Description
The field of Strategic Studies regularly produces what can be called fashionable concepts – concepts that experience a sudden burst in popularity, are then widely featured in academic, think tank and/or policy papers, therefore soon become broad and vague, but are bestowed with authority and power through which they shape what research gets published or funded. Past and present examples include ‘hybrid warfare’, ‘counter-insurgency’, and ‘revolution in military affairs’. Why does the field of Strategic Studies see such a frequent change of powerful, fashionable concepts? While fashions are found in all fields and disciplines, this paper argues that the origins and dynamics of Strategic Studies specifically favour conceptual innovation, from which spring conceptual fashions. These fashions are not all bad, but analysed together show serious flaws in our understanding of war. The paper first introduces the phenomenon of fashionable concepts. It then discusses the field’s characteristics that have led to conceptual fashions, such as the strong influence of US strategic and intellectual culture; a close interconnectedness between scholars and practitioners; and a lack of engagement with questions of ontology and epistemology. Finally, it addresses the effects of such fashions on the field, touching upon questions of progress of the field.
Key words: strategic studies; intellectual history; fashion; sociology of knowledge; hybrid warfare.
