <strong>in</strong> fact the concept that centrally underp<strong>in</strong>s. It captures the orig<strong>in</strong>al<br />
forsak<strong>in</strong>g that each of us undergoes <strong>in</strong> order to accede to language.<br />
Subsequently, however, we forever uncomfortably straddle these two realms, the realm of<br />
immediate, preverbal experience (the world of raw needs, impulses, frustrations, anger and joy; of<br />
the imag<strong>in</strong>ary and the real); and the mediated realm of the symbolic, <strong>in</strong>to which we must first be<br />
<strong>in</strong>tegrated <strong>in</strong>to <strong>in</strong> order to express that experience. But to be able to express it is also to loose it <strong>in</strong> its<br />
raw, immediate form; here<strong>in</strong> lies the constitutive split that marks the tragedy of the human condition.<br />
Words can never completely convey exactly what the speaker wants to say. For it to be said it must<br />
be mediated by words that belong to everyone, words that hold generic mean<strong>in</strong>gs and are thus<br />
fundamentally ill-fitted for that unique and immediate impulse that led the subject to want to speak<br />
<strong>in</strong> the first place. As Lacan put it <strong>in</strong> his (1977) famous quips, ‘the th<strong>in</strong>g must be lost <strong>in</strong> order to be<br />
expressed’, or aga<strong>in</strong> that ‘speech is the murder of the th<strong>in</strong>g’. The ‘th<strong>in</strong>g’ <strong>in</strong> its orig<strong>in</strong>al, raw<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividualised form must be rel<strong>in</strong>quished so as to be fitted <strong>in</strong>to exist<strong>in</strong>g signifiers and thereby<br />
communicated. This forsak<strong>in</strong>g is a condition of entry <strong>in</strong>to the symbolic; it is what one gives up <strong>in</strong> order<br />
to be able to become a social, speak<strong>in</strong>g be<strong>in</strong>g. ‘Man [sic] speaks, then, but it is because the symbol<br />
has made him man’ (Lacan 2006, 72)<br />
The Social Contract as Castration and the Leviathan as the ‘Name of the Father’<br />
This symbolic debt casts a new light on the depths that, I argue, Hobbes plumbs with the<br />
understand<strong>in</strong>g of the social contract he puts forward. First, <strong>in</strong> contract<strong>in</strong>g with the Leviathan, the<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual forsakes her liberty <strong>in</strong> exchange for secur<strong>in</strong>g her life and, centrally, be<strong>in</strong>g rid of the fear of<br />
death. That fundamental freedom, I argue, is that which perta<strong>in</strong>s to the realm of immediate<br />
33
experience and unimpeded desires. Hobbes ‘natural man’ is the creature that does exactly as it<br />
pleases, takes exactly what its wants, call<strong>in</strong>g whatever suits its momentary appetite ‘good’ and<br />
whatever displeases him, ‘evil’. It wanders without any moral compass, his wants unh<strong>in</strong>dered. What<br />
Hobbes offers, I suggest, is fact a phantasmatical representation of the pre-verbal <strong>in</strong>dividual prior to<br />
its encounter with the symbolic and castration tak<strong>in</strong>g hold. Hobbes state of nature is an apt depiction<br />
of the world of Lacan’s <strong>in</strong>fant who, unaware of its limit, experiences itself as all-powerful. Its<br />
primordial liberty is what is ‘lost’ <strong>in</strong> order to enter the social order; but it is also, however, a<br />
fantasmatical liberty, an expression of this illusion of omnipotence. Seen <strong>in</strong> this light, what Hobbes<br />
draws out perhaps more than any other social contract theorist is the extreme vulnerability that<br />
‘natural man’ is <strong>in</strong>, which direly drives him <strong>in</strong>to enter<strong>in</strong>g the contract with the Leviathan. That ‘fear of<br />
death’ is a fundamental fear, ak<strong>in</strong> to that of the slave <strong>in</strong> Hegel’s master-slave relationship. It is not just<br />
the fear of dy<strong>in</strong>g after hav<strong>in</strong>g lived a free life. It is the fear of not be<strong>in</strong>g able to live <strong>in</strong> the first place, to<br />
