Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

International political economy and the question of ethics

2010; Routledge; Volume: 17; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/09692290903507201

1466-4526

James Brassett, Christopher Holmes,

Global Peace and Security Dynamics

ABSTRACT The article provides a critical analysis of how IPE might engage with the question of ethics. After reviewing existing calls to bring ethics and ethical considerations within the mainstream of the discipline several questions are made. Drawing from critical and post-structural thought, it is argued that existing accounts of ethics privilege a problematic separation between ethics and power. Power is depicted as obligation – as power over –while ethics is depicted as an ameliorative other to power. We draw out several limits in this separation – including the reification of market subjectivities of contract, individualism, and a problematic global scale – arguing that ethics should be seen as a constitutive discourse like any other. Power is re-phrased as productive, as the power to. We conclude by articulating a pragmatist research agenda that seeks to foster the kernel 'possibility' in discourses of ethics while retaining sensitivity to the potential constitutive 'violence' of ethics. Given this dilemma, we argue that ongoing practices of 'resistance' – in both practical and scholarly senses – should be a central problematic for engaging with the (political) question of ethics in IPE. KEYWORDS: EthicsIPEpowerpragmatismresistance ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to Alan Finlayson, Wyn Grant, Justin Greaves, Richard Higgott, Tony McGrew, Owen Parker, Jan Aart Scholte, Len Seabrooke, Tim Sincalir, Matthew Watson, participants in the Warwick Political Economy Reading Group, and three anonymous reviewers for comments and criticisms on previous articulations of the arguments presented here. The argument has greatly benefited from their insights. Any faults remain our own. Notes 1 We draw this notion of violence primarily from Judith Butler and her various critiques of ethical violence, but similar points can be made/read in relation to Zizek's accounts of 'symbolic' and 'systemic' violence. Other candidates might be 'harm' or 'suffering' and we have explored these foundational ethical subjects elsewhere (CitationBrassett and Bulley, 2007). In this paper, we use violence instead of harm merely to shy away from the close association of the latter term with notions of 'intentionality' and 'action'. 2 Another potential way in which these ideas might be explored could, for example, draw upon Colin Hay's (1997: 49) critical reading of Lukes' three faces of power where he argues that Lukes' elision of the critical, analytical and ethical means that 'power becomes a purely pejorative concept by definitional fiat. If to identify a power relationship is to engage in a critique of that relationship, then it is clear that power cannot be exercised responsibly or legitimately. The essence of power is negative, the purpose of critique to expose power relations as a potential means to their elimination.' 3 This view is developed more broadly in the work of neo-Gramscians in relation to questions of how world order might be understood/changed. See, for instance, CitationCox (1981). 4 In work with Allen Buchanan (CitationBuchanan and Keohane 2006: 406) this perspective on the legitimacy of global governance is elaborated in explicitly ethical terms: 'Essential to our account is the idea that to be legitimate a global governance institution must possess certain epistemic virtues that facilitate the ongoing critical revision of its goals, through interaction with agents and organizations outside the institution. A principled global public standard of legitimacy can help citizens committed to democratic principles to distinguish legitimate institutions from illegitimate ones and to achieve a reasonable congruence in their legitimacy assessments.' 5 http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/michaelwalzerinterview.html. 6 Although more extreme forms of the Mont Pelerin liberal tradition can be found much later in the twentieth century, for example, see Rothbard (1982) and CitationHoppe (1993). 7 Our intention here is not to pigeonhole contemporary IPE into market fundamental and critical 'camps', each with immovable epistemological dogmas. To do so would be an injustice to the variety and subtlety of the work on offer. Instead, the above analysis – and our argument in general – is focused on the underlying problematiques that have come to define IPE as a discipline. Only a relatively small group of theorists would actively identify themselves as either market fundamentalists or strict critical theorists, but the continuum between the two extremes neatly captures the conception of power and ethics that arise as a result of the intellectual traditions that IPE has drawnupon. 8 What is provided here is necessarily a broad cut at the literature that is meant to illustrate the consequences of our approach for thinking about international political theory. More substantial treatments of the limits of current thinking about global justice amongst analytical political theorists can be found in CitationBrassett (2009b) and CitationBrown (2007). 9 For instance, 'The Space Hijackers' are a London based group of 'Anarchitects' who seek to reclaim, through subverting, the space of the world from corporate logics. They engage in non-violent protest such as their regular Anarchist vs. Capitalist Cricket Match in the City of London: 'an opportunity for two opposing cultures and world views to take to the crease and prove their worth like Ladies and Gentlemen'. More directly, they wear t-Shirts that say 50 per cent off everything and walk around Top Shop causing chaos, or more critically, they put leaflets detailing the relationship of a particular retailer to the use of sweatshops. And, they actively subvert the logics of global trade governance identified above, as their website states: 'The Space Hijackers will not be held responsible for any trouble that you get into after reading the content of this website. All of the views and actions contained within it are completely ludicrous and we actually believe the opposite. All of the actions and projects documented in this site are fake; we are just very good at Photoshop. Do yourself a favour, go out buy a McDonalds, wash it down with a Starbucks whilst sitting in the window seat checking out all the other people in their GAP clothes just like yours. You will find that life is much more fulfilling if you go down the path of the Global Capitalists. Sweatshop labour is a lie invented by mean hearted lefties, so that you can save your money to buy their papers. Town planners do an excellent job of protecting local character (Which incidentally is over-rated anyway). What we actually need are more coffee shops and Malls and less local small run businesses. After all this is what the punters want isn't it? The Space Hijackers believe completely in the good hard work of the IMF, World Bank and WTO. We think big multinationals are brilliant, and all wear Nike thongs. If you still want to see the poorly designed, badly spelt, spoof anarchist/anti-capitalist/troublemaking website, please clickbelow'.