Why not multiplicities? Dismantling the nation–state–society

The concept of “multiplicity” has the potential to radically transform the conceptual architecture of International Relations (IR) and social theory—however, that potential is being stymied by the “nation–state–society” paradigm. In this paradigm, which is dominant across the social sciences, the basic units are defined by (geo)political borders that contain or encage, to varying degrees of success, sociological and ideological content. Thus, while the leading proponents of “multiplicity” theorize the fact that interaction is a constitutive dimension of existence, thereby surmounting the obstacle of “methodological nationalism,” they still accept the neat internalist ontology of the “nation–state–society,” starting from the gaze of the state and defining “society” in (geo)political terms. Such a commitment is misguided because, among other reasons, it fails to capture the general consequences of non-state social entities interacting with each other and with states. Therefore, to fully realize the critical value of “multiplicity” for IR and social theory, we must reject the nation–state–society and posit, instead, different kinds of coexisting social entities nested within and overlapping each other. The horizon of our shared theoretical endeavor ought to be a non-reductive unified ontology that admits of multiple multiplicities, robustly conceptualized, grounded, and placed in relation to each other ontologically, causally, and historically. Developing an expanded approach to multiplicity can also help facilitate more substantive debates between theorists coming from different traditions and disciplines about, for example, the nature of these entities, their causal powers, and how they interact.