establish oneself as an autonomous self.<br />
<strong>In</strong> this light, then, <strong>in</strong> the contract that is passed between the <strong>in</strong>dividual and the Leviathan, the<br />
Leviathan is, much more fundamentally than has been recognised, the Other upon whom the self<br />
fundamentally depends <strong>in</strong> order to acquire the means to become herself. That contract serves to<br />
<strong>in</strong>stitute not merely the subject of the monarch, not merely the political subject (or the subject of a<br />
certa<strong>in</strong> k<strong>in</strong>d of political order). Rather it founds the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject itself. It constitutes the <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
as political animal. This is the true mean<strong>in</strong>g of that symbolic pact: it is an exchange of the freedom to<br />
do however one pleases aga<strong>in</strong>st language and the ability to act politically. It is underwritten, and<br />
here<strong>in</strong> lies Hobbes’ Lacanian <strong>in</strong>sight, by a symbol, the Leviathan.<br />
34
<strong>In</strong> Lacanian thought, one signifier <strong>in</strong> particular performs a similar function, which he terms<br />
‘the name of the father’. 24 Lacan (1956) elaborates the concept notion <strong>in</strong> the same sem<strong>in</strong>ar III where<br />
he co<strong>in</strong>s the concept of ‘quilt<strong>in</strong>g po<strong>in</strong>ts’. He realises that there is a signifier more fundamental still,<br />
one that ‘holds no signifier’ (Lacan 1975, 74 my translation). This is properly the master signifier, or<br />
‘pure signifier’ as Juranville (1984) captures it, <strong>in</strong> that it attaches to no particular signified but <strong>in</strong>stead<br />
encompasses them all. It is the <strong>in</strong>stance underwrites all other signifiers, all cha<strong>in</strong>s of signification. It is<br />
what makes mean<strong>in</strong>g possible <strong>in</strong> the first place.<br />
Return<strong>in</strong>g to developmental perspective to flesh out this complex concept, the father is the<br />
<strong>in</strong>stance that triangulates the mother-child relationship and thereby opens it up to the symbolic.<br />
The father breaks the symbiosis between mother and child. This constitutes an essential loss; but it is<br />
also what ushers the child <strong>in</strong>to the symbolic order and thereby <strong>in</strong>stitutes the possibility of<br />
symboliz<strong>in</strong>g, of speak<strong>in</strong>g. Subsequently, this <strong>in</strong>stance detaches from the actual father <strong>in</strong> this<br />
primordial configuration, and becomes the Other that supports all social relationships, all possibility<br />
of <strong>in</strong>teraction between a ‘self’ and an ‘other’. Hence why it a signifier, ‘the name of the father’. It is<br />
the signifier that designates the order of Other and, <strong>in</strong> do<strong>in</strong>g so, underwrites the possibility of<br />
signification itself. <strong>In</strong> Hobbes’s world that signifier is none other than the Leviathan, the <strong>in</strong>stance that<br />
makes possible two units <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g with one another with a set of shared mean<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />
25<br />
The State as Speak<strong>in</strong>g Subject: Conclusions For IR Theory<br />
24 To be specific, Lacan terms it at different stages of theoretical development, ‘The Name-of-the-<br />
Father’, ‘master signifier’ or ‘S1’. These terms are thus <strong>in</strong>terchangeable at this f<strong>in</strong>al stage of my<br />
argument.<br />
25 To clarify, the mother (once aga<strong>in</strong>, as a figure <strong>in</strong> the structure of the relationship, not as a real person)<br />
is the imag<strong>in</strong>ary other, that is, the very first other, <strong>in</strong> the realm of identification and imag<strong>in</strong>ary capture;<br />
where as the father constitutes properly the Other).<br />
35
Read<strong>in</strong>g Hobbes through Lacan sh<strong>in</strong>es a drastically different light upon the <strong>in</strong>dividual that has stood <strong>in</strong><br />
