Origin of IR and the Great Debates

Present situation
Suggestions from scholars
THE PURPOSE OF IR AS A DISCIPLINE
IR was established in 1919 for the main
purpose of preventing wars

The first Great Debate
Idealists vs Realists
The second Great Debate
Traditionalists vs Behaviourists
The final Great Debate
Post-positivists vs Positivists
ORIGIN OF IR AND THE GREAT DEBATES
No approach won these discussions
Positivist approaches remained the centre
e.g. realism[(neo)classical realism structural realism]
value-free, scientific analysis

Counterargument: any IR theories reflect values
e.g. realpolitik is not an fact of international politics but
reflection of ideology and realpolitik norms(Alastair, I.J.
2003)
Powerful academic community reinforce the
ideology

PRESENT SITUATION
Post-positivist approach should not be
marginalized
Pay more attention to questions of subjectivity
Understanding world politics rather than
explaining

Intellectual pluralism(contested point)
More open to variety of issues and subjectivities
of different entities
SUGGESTIONS FROM SCHOLARS
What is IR theory?
Who is it for?
What purpose does it serve?


WHAT IS IR THEORY ANYWAY
AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
CONCEPTUALISING THEORY
Essentially contested concept
Self-explanatory approaches potentially ignore
unquestioned or flawed theoretical assumptions
Different perceptions of relationship between
theory and object under study
human factor and academic identity



Categories and types of theories: explanatory
theory, critical theory, normative theory, constitutive
theory (Dunne et al. 2013)
Theoretical lens through which we look at the
world metaphor
Certain elements are highlighted, others hidden,
others places on the margins
CONCEPTUALISING THEORY
Theories should not be treated like a sweater that can
be put on when we are addressing such
philosophical issues and taken off when we are
doing research researchers cannot adopt one
position at one time for one project and another on
another occasion for a different project. These
positions are not interchangeable because they
reflect fundamentally different approaches to what
social science is and how we do it.
(Marsh and Furlong, 2002: 21)

CONCEPTUALISING THEORY

How far can a theoretical commitment be
stretched before it is unfit for purpose?
How far can we broaden the concept of
theory?



PROFILERATION OF THEORY AND PLURALISM
Drivers of theoretical proliferation
New historical events require new tools for analysis
Import from other fields of study
Developments within the discipline of IR
Strands of Pluralism
Unity through pluralism
Plurality of differing perspectives that cannot truly engage with each
other
integrative pluralism more diversity than unity through pluralism
and more interaction than disengaged pluralism

The more the better? Is diversity a good
thing per se?
What or who determines dynamisms and
interaction/communication in IR theory?
CAN and SHOULD theories be treated
equally?



[]the true teacher will beware of imposing from
the platform any political position upon the
studentwhenever the man of science introduces
his personal value judgment, a full understanding
of the facts ceases.
(Weber, 1948a:145146)


The lack of ethical/value neutrality is reflected
in the centrality of a particular theory and the
focus on a particular geographical region in the
discipline



CAN ETHICS AND VALUES BE SEPARATED FROM
ACADEMIC STUDY?

Who are we to change the world?

Differences in perceptions in changes one want.

How do we identify the changes?

No absolute certainty of how things should be.

How do we reach a universally acceptable solution
that is unambiguously good?

The need to realize we ourselves are embedded in
the system we are trying to reform.

As soon as I enter into a relation with the other,
with the gaze, look, request, love, command, or
call of the other, I know that I can respond only
by sacrificing whatever obliges me also to
respond, in the same way, in the same instant,
to all the others.

(Derrida,1995)

What is the way forward?





IS THERE LIGHT AT THE END
OF THE TUNNEL?
Dunne, Tim, Hansen, Lene and Colin Wight (2013): The end of International
Relations theory? In: European Journal of International Relations 19 (3), pp. 405-
425.
Lake, David A. (2013): Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great
Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations. In: European
Journal of International Relations 19 (3), pp. 567587.
Smith, Steve (2004): Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations
Theory and September 11. In: International Studies Quarterly (48), pp 499515.
Weber, Max (1949): The Methodology of the Social Sciences.
https://archive.org/stream/maxweberonmethod00webe/maxweberonmethod
00webe_djvu.txt (11/03/2014)
Zehfuss, Maja (2009): What Can We Do to Change The World? In: Edkins, Jenny
& Zehfuss, Maja (eds.): Global Politics. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 483- 500.


BIBLIOGRAPHY