Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:34:05.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International theory: new directions?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Chris Brown
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The last ‘great debate’ in international relations theory occurred in the 1960s, was concerned primarily with matters of method rather than substance, and eventually was called off due to lack of interest. The battle between ‘traditionalists’ and ‘scientists’ was short-lived. The so-called ‘post-behavioural’ revolution in political science conceded some part of the traditionalist case, but the more significant factor in the conclusion of the debate was the prevalence of an attitude of live and let live. Tolerance over method is a virtue in a relatively underdeveloped discipline, for who can predict the shape of future knowledge or the potential sources of insight? Unfortunately, a by-product of tolerance over methodological issues has been the development of such differences over matters of substance that the existence of a coherent discipline is called into question. Perhaps a new ‘great debate’ is called for, this time on matters of substance.

Type
Review articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1981 , pp. 173 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Respectively (New York, 1959), (New York, 1962), and (London, 1972).

2. Hereafter references to the two works are given as Waltz and Burton.

3. Some would argue that international relations is not a ‘discipline’ but a ‘subject’ or a ‘field’, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or a-disciplinary in its essence. These distinctions are not without interest but this review adoots the simnlicitv of Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary – a discipline, ‘a branch of learning or a field of study’.

4. Waltz, op. cit. p. 18.

5. Ibid. p. 18.

6. Ibid. p. 39.

7. Ibid. p. 40.

8. (New York, 1963).

9. (New York, 1965).

10. (New York, 1968).

11. Waltz, op. cit. p. 43.

12. (New York, 1957).

13. Waltz, op. cit. p. 58, 57.

14. Ibid. p. 57.

15. Ibid. p. 118.

16. (New York, 1962).

17. Johnson, Chalmers, Revolutionary Chance (Boston, 1966)Google Scholar; Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1962)Google ScholarPolitics Among Nations (New York, 1973);Google ScholarMan, the State and War (New York, 1959).Google Scholar

18. This paragraph is a resume of Burton, chapter 1, with some references to other chapters in the book. Burton's style does not lend itself to quotation.

19. Waltz, op. cit. ch. 7.

20. (London, 1946).

21. Waltz, op. cit. p. 59.

22. Ibid. p. 63.

23. See the account of the ‘Two Paradigms’, Burton, op. cit. ch. 8.

24. Ibid. p. 73.

25. Ibid. p. 75. ‘In this study, universal human needs – that have a social significance, are asserted as a hypothesis; in Popper's terms, this is a personal as distinct from a scientific assertion.’.

26. Ibid. p. 75.

27. Ibid. p. 226.

28. See e.g. Sahlins, Marshall, The Uses and Abuses of Biology (London, 1976)Google Scholar and Dawkins, Richard, The Selfish Gene (London, 1976).Google Scholar

29. Burton, op. cit. p. 79.

30. (New York, 1973).

31. See, for a sense of the complexity of the argument, Dawkins, op. cit.

32. (London, 1972).

33. Addison Wesley, 1975.

34. (New York, 1979).

35. Ibid. p. 89.

36. Ibid. p. 54.

37. Ibid. p. 58.

38. Burton, op. cit. p. 124.

39. Ibid. p. 118.

40. Ibid. p. 124.

41. Thompson, E. P., The Poverty of Theory (London, 1978).Google Scholar

42. See especially Burton, op. cit. ch. 5.