the discipl<strong>in</strong>e’s sights ever s<strong>in</strong>ce it turned to Hobbes’ state of nature for its first cues about the<br />
structure of the <strong>in</strong>ternational system (<strong>in</strong> realism); and that rema<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> its sights even when it moved<br />
away from Hobbes to further distil the essence of these unit’s selves (<strong>in</strong> constructivism). Specifically, it<br />
restores the half of the Hobbesian <strong>in</strong>dividual that was hidden by IR’s lenses be<strong>in</strong>g fastened upon the<br />
state of nature alone. The key realist <strong>in</strong>sight that does carry over <strong>in</strong>to a Lacanian read<strong>in</strong>g is that the<br />
agonistic relations dramatized by his mythical nature, that state of permanent and latent warfare<br />
between the units, is constitutive and it is structural. Where the Lacanian read<strong>in</strong>g departs from<br />
realism, however, is that, with Hobbes’ full picture and the Leviathan back <strong>in</strong> sights, that unit is not a<br />
discrete, self-conta<strong>in</strong>ed entity or billiard ball; nor does it consequently yield an atomistic billiard board<br />
of utility-maximis<strong>in</strong>g units – whether collid<strong>in</strong>g or roll<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> the same direction.<br />
This <strong>in</strong>dividualist conception of the <strong>in</strong>dividual, for which Hobbes’ ‘natural man’ was first<br />
marshalled by rationalism, and which has not been entirely shaken off by constructivism’s concept of<br />
the ‘self’, actually falls short of appreciat<strong>in</strong>g just how far Hobbes reaches <strong>in</strong> foreground<strong>in</strong>g the fear of<br />
death as prime mover of this ‘natural man’s’ behaviour. This fear is <strong>in</strong>deed what drives the <strong>in</strong>dividual,<br />
and subsequently for realism, states, to seek security as their primary objective, to echo Aron’s (1966,<br />
72) words. But it is also what drives the <strong>in</strong>dividual to not dwell <strong>in</strong> the state of nature at all. Hence<br />
freez<strong>in</strong>g the narrative at this po<strong>in</strong>t to uphold only the state of nature <strong>in</strong> focus makes little sense. What<br />
is to be found there, a Lacanian read<strong>in</strong>g reveals, is noth<strong>in</strong>g but a wordless <strong>in</strong>fant, a naked be<strong>in</strong>g<br />
stripped of the trapp<strong>in</strong>gs of agency, a pre-actor, whose life would be very short <strong>in</strong>deed. The rational<br />
actor, for its part, that is, an actor presumably equipped with the means to act – who can, say, talk<br />
and walk, at the very least – is the one who leaves the state of nature as quickly as possible and<br />
contracts with the Leviathan <strong>in</strong> order to stay alive. That is the rational th<strong>in</strong>g to do. That survival is at<br />
stake is true <strong>in</strong> a fundamental, constitutive sense. It is what constitutes the <strong>in</strong>dividual per se; not a<br />
36
‘natural man’ or a powerless wordless <strong>in</strong>fant, but the full-blown <strong>in</strong>dividual, complete with the<br />
trapp<strong>in</strong>gs of agency. But it also means that the actor, the <strong>in</strong>stance who enters <strong>in</strong>to <strong>in</strong>teractions with<br />
other actors, is always already a social be<strong>in</strong>g, who does not exist outside of its relation to the<br />
Leviathan-Other. It is, <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’ dramatization, simply crushed by all the dangers that loom <strong>in</strong> the<br />
state of nature.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g a new basis for elaborat<strong>in</strong>g human agency first requires restor<strong>in</strong>g these two halves to<br />
Hobbes’ <strong>in</strong>dividual, his ‘natural man’ and his political, that is to say, speak<strong>in</strong>g subject. The picture thus<br />
emerg<strong>in</strong>g overlies Lacan’s subject. It reveals an <strong>in</strong>dividual fundamentally split between these two<br />
