International Relations Theory A New Introduction Chapter 8 Contemporary Inter-Tradition Debates

Introduction We should not forget to learn from our opponents and from contending, perhaps counter-intuitive theoretical positions The present chapter focuses on debates among theorists from the contending six theoretical traditions introduced before Aims of the chapter: to demonstrate richness of theoretical debate to draw attention to nuances and overlapping facets of theoretical reflection

Inter-Tradition Debates

Liberalism and Realism Classical realist criticism of liberal tradition E.H. Carr (1939) – “utopian liberalism” H. Morgenthau (1944) Scientific Man vs. Power Politics Liberal response: E.Haas (1958) - neofunctionalism K.Deutsch (1957)- security communities J. Burton (1965)- transnational cobweb model Critique of state-centrism & realist billiard ball mechanical image of IR

Liberalism and Realism Contemporary Debate Liberalism A. Wendt (1992) critique on neorealism for its narrow focus on material structures J. Legro and A. Moravcsik (1999) asking “Is anybody still a Realist?” C. W. Kegley (1993) Realism J. Mearsheimer’s (1995) critique of the false promise of international institutions Waltz’s (2000) critique of the much overstated consequences of globalization J. Snyder’s (1991) attempt to incorporate domestic politics in realist theory

Realism and the English School Debate asymmetrical as realism neglects English School, whereas English School displays considerable interest in realism English School: M. Wight (1991) critique on simple-minded bifurcation of international theory R. Jackson (2000) Realism: K. Waltz (1998) – English School disqualified by philosophical default Dale C. Copeland (2003) criticism of the English School

Liberalism and the English School Asymmetrical research interests English School & fundamental institutions  Liberalism & architectural institutions Fairly similar concerns of strong liberals and solidarists No common position vis-à-vis English School among liberals Y. Ferguson vs. R. Keohane & M. Finnemore English School ignores role of domestic politics and is predominately state-centric

Liberalism and Post-Positivism Shared identity – many post-positivists are liberal theorists (in terms of substantive arguments) F. Kratochwil & J. Ruggie (1986) critique of liberal regime theory  R. Keohane (1989) criticism of post- positivism (labelled ‘reflectivism’) Rationalist vs. reflectivist approaches in the study of international relations

Post-Positivism and Realism Relationship = highly complex/ sources of this complexity vary Neorealism main target of post-positivist criticism during the 1990s R. Ashley (1981, 1984) – “The poverty of neorealism”  R. Gilpin (1986) – incomprehensible post-positivist language Dynamics of Post-neorealist responses to post- positivism, compare S. Walt (1987, 1998)

Post-Positivism and The English School Three encounters: O.Wæver (1999): more commonality between PPT and English School than one might intuitively think R. Jackson (2000) criticism on post-positivism, focusing on Critical theory, postmodernism and constructivism J. Der Derian (1987) as a continuation of H.Bull (although in a different fashion)

IPE Encounters with Other Traditions IPE = microcosmos of inter-tradition debates in IR (though focused on linkages between international politics and economics) IPE & IPT = inter-tradition debate fairly limited Close encounter between liberalism and IPE J. Hobson's analysis of causal links between imperialism and causes of war Unresolved relationship between post-positivist and IPE & IPE and realism (but see mercantilism and Marxism)

International Political Theory Encounters with Other Traditions IPT emerges partly by means of critical encounters IPT – liberal tradition IPT – realist tradition IPT & English School share an interest in conceptual analysis & constitutive explanation IPT-PPT having identical & overlapping characteristics yet represent partly contending perspectives on world politics

Conclusion Most theoretical debates concern a relatively limited number of issues Range in the conceptions of theory is considerable, mutually recognized kinds of theory are rare Shifts in the fault-lines of theoretical reflection across time may originate from changing fads and concerns within the discipline or neighbouring disciplines Not all debates are successful in terms of generating new knowledge (eristic dialogues)