PowerPoint-Prsentation

Origin of IR and the Great DebatesPresent situationSuggestions from scholars THE PURPOSE OF IR AS A DISCIPLINEIR was established in 1919 for the main purpose of preventing wars

The first Great Debate Idealists vs RealistsThe second Great Debate Traditionalists vs Behaviourists The final Great Debate Post-positivists vs PositivistsORIGIN OF IR AND THE GREAT DEBATESNo approach won these discussionsPositivist approaches remained the centree.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 SITUATIONPost-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 entitiesSUGGESTIONS FROM SCHOLARSWhat is IR theory?Who is it for? What purpose does it serve?

WHAT IS IR THEORY ANYWAY AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE?CONCEPTUALISING THEORYEssentially contested conceptSelf-explanatory approaches potentially ignore unquestioned or flawed theoretical assumptionsDifferent 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 metaphorCertain elements are highlighted, others hidden, others places on the marginsCONCEPTUALISING THEORYTheories 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 THEORYHow 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 PLURALISMDrivers of theoretical proliferationNew historical events require new tools for analysisImport from other fields of studyDevelopments within the discipline of IRStrands of PluralismUnity 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/maxweberonmethod00webe_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