realms, the realm of immediate, unimpeded impulses (here is the state of nature) and the symbolic,<br />
the realm of language and the social; but also, importantly, an <strong>in</strong>dividual who (<strong>in</strong> normal<br />
circumstances) is not so rent between these two as to be reduced to paralysis. The speak<strong>in</strong>g subject<br />
forever straddles these two realms, one foot <strong>in</strong> either. That tension is the motor of her desire. As I<br />
have shown extensively elsewhere, because it centrally foregrounds the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s desire (as does<br />
Hobbes’), Lacan’s theorisation avoids the critique levelled at certa<strong>in</strong> post-structuralist theories of the<br />
subject, notably <strong>in</strong> the wake of Michel Foucault, for elim<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g agency (Epste<strong>in</strong> 2010). Lacan’s is<br />
<strong>in</strong>deed a fully-fledged theory of agency, only one that carefully circumscribes where the subject acts,<br />
and where she is acted upon by the structures, social and l<strong>in</strong>guistic, with<strong>in</strong> which she is enmeshed; <strong>in</strong><br />
accordance with a structurationist social theory. It is precisely because theirs are theories that centre<br />
upon this dynamic component of the human psyche, desire, that Lacan and Hobbes need to be<br />
reckoned with <strong>in</strong> apprais<strong>in</strong>g agency. Desire, <strong>in</strong> both Lacan and Hobbes, is the eng<strong>in</strong>e, not of the<br />
natural <strong>in</strong>dividual (that was the fear of death, <strong>in</strong> Hobbes) but of human agency itself – that is, of the<br />
whole of the <strong>in</strong>dividual rather than only half. Hobbes’ desire for power that so captured the<br />
37
imag<strong>in</strong>ation of the discipl<strong>in</strong>e’s found<strong>in</strong>g fathers is a desire to secure the means of one’s agency. 26 It is<br />
a desire for potency rather than for (material) power as conceptualised <strong>in</strong> IR. The splitt<strong>in</strong>g, that is<br />
dramatized <strong>in</strong> Hobbes by leav<strong>in</strong>g the state of nature and contract<strong>in</strong>g with the Leviathan, is<br />
constitutive of the <strong>in</strong>dividual’s desire and of her ability to act <strong>in</strong> the world<br />
Second, however, f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g a different foundation for theoris<strong>in</strong>g agency <strong>in</strong> IR also means<br />
com<strong>in</strong>g to terms with this foundational dependence of the self upon the Other; rather than revert<strong>in</strong>g<br />
to an <strong>in</strong>dividualist ontology that posits an autonomous, soveregn ‘Self’ <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g with a discrete<br />
‘Other’. The self-other relations that underp<strong>in</strong> constructivism’s social theory feature an alreadyconstituted<br />
‘Self’ encounter<strong>in</strong>g an already constituted ‘Other’ and <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g more or less friendlily<br />
with it, accord<strong>in</strong>g to their respective background histories, cultures etc. (Wendt 1999, 246-312). What<br />
is be<strong>in</strong>g confused here <strong>in</strong> Lacanian terms is the small ‘other’ (other social actors) with ‘the Other’<br />
underp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g the social order itself, impersonated <strong>in</strong> Hobbes’ drama by the Leviathan. Yet this<br />
Lacanian read<strong>in</strong>g of Hobbes speaks to constructivism’s central concern with constitution. It lays the<br />
foundation for a type of social theoris<strong>in</strong>g that centrally foregrounds the mutual constitution of the<br />
units and the system, but not merely at the po<strong>in</strong>t of orig<strong>in</strong>, soon to be forgotten as the units are then<br />
considered as discrete <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g entities. It draws the dependence of the self upon the Other as an<br />
