Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:34:09.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control power as a special case of protean power: thoughts on Peter Katzenstein and Lucia Seybert's Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2020

Emanuel Adler Open the ORCID record for Emanuel Adler [Opens in a new window]
Emanuel Adler*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Corresponding author E-mail: emanuel.adler@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Human experience of control is an illusion; all forms of power are a special, transient, and unstable case of protean power. Taking risks is governed by critical uncertainty less because of our lack of perfect knowledge than because the world is physically and socially indeterminate. Power, thus, lies not only in agents' potential to dominate each other, but also in acting in concert to turn propensities into reality. Radical uncertainty is, therefore, not necessarily bad news. Whether protean power endangers or protects humanity depends less on calculating risks than on agents practicing common humanity values. I revise Katzenstein's and Seybert's concepts accordingly and illustrate by discussing Artificial Intelligence's challenges to humanity.

Keywords

indeterminismpracticescommon humanity value
Type
Symposium: Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics: Edited by Jacques E. C. Hymans
Information
International Theory , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 422 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Adler, Emanuel. 2005. Communitarian International Relations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adler, Emanuel. 2019. World Ordering: A Social Theory of Cognitive Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2011. Performance and Power. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1965. On Revolution. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1970. On Violence. Orlando, FL: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Ayoub, Phillip M. 2018. “Protean Power in Movement: Navigating Uncertainty in the LGBT Rights Revolution.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter and Seybert, Lucia, 79–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Richard J. 2018. Why Read Hannah Arendt Now. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Chia, Robert. 1999. “A ‘Rhizomic’ Model of Organizational Change and Transformation: Perspective from a Metaphysics of Change.” British Journal of Management 10 (3): 209–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colapietro, Vincent. 2009. “A Revised Portrait of Human Agency: A Critical Engagement with Hans Joas's Creative Appropriation of the Pragmatic Approach.” European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy 1 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
Connolly, William. 2011. A World of Becoming. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Elkjaer, Bente, and Simpson, Barbara. 2006. “Towards a Pragmatic Theory of Creative Practice.” Paper presented at the Second Organization Studies Summer Workshop Return to Practice: Understanding Organization as It Happens, Mykonos, Greece, 15–16 June.Google Scholar
Harari, Yuval Noah. 2018. 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. New York: Spiegel & Grau.Google Scholar
Joas, Hans. 1996. The Creativity of Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Seybert, Lucia A.. 2018a. “Uncertainty, Risk, Power and the Limits of International Relations Theory.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 27–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Seybert, Lucia A.. 2018b. “Power Complexities and Political Theory.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 267–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1959. “The Propensity Interpretation of Probability.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37): 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1982a. “The Place of Mind in Nature.” In Mind in Nature, edited by Elvee, Richard Q., 31–59. San Francisco: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1982b. “The Case for Indeterminism.” In The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. Vol. 1 of Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, edited by Bartley, W. W.. Chapter IV. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1990. A World of Propensities. Bristol: Thoemmes.Google Scholar
Poutanen, Petro. 2013. “Creativity as Seen Through the Complex Systems Perspective.” Interdisciplinary Studies Journal 2 (3): 207–21.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilya. 1980. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilya, and Stengers, Isabelle. 1984. Order Out of Chaos: Man's New Dialogue with Nature. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1996. Process Metaphysics: An Introduction to Process Philosophy. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2018. “Protean Power and Revolutions in Rights.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter and Seybert, Lucia, 59–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Hilmar. 2014. “Current Issues in Practice Theory.” Working Paper presented at “Demanding Ideas: Where Theories of Practice Might Go Next”, 18–20 June, Windermere, UK. Available at http://www.demand.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/wp7-schaefer.pdf.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Seibt, Johanna. 2017. “Process Philosophy.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N.. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/.Google Scholar
Seybert, Lucia A., and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2018. “Protean Power and Control Power: Conceptual Analysis.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shove, Elizabeth, Pantzar, Mika, and Watson, Matt. 2012. The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 2015. Quantum Mind and Social Science: Unifying Physical and Social Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Alfred North. 1978. Process and Reality, Corrected Edition, edited by Ray Griffin, David and Sherburne, Donald W.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Harlan Garnett. 1975. “Complexity as a Theoretical Problem: Wider Perspectives in Political Theory.” In Organized Social Complexity: Challenge to Politics and Policy, edited by La Porte, Todd R., 281–331. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Harlan Garnett. 1978. “Complexity as a Theoretical Problem.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar