1 Opening Up Space for a Reformational Approach to the Study of World Politics Stichting voor Christelijke Philosophie Pre-Conference Seminars:”The Future of Creation Order” Amsterdam, Aug. 2011 Lucas G. Freire University of Exeter Department of Politics Streatham, EX4 4RJ UK Abstract: International Relations (IR) is characterised by intensive theoretical debates. Although some theories seem to predominate, there is no unanimous agreement on a single 'paradigm' that would set forth the rules of the discipline. The moment is, therefore, one of opportunity for the (re)introduction of Christian ways of thinking theoretically about world politics. My intention in this talk is to clarify this opportunity. I suggest a research agenda for 'Reformational IR' based on the philosophy of Dooyeweerd on three accounts. First, there is the need for critical engagement with those approaches that occupy disciplinary space in IR. It is essential to understand IR theoretical thought against the background of the religious ground-motives that have driven it. It is also crucial to critique reductionist IR theory as both an explanation for the current theoretical plurality of the field and a way of opening up space for Reformational, anti-reductionist theory. Secondly, we need to consider how to adapt philosophy to special theory. Particularly relevant in the IR context are issues of ontology, epistemology and causation. Reflection on how to bridge between general formulations on those areas and specific IR theory is much needed if we want to proceed with a Dooyeweerdian approach. Finally, we will have to theorise world politics as such, and this requires a series of reflections on the nature of our object, an understanding of order and change in global assemblages and an exploration of the implications of looking at them as particular 'individuality-structures' operating under all 'modal aspects'. I The current status of the academic discipline of International Relations (IR) is one of theoretical fragmentation. There is an abundance of clearly distinct research programmes in the field (Dunne, Kurki, & Smith, 2010; Holsti, 1989; Lijphart, 1974; Walt, 1998). They may converge in their interest in the so-called 'international system' as an object of study. They may even converge in their attitude towards mutual disagreement. However, the fact still remains that IR is analogous to the way some understand the international system itself: a number of interacting units, each sovereign in their own jurisdiction, trying to do their own thing in suspicion of any foreigners tampering with whatever it is that they do. Yet – and still in the analogy – there is possibility for inter-unit integration and cooperation. Some theories are more compatible with others. Some are still in an opposing side of the field. More importantly: just like the international system, IR scholarship has