ongo<strong>in</strong>g feature of political order itself. More than a social, <strong>in</strong> the sense entrenched by<br />
constructivism, his is a deeply relational ontology. With Hobbes and Lacan the social construction of<br />
the units and the systems f<strong>in</strong>ally runs all the way down.<br />
26 The realist legacy confuses the means of the desire for power with its ends. The key chapter here is<br />
chapter 11, and the key sentence (Hobbes p.70?):<br />
And the cause of this , is not alwayes that a man hopes for a more <strong>in</strong>tensive delight, than he has already<br />
atta<strong>in</strong>ed to; or that he cannot be content with a moderate power: but because he cannot assure the power<br />
and means to live well, which he hath present, without acquisition of more.<br />
The quest for more (goods or power) is not about the acquisition of more goods or power per se but<br />
rather about keep<strong>in</strong>g desire itself, the eng<strong>in</strong>e of human agency, <strong>in</strong> motion.<br />
38
Ultimately, what this read<strong>in</strong>g of Hobbes drew out is that the speak<strong>in</strong>g subject, theorised by<br />
Jacques Lacan and operationalised <strong>in</strong> discursive approaches, provides a theoretically coherent and<br />
methodologically parsimonious basis for conceptualis<strong>in</strong>g agency <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational politics. On the one<br />
hand it harbours a specific conception of the <strong>in</strong>dividual as a divided, speak<strong>in</strong>g subject, as we have<br />
seen. On other, however, as I have shown extensively elsewhere (Epste<strong>in</strong> 2010) the purchase of this<br />
concept empirically is that it actually suspends all these ontological considerations, and provides a<br />
parsimonious way of cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g to explore identity concerns. The parsimony stems from the absence<br />
of hav<strong>in</strong>g to hold any presumptions regard<strong>in</strong>g the actor’s selves. Discursive approaches consider<br />
simply what the actors say, <strong>in</strong> order to know, not just who they are, but what they achieve. This,<br />
moreover, is what enables the analysis to move beyond IR’s characteristic state-centrism: the actors<br />
com<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>to focus are simply those that have made a difference <strong>in</strong> a specific area of <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
politics – whether these be states or Non-Governmental Organizations (see also Epste<strong>in</strong> 2008).<br />
Lastly, to apprehend the actors of <strong>in</strong>ternational politics as speak<strong>in</strong>g subjects opens up the<br />
question of the nature of the structures <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g ways. First, no more than constructivism does it<br />
preclude considerations of the material structures that preoccupied the rationalists. Discursive<br />
approaches are not a totaliz<strong>in</strong>g enterprise that seeks to reduce everyth<strong>in</strong>g to words or to crowd out<br />
the central role of material <strong>in</strong>terests <strong>in</strong> shap<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>ternational politics. Rather, they simply casts the<br />
focus upon an additional type of social structures to those already <strong>in</strong> sight, namely the structures of<br />
language themselves. What a careful read<strong>in</strong>g of Hobbes shows is that they grow their roots with<strong>in</strong> IR’s<br />
own foundations.<br />
39
Citations<br />
Aron, Raymond (1966 [1962]), Peace and War. A Theory of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>, London: Weidenfeld and<br />
Nicolson.<br />
Aust<strong>in</strong>, John. 1962. How to Do Th<strong>in</strong>gs with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.<br />
Ball, Terence (1985), ‘Hobbes and the L<strong>in</strong>guistic Turn’ Polity, 17,4 739-760<br />
Bially Mattern, Jennifer (2005). Order<strong>in</strong>g <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Politics. Identity, Crisis and Representational Force. New<br />
York: Routledge.<br />
