{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02477291494632535, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.046511627906977, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding international practices from the internal point of view

The article is written in response to a recent flurry of studies on international practices. In investigating this theme, International Relations scholars have drawn on diverse traditions in sociology, philosophy and organisational theory such as Bourdieu’s theory of practice, Dewey’s and James’ pragmatism, communities of practice approach and actor-network theory. One preliminary question presupposed by these investigations however is, what standpoint (if any) enables us to make sense of international practices? Our central thesis is that the proper understanding of practices – including international ones – requires the internal point of view (practice internalism). To make our case, we develop an analytic distinction between two basic standpoints: practice externalism, represented by Adler and Pouliot’s approach to international practices, and practice internalism, represented by Wittgensteinian philosopher Peter Winch. Following Winch, we argue that the practice of social science is externalist, and point to the limitations of an analysis of international practices predicated on externalist, social scientific premises.