Review of special issue on ‘IR, multiplicity and the problematique of difference’

This is a proposed special issue devoted to the research programme on multiplicity as initiated by Justin Rosenberg. The submission includes 10 articles in addition to an introduction. One of the big strengths of this set of articles is the width of themes and subfields. They illustrate well the relevance of the key analytical ideas of ‘multiplicity’ to diverse areas and thereby support the central claim that this can serve as a new unifying frame for IR. At the same time, the width is promising in terms of gathering critical insights to help the programme develop. However, the articles do not fully deliver on this yet in their present state. Two main weaknesses account for this: first the articles are generally too uncritical, often satisfied by showing the possibility of applying Rosenberg’s terms to their case (either ‘multiplicity’ as such or its ‘five consequences’) without sufficiently exploring what their study adds to a programme that is still in a formative period. (My comment decidedly does not imply that every article should overstate conclusions about what is ‘wrong’ or ‘missing’ in the approach under investigation, as too often has become the standard article format, but they should be more ambitious in drawing out lessons about how to develop, refine and extend the approach.) Second the alleged angle of the special issue, ‘the problematique of difference’, disappears from sight in most of the articles. It is from the start an ambiguous angle taken, because it is unclear whether it is meant as emphasizing a quality with the multiplicity programme or as an intervention in relation to it. Possibly, this is a productive ambiguity, but in any case the ‘problematique of difference’ has to be brought out more clearly in the whole collection. I will comment in most detail on the introduction, both because it is the one that needs to be clarified to carry the rationale of the issue and because many of the comments here are relevant to several of the other articles. The comments come in a maybe slightly unconventional ‘discussing’ format. I do not want to take (only) a judgmental position as ‘referee’ and point thumbs up or down, because I fundamentally find the project promising but want to push the contributors to develop their arguments further and be more respectful of existing literatures. Thus, my comments are on most points intended not to shoot down but to stimulate.