Brams, Steve J. (1985) Rational Politics. Decisions, Games and Strategy Wash<strong>in</strong>gton: CQ Press<br />
Brown, Keith (1980). ‘Thomas Hobbes and the Title Page of Leviathan’, Philosophy, 55, 410-411<br />
Bull, Hedley (1977), ‘Hobbes and the <strong>in</strong>ternational anarchy’, Social Research, 41: 717-738<br />
Bull, Hedley (1995/1977), The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order <strong>in</strong> World Politics, New York: Colombia<br />
University Press, second edition<br />
Buzan, Barry (2004) From <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> To World Society? English school theory and the social structure of<br />
globalization Cambridge: Cambridge University Press<br />
Campbell, D. (1998) Writ<strong>in</strong>g Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity, M<strong>in</strong>neapolis:<br />
University of M<strong>in</strong>nesota Press, 2 nd edition.<br />
Carr, Edward Hallet (1946) The Twenty Year Crisis 1919-1939, 2 nd edition, New York: Harper Perennial<br />
Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and B<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>g: The Pisa Lectures. Holland: Foris Publications.<br />
Repr<strong>in</strong>t. 7 th Edition. Berl<strong>in</strong> and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 1993.<br />
Claude, <strong>In</strong>is L. Jr (1962), Power and <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> New York: Random House<br />
40
Drulak, Petr (2010) ‘Polemics: Of Metaphors, Concepts and Reality – A Reply to Onuf’, Perspectives, 18,1, 77-86.<br />
Edk<strong>in</strong>s, Jenny (1999), Poststructuralism and <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>: Br<strong>in</strong>g<strong>in</strong>g the Political Back <strong>In</strong>, Boulder, Co<br />
and London: Lynne Rienner<br />
Epste<strong>in</strong>, Charlotte (2010) ‘Us<strong>in</strong>g Discourse to Study <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>: Can Jacques Lacan Help?’ European<br />
Journal of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> (available as Onl<strong>in</strong>e First)<br />
F<strong>in</strong>nemore, Martha and Sikk<strong>in</strong>k, Katheryn (2001), 'Tak<strong>in</strong>g Stock: the Constructivist Research Program <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> and Comparative Politics', Annual Review <strong>in</strong> Political Science, ', 391-416.<br />
F<strong>in</strong>nemore, Martha. 2001. ‘Export<strong>in</strong>g the English School?’ Review of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Studies 27 (3): 509-513.<br />
Foucault, M (2004). Sécurité, Territoire, Population. Cours au College de France 1977-78, Paris: Gallimard<br />
Freud, Sigmund (1950 [1913]), Totem and Taboo, translated by James Strachey, London: Routledge and Paul<br />
Kegan<br />
Gauthier, David (1969), The Logic of Leviathan Oxford: Oxford University Press<br />
Gauthier, David (1977), ‘The Social Contract as Ideology’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 6, 2, pp.130-164<br />
Gellner, Ernest (1974), ‘The Concept of a Story’, <strong>in</strong> Selected Philosophical Themes. London: Routledge and Paul<br />
Kegan. 95-112.<br />
Goldgeier, J. M. Tetlock, P. E. (2001) 'Psychology and <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> Theory' 67-92 Annual Review of<br />
Political Science 4.<br />
Greenhill, Brian (2008), 'Recognition and Collective Identity Formation <strong>in</strong> <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Politics' European Journal<br />
of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>, 14, 2, 343-368<br />
Hampton, Jean (1986), Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press<br />
41
Hansen, L.(2006), Security As Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War, London and New York:<br />
Routledge.<br />
Heller, Marc (1980), ‘The Uses and Abuses of the State of Nature <strong>in</strong> <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>’ Polity,13, 1. 21-32<br />
Hobbes, Thomas (1946 [1651] Leviathan, edited by Michael Oakeshott, Oxford : Basil Blackwell<br />
Howarth, D. (2000) Discourse, Buck<strong>in</strong>gham, Philadelphia: Open University Press<br />
Hymans, Jacques E.C. (2010), ‘The Arrival of Psychological Constructivism’, <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Theory, 2, 461-467<br />
