‘Baleful Influence’: A Conceptual Analysis of Militarism

Militarism, broadly defined as a set of social practices that highlight the utility of organized violence, plays a central role in global security and military affairs. Yet International Relations (IR) research has long struggled with militarism. This paper considers the capacity of existing conceptual and methodological approaches to engage with the concept, in turn assessing militarism’s candidacy to become a ‘core concept’ in the field. We first highlight the diverse and evolving usage of the concept of militarism over time and across different knowledge forms. From there we move on to examine key tensions within IR accounts, suggesting that ‘historical,’ ‘scientific,’ and ‘political’ approaches stand to gain from a more rigorous engagement with each other. We conclude with an appeal for sustained attention to militarism as concept and its historical and political dimensions in particular.

Authors

Publication Details

Published
2025-08-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/u7cdn_v1
Primary Topic
Military History and Strategy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

‘Baleful Influence’: A Conceptual Analysis of Militarism

Srdjan Vucetic, Bryan Mabee
Military History and Strategy
article

‘Baleful Influence’: A Conceptual Analysis of Militarism

Srdjan Vucetic, Bryan Mabee
article en

Abstract

Militarism, broadly defined as a set of social practices that highlight the utility of organized violence, plays a central role in global security and military affairs. Yet International Relations (IR) research has long struggled with militarism. This paper considers the capacity of existing conceptual and methodological approaches to engage with the concept, in turn assessing militarism’s candidacy to become a ‘core concept’ in the field. We first highlight the diverse and evolving usage of the concept of militarism over time and across different knowledge forms. From there we move on to examine key tensions within IR accounts, suggesting that ‘historical,’ ‘scientific,’ and ‘political’ approaches stand to gain from a more rigorous engagement with each other. We conclude with an appeal for sustained attention to militarism as concept and its historical and political dimensions in particular.

Openalex Percentile: Top 73%
Military History and Strategy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.