This insightful work of political anthropology allows us to witness the day-to-day work of the twenty-first century diplomat involved in different modes of knowledge production. Building on earlier “critical” diplomatic studies (Der Derian, Reference Der Derian1987; Constantinou, Reference Constantinou1996), this book is an excellent contribution to charting the evolution of a “diplomatization” discourse (Jönsson and Hall, Reference Jönsson and Hall2005), the re-articulation of diplomacy as challenged by other professions performing broadly similar roles (177). In line with the emerging scholarship in International Relations of “practice” theorists, Neumann uses the sociological perspectives of De Certeau, Bourdieu, and others to construct a narrative facilitated by unparalleled ethnographic access to the goings-on in the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA).

The classical understanding of the diplomat as a representative of state-to-state relations is challenged from the outset. The first two chapters discuss in detail the very emergence of modern diplomacy as both permanent representation of a country abroad and the specialized administration of foreign affairs at home, the development of which are predicated on the emergence of sovereignty as an ordering principle of international relations. With this come two different modes of knowledge production: abroad, Hedley Bull's classic formulation of the diplomat as information gatherer; at home, a more prosaic and bureaucratic diplomacy prevails (7). This sets the stage for the subject of Neumann's enquiry.

A key insight from the practice literature is that of the naturalization of social practices, which provide a grammar for saying, “This is how we have always done things around here” (61). This is the theoretical background for Neumann's assertion that diplomats rarely, if ever, produce anything new; the texts which constitute the central diplomatic output rely on a combination of teamwork, in which every department must have their say, and a substantive repetition of existing policy. We are thus privy to anecdotal examples in which Neumann, as a newly arrived planner in the MFA, learns the ropes of speech writing. He brings to light the ways in which a speech, as text, is produced such that the “entire ministry can stand behind [it]… because the speech is the ministry” (85). Despite a current trend across many foreign ministries of moving speechwriting to the political level, whatever texts will be produced in the ministry will be subject to the same bureaucratic mode of knowledge production (92). The bureaucratic system in place ensures this is the case, and only when there is political intervention from outside is this system challenged to enact new routines (86).

Drawing on Charles Taylor's reading of two scripts in the life of what it is to be a Westerner, Neumann then poses the question of what it is to be a diplomat. Contrasted with the more “everyday-ness” of the bureaucrat at home, a diplomat in the field may be seen to aspire to the “hero script” (95). The intersection of these two stories is that diplomats must serve time both at home and abroad, and the tension between the two different sets of everyday practices serves to illustrate how a diplomat manages the presentation of their “self.” The central implication of this is that diplomats tend to suffer a “bureaucracy shock” when returning home from foreign postings (107). We learn the impression that, with globalized professions (journalism at the forefront) impinging upon the traditional work of the diplomat, there is a sense that the practice of negotiation is really the only task that now stands the diplomat apart from the crowd (119).

Crucially though, this plays into what Neumann identifies as a third “script,” that of mediator; to be a diplomat, then, is to manage how these three scripts “juggle in relation to one another” (125).

Building on this sense of who the diplomat is, the fifth chapter then looks at the constitution of the diplomatic corps: how the “breakdown of diplomatic homosociality” and the changing social status of those joining the foreign ministry have transformed the once masculine, and at times aristocratic, enterprise (133). This narrative of difference and hierarchy enriches our understanding of the changing nature of the diplomat. In the post-Second World War period diplomacy has swiftly encountered new “gendered scripts,” challenging the performance of the diplomat's being in the world.

At Home with the Diplomats presents a forceful case for the importance of political anthropology. As Neumann sees it, “anthropologists focus on the preconditions of political order, and political scientists on how that order is maintained” (183). Through his exposition of the day-to-day work of the diplomat he narrates the culture and tensions present in international relations' bureaucracy par excellence. As such, Iver B. Neumann's fascinating contribution provides a deeper sense of what diplomats actually understand themselves as doing, and so greatly enhances our understanding of diplomacy's role in international affairs.