Jahn, Beate (2000), The Cultural Construction of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>: The <strong>In</strong>vention of the State of Nature,<br />
Palgrave Macmillan<br />
Juignet, Patrick (2003), ‘Lacan, le symbolique et le signifiant’, Cl<strong>in</strong>iques Méditerranéennes, 68 :131-144.<br />
Juranville, Ala<strong>in</strong> (1984) Lacan et La Philosophie, Paris : Presses Universitaires de France<br />
Kaplan, Morton (1956) ‘How Sovereign is Hobbes’s Sovereign?’, The Western Political Quarterly, 9,2: 389-405<br />
Katzenste<strong>in</strong>, Peter J. (ed.) (1996)The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity <strong>in</strong> World Politics, New<br />
York: Columbia University Press<br />
Kavka, Gregory (1983) ‘Hobbes War of all Aga<strong>in</strong>st All’ Ethics 93: 291-310<br />
Keohane, R.O (1988), ‘<strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>In</strong>stitutions: Two Approaches’, <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Studies Quarterly, 32,4, 379-96.<br />
Kratochwil, Friedrich (1989), Rules, Norms and Decision. On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reason<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> and Domestic Affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press<br />
Lacan, Jacques ( 1964) Sem<strong>in</strong>ar XI, Les Quatre concepts fondamentaux de la Pyschanlayse, orig<strong>in</strong>al transcript<br />
consulted onl<strong>in</strong>e, http://nosubject.com/Jacques_Lacan:Sem<strong>in</strong>ars (last accessed 03/02/2010)<br />
42
Lacan, Jacques (1956), Sem<strong>in</strong>are III, les Psychoses, orig<strong>in</strong>al transcript consulted onl<strong>in</strong>e,<br />
http://nosubject.com/Jacques_Lacan:Sem<strong>in</strong>ars (last accessed 03/02/2010)<br />
Lacan, Jacques (1975), Encore, Paris: Editions du Seuil<br />
Lacan, Jacques (1988) Lacan, Jacques. The Sem<strong>in</strong>ar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John<br />
Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Lacan, Jacques (2006 [1977]) Ecrits: a Selection, translated by Alan Sheridan, London: Tavistock/Routledge<br />
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe, Chantal (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic<br />
Politics, London and New York: Verso.<br />
Lapid, Yosef and Kratochwil, Friedrich (eds.) (1996) The Return of Culture and Identity <strong>in</strong> IR Theory, Boulder,<br />
Colorado, Lynne Rienner Publishers.<br />
Lebow, Richard N. 2008. A Cultural Theory of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Lynn Doty, R. (2000), ‘Desire All the Way Down’, Review of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Studies, 26, 137-139.<br />
Malcolm, Noel (2002), ‘Hobbes’s Theory of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>’ <strong>in</strong> Aspects of Hobbes, Oxford: Oxford<br />
University Press, 432-456<br />
Malcom, Noel (2002), ‘Hobbes’s Theory of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>’, <strong>in</strong> Aspects of Hobbes Oxford: Oxford<br />
University Press, pp432-456.<br />
McLean, Ian (1981), The Social Contract <strong>in</strong> Leviathan and the Prisoner’s Dilemma Supergame’ Political Studies,<br />
29:339-51<br />
Mercer, Jonathan (2005), “Rationality and Psychology <strong>in</strong> <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Politics,” <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong><br />
Organization, vol. 59, pp. 77–106.<br />
Milliken, Jennifer (1999), 'The Study of Discourse <strong>in</strong> <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>: a Critique of Research and Methods,<br />
European Journal of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong>, 5,2, 225-254.<br />
43
Morgenthau, Hans J. (1960), Politics Among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace, 3 rd edition, New York:<br />
Alfred A. Knopf<br />
Neal, Patrick (1988), ‘Hobbes and Rational Choice Theory’, The Western Political Quarterly, 41, 4: 635-652<br />
Neumann, Iver (2004), 'Beware of organicism: the narrative self of the state', <strong>in</strong> Review of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Studies,<br />
