Michael N. Barnett

1. Introduction

Michael N. Barnett (b. 1960) is a contemporary American scholar of international relations whose work has been central to the development of constructivism and to critical debates on humanitarianism, international organizations, and Jewish political identity. Writing at the intersection of empirical IR research and political and moral theory, he examines how global politics is shaped by norms, emotions, and historically specific understandings of moral obligation.

Barnett’s scholarship has unfolded in several distinct but interconnected strands. Early work helped codify constructivist approaches that treat international rules and institutions as social practices grounded in shared meanings rather than as neutral constraints or tools of power. Subsequent research, particularly on international organizations, portrays global bureaucracies as actors with their own moral logics and forms of authority, thereby questioning state‑centric and strictly rationalist views of global governance.

His later historical and sociological studies of humanitarianism analyze emergency relief, development, and human rights advocacy as part of an evolving “empire of humanity” that organizes compassion, responsibility, and inequality. A further line of inquiry investigates Zionism, American Jewish foreign policy, and the politics of memory, contributing to debates in political theology and the ethics of nationalism.

Across these domains, Barnett’s work is frequently cited for showing how suffering, solidarity, and identity become politically meaningful within particular institutional and historical contexts. Supporters regard him as a key figure linking IR theory to normative questions about global justice and responsibility, while critics sometimes question the scope of constructivist explanations or the normative implications of his historical reconstructions. His writings remain influential across international relations, humanitarian studies, and adjacent areas of moral and political philosophy.

2. Life and Historical Context

Michael N. Barnett was born in Los Angeles in 1960 and was educated in political science in the United States during the late Cold War. Precise institutional details of his early training are not always consistently reported, but most accounts indicate that he received a standard graduate education in international relations and comparative politics, with an empirical focus on the Middle East. This training exposed him to prevailing realist and liberal theories that emphasized material power, rational choice, and regimes.

His academic career took shape in the late 1980s and 1990s, a period marked by the end of the Cold War, the first Gulf War, the Oslo peace process, and major institutional experiments in peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. These developments created a fertile context for questioning strictly state‑centric, power‑based accounts of world politics and for exploring the role of ideas, norms, and identities. Barnett’s early empirical work on Arab politics and regional security, as well as his attention to changing patterns of cooperation in the Middle East, fed into his engagement with emerging constructivist debates.

Barnett’s later appointments at leading research universities and at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs positioned him within policy‑relevant conversations on UN reform, peacebuilding, and humanitarian intervention. Over the 1990s–2010s, he participated in a broader intellectual shift in IR toward sociological, historical, and ethical questions.

The broader historical context also included the Rwandan genocide, the wars in the former Yugoslavia, the rise of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, the attacks of 11 September 2001, and the Iraq War. Many commentators see Barnett’s turn to humanitarianism and to Jewish political identity as responses to these events and to long‑standing debates about sovereignty, human rights, and the legacies of the Holocaust in American and Israeli politics.

3. Intellectual Development and Constructivist Turn

Barnett’s intellectual trajectory is often described in terms of a progressive move from conventional IR theory toward a constructivist and interpretive approach, followed by extensions into ethics, humanitarianism, and political theology.

From Mainstream IR to Norms and Identities

During his early training, Barnett engaged with realism (emphasizing power and anarchy) and liberal institutionalism (highlighting cooperation under anarchy). His empirical research on the Middle East, however, led him to question whether material interests and security dilemmas fully explained patterns of conflict and cooperation. He began to emphasize the importance of shared understandings, regional solidarities, and Arab identity in shaping state behavior.

Collaboration and the Constructivist Turn

In the late 1980s and 1990s, Barnett joined a cohort of scholars advancing constructivism. His collaboration with Friedrich Kratochwil in Rules, Norms, and Decisions articulated how international actors rely on practical and legal reasoning, not just instrumental calculation. With Emanuel Adler, he developed the concept of security communities, highlighting how war can become “unthinkable” among states sharing identities and expectations of peaceful change.

These projects contributed to a broader shift in IR that questioned materialist and rationalist assumptions, arguing that state interests themselves are shaped by norms and social interaction. Barnett’s work in this phase drew on sociology of knowledge, hermeneutics, and theories of rule‑following, tying IR to debates in social and political theory.

