1. Maailmanpolitiikan teoriasuuntaukset
Alan omakuvat, debatit ja hiljaisuudet

2. The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory
Teoksessa Booth, Ken & Smith, Steve (eds.) (1995) International Relations Theory Today, sivut 1-37.
How is IR theory described and categorized?
What are the self-images of the discipline and what do they tell us?
The silences of a discipline are its loudest voices…

3. 1/10 International Theory versus Political Theory
No body of international theory to rival the achievements of political theory? Talking IR theory requires using the language of domestic political theory… (vrt. Martin Wight, 1966)
False dichotomy, same concerns and imperatives, part of the same theoretical exercise

4. 2/10 Communitarian vs. Cosmopolitan Thought
Influential in the development of ”normative theory”:
Communitarian theories: communities are the bearers of rights and duties in international society
Cosmopolitan theories: moral arguments should be based not on communities but on humanity as whole / on individuals
”Non-normative” theory?
Vast majority of IR theory has proceeded as if the categorization did not exist, risk of further marginalization of normative theory…

5. 3/10 The Three Rs (Martin Wight, 1991)
Realists à la Machiavelli
international politics as anarchical, a potential war of all against all
Rationalists à la Grotius
mixed domain of conflict and cooperation, society of states
Revolutionists à la Kant
international society of states has to be transcended, humanity
Placing individual thinkers? Each tradition has own criteria of truth claims… Which dialogue?

6. 4/10 The Three Waves or The ”Great Debates”
”Idealists” dominated in the 1920’s and 30’s
”Realists” in the late 1930’s and 40’s
”Social scientific” theories in the late 1950’s and 1960’s
Idealism versus realism
Realism versus behavioralism
Third debate: state-centrism vs. transnationalists, positivism vs. post- positivism
Class, gender, ethnicity, developing countries – where? Debate, progress?

7. 5/10 The Inter-Paradigm Debate
Realism / neorealism (structural realism)
Liberalism / globalism / pluralism
Neo-Marxism / structuralism
War and peace; management of international regimes; global poverty and development issues – different research agendas, different world views or different worlds?
A lot left out, categories not distinct, appearing tolerant and open…

8. 6/10 State-Centrism versus Transnationalism
Third debate? (Maghroori and Ramsberg, 1982)
Since the 1970’s: other-than-state actors
Realism versus globalism
Importance of states and structural explanations downplayed…

9. 7/10 Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism
Neo-realists à la Waltz and Gilpin:
- security, relative gains, capabilities
Neoliberalists à la Keohane&Nye and Krasner
- institutions, absolute gains, intentions
Shared epistemology, focus on similar questions, agree on a lot… mainstream, status quo, rationalist, problem-solving theories…
Concerns of the vast majority of humanity?

10. 8/10 The Post-Positivist Debate
Critical theory (à la Cox: knowledge of the world needs to be understood within the context of interests)
Historical sociology (Mann, Tilly, Skocpol -> Linklater)
Feminism (Enloe, Elshtain, Sylvester)
Postmodernism (Foucault, Derrida, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Virilio -> Walker, Der Derian, Campbell)
All far from assumptions of positivism and realism; some foundational, others anti-foundationalist…

11. 9/10 Constitutive versus Explanatory Theory
Theory explains reality (realism, pluralism, neo-Marxism)
Theory constitutes reality (constructivism, postmodernism)
Explaining vs. understanding (explanations vs. meanings/interpretations)
One can encompass both, false dichotomy to begin with?

12. 10/10 Foundationalist and Anti-Foundationalist International Theory
Debate within constitutive theory
Minimal foundationalism / critical interpretative theory: grounds for judging between rival truth claims
Radical anti-foundationalism / radical interpretativism: incredulity towards all metanarratives (à la Lyotard), no foundations outside any individual theory which can serve as a neutral arbiter between competing accounts, no common standards