30, 259-267.<br />
Onuf, Nicholas (1989), World of our Mak<strong>in</strong>g, Columbia, SC: University of South Carol<strong>in</strong>a Press.<br />
Ross, Andrew A.G. (2006) ‘Com<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> From the Cold: Constructivism and Emotions’, European Journal of<br />
<strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> 12, 2, 197-222<br />
Saussure, Ferd<strong>in</strong>and de (1995 [1916]), Cours de l<strong>in</strong>guistique générale, Paris : Editions Payet et Rivage.<br />
Scheuerman, William (2007). Carl Schmitt and Hans Morgenthau: Realism and Beyond, <strong>in</strong> Realism Reconsidered:<br />
the Legacy of Hans Morthenthau, Michael C. Williams (ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.62-92.<br />
Schmitt, Carl (2008 [1938]), The Leviathan <strong>in</strong> the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes. Mean<strong>in</strong>g and Failure of A<br />
Political Symbol, translated by George Schwab, Cambridge, Ma.: MIT press.<br />
Schwab, Georges (2008), ‘<strong>In</strong>troduction’ <strong>in</strong> Carl Schmitt, The Leviathan, xxxi-liii<br />
Sk<strong>in</strong>ner, Quent<strong>in</strong> (1996), Reason and Rhetoric <strong>in</strong> the Philosophy of Hobbes Cambridge: CUP<br />
Smith, Michael J. (1986), Realist Thought From Weber to Kiss<strong>in</strong>ger, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press<br />
Smith, R. M. (2004) 'Identities, <strong>In</strong>terests, and the Future of Political Science', 301-312, Perspective on Politics<br />
Smith, S. (2000), ‘Wendt’s World’, Review of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Studies, 26, 151-163<br />
Souriau, (1990) Vocabulaire d’Esthétique, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France<br />
44
Spr<strong>in</strong>gborg, Patricia (1996), Hobbes’s ‘Biblical Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth’ Political Theory, 23, 2, 353-375<br />
Stavrakakis, Yannis (1999), Lacan and the Political, London and New York: Routledge<br />
Stillman, Robert E. (1995) ‘Hobbes’s “Leviathan”: Monsters, Metaphors and Magic’, ELH 62, 4, 791-819.<br />
Strong, Tracy, (2008), ‘Carl Schmitt and Thomas Hobbes: Myth and Politics’, <strong>in</strong> Carl Schmitt, The Leviathan, viixxviii<br />
Tuck, Richard (1989) Hobbes Oxford: Oxford University Press.<br />
V<strong>in</strong>cent, John R. (1981) ‘The Hobbesian Tradition <strong>in</strong> Twentieth Century Thought’, Millennium, 10, 2: 91-101.<br />
Walker, R.J.B. (1992), <strong>In</strong>side/Outside: <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> <strong>Relations</strong> as Political Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge<br />
University Press.<br />
Waltz, Kenneth (1969 [1959]) Man, the State and War. A Theoretical Analysis, New York: Columbia University<br />
Press.<br />
Waltz, Kenneth (1979), Theory of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Politics New York: Columbia University Press.<br />
Watk<strong>in</strong>s, John (1989 [1965]), Hobbes’s System of Ideas, London: Gower Publish<strong>in</strong>g/London School of Economics,<br />
2 nd ed.<br />
Weiler, Gershon (1970), Hobbes and Peformatives, Philosophy, 45, 173 (210-220)<br />
Wendt, Alexander. (1999). Social Theory of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<br />
Wight, Mart<strong>in</strong> (1992) <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Theory: The Three Traditions London: Royal <strong>In</strong>stitute for <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Affairs<br />
Williams, Michael (1996), ‘Hobbes and <strong>in</strong>ternational relations: a reconsideration ’<strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong> Organization, 50,<br />
2, 213-36.<br />
45
Wolfers, Arnold (1962), Discord and Collaboration, Baltimore: John Hopk<strong>in</strong>s Press.<br />
Zehfuss, M. (2001), “Constructivism and Identity: A Dangerous Liaison,” European Journal of <strong><strong>In</strong>ternational</strong><br />
<strong>Relations</strong>, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 315–348.<br />
Zizek, Slavoj (2003), Jacques Lacan: Society, politics, Ideology, London and New York: Routledge<br />
46