From Constructivism to Institutions and Ethics

By the late 1990s, Barnett’s constructivist concerns turned toward international organizations and humanitarianism, where he examined how bureaucracies and moral discourses configure power and obligation. Some commentators view this as a deepening of his earlier constructivist commitments, extending them to questions of moral authority and the politics of suffering. Others describe it as a partial move toward critical and historical approaches that place greater emphasis on power asymmetries, empire, and the ambivalence of moral projects.

4. Major Works and Central Themes

Barnett’s major books and edited volumes map onto several recurring themes: norms and rule‑following, international organizations as moral bureaucracies, the history of humanitarianism, and Jewish political identity.

Norms, Rules, and Security Communities

In Rules, Norms, and Decisions, Barnett and Kratochwil explore how rules structure decision‑making and how international and domestic actors justify actions through normative argument. Security Communities develops the idea that shared identities and values underpin zones of stable peace, connecting empirical case studies with broader issues of collective identity and trust.

International Organizations and Bureaucratic Power

Rules for the World, co‑authored with Martha Finnemore, advances a constructivist theory of international organizations as autonomous bureaucracies. The book argues that organizations such as the UN or the World Bank wield power through their capacity to define categories, generate expertise, and promote particular moral vocabularies of appropriateness.

Humanitarianism and Moral Orders

In Empire of Humanity and the edited volume Humanitarianism in Question, Barnett examines the historical evolution of humanitarianism, distinguishing different “ages” of humanitarian practice and tracing tensions between altruism, politics, and empire. These works emphasize how humanitarianism both alleviates and can reproduce inequalities.

Zionism and Jewish Political Identity

The Star and the Stripes surveys the history of American Jewish engagement with foreign policy, focusing on the interplay between Jewish identity, the memory of the Holocaust, attitudes toward Israel, and commitments to liberal internationalism. The book situates these debates within broader discussions about nationalism, diaspora, and moral responsibility.

5. Core Ideas: Norms, Institutions, and Moral Orders

Barnett’s core theoretical ideas revolve around how norms, institutions, and moral orders co‑constitute international politics.

Norms and Rule‑Following

Drawing on Rules, Norms, and Decisions, Barnett treats norms as more than external constraints. They are shared standards of appropriateness that shape how actors understand their own interests and what counts as a legitimate action. Proponents of this view emphasize that:

• Actors engage in reason‑giving and justification, appealing to norms.
• Rule‑following involves interpretation and social practice, not mechanical compliance.

Critics from rationalist traditions counter that many behaviors can still be modeled as strategic adaptation to incentives, with norms serving as informational or coordination devices rather than as autonomous sources of obligation.

International Organizations as Normative Institutions

In Rules for the World, Barnett and Finnemore argue that international organizations (IOs) possess bureaucratic cultures and professional norms that guide their behavior. They exercise power not only through resources but by:

• Defining problems and categories (e.g., “refugee,” “development”).
• Establishing standards of “best practice” and “appropriate” conduct.

An alternative perspective in IR maintains that IOs primarily reflect state interests and function as tools of powerful states, viewing Barnett’s claims about organizational autonomy and moral agency as overstated.

Moral Orders and the Construction of Humanity

Across his work, Barnett suggests that global politics is organized by historically specific moral orders—shared understandings of who counts as human, whose suffering matters, and what obligations exist. This theme is most explicit in his notion of an “empire of humanity,” where humanitarian norms, legal rules, and emotional economies together define hierarchies of concern.

Some commentators align this with critical and postcolonial theories that examine how universalist moral claims can mask asymmetries of power. Others argue that, despite its critical tone, Barnett’s framework still relies on a broadly liberal moral vocabulary, potentially underplaying alternative ethical traditions.

6. Humanitarianism, Emotion, and the Politics of Suffering

Barnett’s work on humanitarianism centers on how emotion, morality, and power structure responses to suffering.

Historical “Ages” of Humanitarianism

In Empire of Humanity, he proposes that humanitarianism has passed through several “ages”—often described, in his and related writings, as:

He argues that each age organizes compassion and obligation differently, linking moral sentiments to specific political projects.

