MODULE 1.7
Politics in a Global Age:
Moving Beyond the Domestic/International Divide?
Traditionally, political science has concentrated on the state and its governance structures, examining its institutional framework, power dynamics, and decision-making processes. This state-centric view inherently ties politics to spatial and territorial boundaries, with borders playing a critical role. This perspective differentiates domestic politics, which focuses on internal order and regulation, from international politics, which deals with relations among states. Sovereignty—the supreme authority of a state—is often seen as a "hard shell" dividing the internal (domestic) sphere from the external (international) sphere. This division underpins the conventional separation between the orderly governance within states and the anarchic nature of international relations, where no higher authority exists beyond the sovereign state.
This state-centric paradigm also shaped the academic division of labor: political science explores states as macro-level actors within their internal systems, while international relations (IR) examines states as micro-level participants in the broader international arena.
However, globalization and other transformative trends have challenged this framework. Cross-border flows of people, goods, capital, information, and ideas have rendered state borders increasingly permeable. For example, the 2007–09 global financial crisis highlighted how domestic economies are deeply influenced by global events. Similarly, digital technologies like the internet and mobile communication transcend national boundaries, making traditional control mechanisms less effective. These developments blur the lines between domestic and international politics, prompting some to argue for dissolving the disciplinary boundaries between political science and IR.
Rather than existing as isolated spheres, politics today operates across interconnected levels: global, regional, national, and local. This shift complicates political analysis, as it demands the integration of diverse topics—elections, political parties, and national governance—with issues such as war, terrorism, poverty, and international organizations. The growing interdependence between domestic and international spheres highlights the need for holistic approaches to understanding politics.
Still, the domestic/international divide remains relevant, albeit less rigid. States, while transformed by globalization, continue to wield significant influence in both spheres. Sovereignty may no longer serve as an impenetrable "hard shell," but it persists as a "soft shell," maintaining a degree of separation between internal and external political dynamics.
This course adopts a domestic-focused perspective on political interactions, while recognizing the profound impact of global interconnectedness. For a complementary approach, the companion volume, Global Politics (2011), explores international and global dimensions, shedding light on issues, ideas, and theories traditionally associated with international relations.
Politics and International Relations: Two Disciplines or One?
Are political science and international relations (IR) distinct disciplines, or are they better understood as subfields or different levels of analysis within a unified discipline of political analysis? Historically, the two have developed separately. Political science emerged as an academic discipline in the mid-19th century in the United States and Europe, focusing on the workings of states and their internal dynamics. By contrast, IR took shape after World War I, motivated by the pursuit of enduring peace. This foundational focus on policy relevance has set IR apart from political science, which traditionally lacked a similar imperative.
The division between politics and IR reflects their respective focus areas: political science examines domestic issues and developments within states, while IR studies international phenomena, focusing on interactions between states. Over time, each field has cultivated its own methodologies and theoretical frameworks, achieving a level of disciplinary distinctiveness comparable to fields like economics or sociology.
However, this disciplinary divide has always been somewhat arbitrary. Politics and IR share overlapping concerns and ask similar questions, albeit at different levels of analysis. Both are fundamentally concerned with power—its distribution, exercise, and consequences—and both emphasize the state as a central actor. While political science typically views the state as a macro-level entity, IR often considers it a micro-level participant in a larger international system. Similarly, both disciplines grapple with the tension between conflict and cooperation in social and political relationships.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the division between politics and IR has become more problematic. The domestic and international spheres are now deeply intertwined, with issues like globalization, climate change, multi-level governance, security, and transnational crime transcending traditional boundaries. These developments challenge the notion of rigid disciplinary divisions and suggest that a more integrated approach may better reflect the complexities of contemporary political life.