Emotion and Moral Sentiments

Barnett places compassion, pity, and guilt at the center of humanitarian politics. He contends that humanitarian actors operate within an emotional economy in which some lives are rendered more grievable or more “savable” than others. Emotions are thus seen as structured by race, class, geopolitics, and institutional routines.

"

“Humanitarianism is an empire of humanity, a project that seeks not only to alleviate suffering but also to define what it means to be human and what obligations follow from that definition.”

— Michael N. Barnett, Empire of Humanity

Supporters view this account as a powerful corrective to purely principled or technocratic images of humanitarianism. Critics suggest that the periodization and emphasis on emotional economies may understate the role of strategic interests or overlook continuities in underlying moral commitments.

Paradoxes and Politics of Suffering

Barnett highlights a central paradox: humanitarian action aims to relieve suffering yet can inadvertently stabilize structures that generate it, such as authoritarian regimes or unequal global markets. His edited volume Humanitarianism in Question assembles contributions that scrutinize dilemmas of neutrality, sovereignty, and accountability.

Some analysts use Barnett’s framework to argue for more politically engaged humanitarianism; others interpret his findings as supporting a more restrained or needs‑based approach. Barnett’s own work stops short of prescribing a single normative model, instead emphasizing the tension between saving lives and reproducing power relations.

7. Religion, Zionism, and Jewish Political Identity

A distinct strand of Barnett’s scholarship examines how Jewish identity, Zionism, and American foreign policy intersect, especially after the Holocaust.

American Jews and Foreign Policy

In The Star and the Stripes, Barnett reconstructs the foreign policy orientations of American Jews from the late 19th century to the present. He argues that American Jewish politics has been shaped by three overlapping commitments:

• Particularism: concern for Jewish safety and support for Israel.
• Universalism: alignment with liberal internationalism, human rights, and minority protections.
• Integration: desire for full inclusion in American political life.

"

“For American Jews, foreign policy has been a venue for working out the meaning of Jewishness, power, and vulnerability after the Holocaust.”

— Michael N. Barnett, The Star and the Stripes

Barnett traces how different organizations and intellectuals have balanced these commitments in debates over issues such as Israel’s wars, human rights advocacy, and US interventionism.

Zionism, Memory, and Political Theology

Barnett’s work also engages Zionism and Holocaust memory as forms of political theology—that is, as narratives that ground claims about justice and obligation. He examines how collective memories of persecution inform understandings of security, victimhood, and moral responsibility, both for Israel and for Jews in the diaspora.

Some interpreters view this as highlighting tensions between Jewish nationalism and cosmopolitan ethics, while others emphasize Barnett’s interest in the internal pluralism of Jewish political thought, including religious and secular variants.

Debates and Reception

Commentators sympathetic to Barnett’s approach praise his effort to place American Jewish foreign policy within broader debates on identity politics, diaspora nationalism, and global ethics. Critics sometimes argue that his framing may overemphasize elite organizations or underplay alternative Jewish voices, including more conservative, anti‑Zionist, or non‑Western perspectives. Nonetheless, his work has become a reference point for scholars analyzing how religious narratives and historical trauma shape international political orientations.

8. Methodology and Philosophy of Social Science

Barnett’s methodological stance combines constructivist, interpretive, and historical‑sociological approaches, with implications for the philosophy of social science.

Interpretive and Practice‑Oriented Analysis

Influenced by collaborators such as Kratochwil and Adler, Barnett emphasizes that understanding international politics requires analyzing meanings, practices, and discourses. Rather than treating preferences as given, he investigates how they are socially constructed through interaction and institutionalization.

This leads him to favor methods such as:

• Historical reconstruction of norm trajectories.
• Qualitative analysis of documents, speeches, and organizational archives.
• Attention to practical reasoning and justificatory language.

Proponents argue that this approach captures the normative dimension of international life that quantitative or rationalist models may miss. Critics contend that interpretive work can be selective or difficult to generalize, and some question how far it can offer causal explanations.

Institutions as Sites of Knowledge and Power

Methodologically, Barnett treats institutions as sites where knowledge and power are co‑produced. In Rules for the World, for instance, he and Finnemore draw on sociology of organizations and Weberian analysis to examine how bureaucratic rules create categories and expertise.

This has implications for debates on objectivity and normativity in social science. Some see Barnett as aligning with critical traditions that reject a strict separation between facts and values, while others interpret his work as an attempt to maintain empirical rigor while acknowledging normative stakes.

Engagement with Normative Theory

Although primarily empirical, Barnett’s methodology is closely linked to ethical questions. His genealogical approach to humanitarianism, for example, parallels philosophical analyses that historicize moral concepts. Some philosophers use his work as empirical input for normative theorizing; others question whether historical accounts of power relations can, by themselves, support particular ethical conclusions.

Overall, Barnett’s methodological contribution lies in showing how interpretive, historical, and normative analysis can be combined within international relations without collapsing into either pure description or abstract moral theory.

9. Impact on International Relations Theory and Political Philosophy

Barnett has had a wide‑ranging impact on international relations theory and, increasingly, on political philosophy and global ethics.

Influence within International Relations

Within IR, Barnett is commonly cited as a key figure in consolidating constructivism as a major research program. His work on security communities contributed to debates on the conditions for stable peace, complementing liberal and realist explanations. Rules for the World helped establish the now widespread idea that international organizations are autonomous actors shaped by bureaucratic and professional norms.

Supporters argue that these contributions opened space for richer analyses of identity, legitimacy, and institutional agency in fields such as global governance, peacekeeping, and development. Some critics from rationalist or materialist perspectives maintain that Barnett’s emphasis on norms and bureaucratic culture may underplay enduring structures of power politics or economic interests.

Engagement with Political Philosophy and Ethics

Barnett’s historical sociology of humanitarianism has been influential among philosophers interested in humanitarian intervention, global justice, and the ethics of aid. His idea of an “empire of humanity” and his analysis of emotional economies are frequently cited in discussions of paternalism, beneficence, and structural injustice.

Political theorists also draw on The Star and the Stripes and related essays to explore themes of diaspora, nationalism, and political theology. Barnett’s work is used to illustrate how religious and ethnic identities complicate simple dichotomies between cosmopolitan and particularist ethics.

Cross‑Disciplinary Reception

Barnett’s writings are referenced across sociology, law, humanitarian studies, and Jewish studies. For some, his work exemplifies a productive integration of empirical research with normative reflection. Others caution that the cross‑disciplinary reach may blur disciplinary standards or that his critical historical narratives could be interpreted as tacit normative judgments.

Nonetheless, bibliometric studies and citation patterns typically place Barnett among the most cited constructivist IR scholars, especially in areas concerning international organizations and humanitarianism.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

Barnett’s legacy is still evolving, but several aspects of his historical significance can be identified.

Consolidating Constructivism and Reframing Institutions

First, Barnett is widely regarded as one of the scholars who helped move constructivism from a marginal critique to a central component of IR theory. His collaborative works on rules, norms, and security communities are often included on foundational reading lists and are cited as shaping how a generation of researchers conceptualized identity and normative structures in world politics.

His analysis of international organizations as bureaucratic moral agents has become a standard reference point in studies of the UN, World Bank, and other global institutions. This has influenced policy debates about accountability, legitimacy, and reform, even among scholars and practitioners who do not share his constructivist commitments.

Historicizing Humanitarianism

Second, Barnett’s genealogy of humanitarianism has contributed to a broader shift from viewing aid and relief as purely altruistic endeavors to understanding them as embedded in historical power relations. Many subsequent works on humanitarianism, development, and human rights engage his “ages of humanitarianism” and his concept of an empire of humanity, either building on or revising his periodization.

Religion, Identity, and Political Theology

Third, his work on American Jews, Zionism, and political theology has helped bring questions of religion and collective memory more squarely into IR and global ethics. Scholars examining the foreign policies of other religious or diasporic communities sometimes use Barnett’s framework as a comparative template.

Ongoing Debates and Future Directions

Barnett’s scholarship remains the subject of active debate. Some see his legacy as emblematic of an interpretive turn in IR that foregrounds norms, emotions, and ethics; others argue that future work must integrate his insights with more materialist or critical approaches, including Marxist and postcolonial perspectives.

However these debates develop, Barnett’s writings have become enduring reference points for understanding how moral vocabularies, institutions, and identities have shaped international order from the late 20th century into the 21st, ensuring his continued relevance in both IR scholarship and broader discussions of global politics and ethics.