L. Class 11

Prof. Andreas Bieler and Prof. Adam D. Morton

Forget IR Theory?: In lieu of conclusions

'By articulating critique in relation to arguments advanced by orthodox IR theory, the impact of critical voices remains confined within the larger discursive boundaries that were established through the initial framing of debates'

- Roland Bleiker, 'Forget IR Theory', Alternatives.

Revisiting the positivist – post-positivist divide

The divide between positivism and post-positivism has been crucial for this resource. Positivist approaches pursue a scientific method in line with the caricature of the natural sciences and a focus on testing hypothesis in order to identify causal relationships and ultimately establish universal laws. Appealing to the principle of parsimony, they attempt—on the basis of as few assumptions as possible—to cut out a clearly defined sphere of empirical reality within which these general laws are identified. The task of positivist theory is to describe, explain, but also to predict and prescribe, since causal relationships make it possible to identify what is likely to happen in the future.

Post-positivism, by contrast, rejects the idea that we could separate the subject of the researcher from the object of enquiry. They deal with the social and political purpose of theory, realising that every theory is for a particular normative purpose. Thus, it is always accepted that the main assumptions of one’s own approach shapes the questions we ask, the way we carry out the related research and, in many respects, influence directly the outcome of our enquiry. Rather than focusing on establishing law-like regularities, deemed to be impossible, the spotlilght is on explaining and understanding change. Additionally, post-positivist approaches include an emancipatory dimension. In short, the social purpose of post-positivism as ‘critical theory’ is to understand structural change and to pursue emancipatory aspirations towards a better world.

After introducing both positivism and post-positivism in the first Class, Part I of this resource discussed a number of mainstream, positivist approaches including realism/neo-realism, various liberal approaches as well as constructivism. As we saw in Class 4, however, some constructivist perspectives are following also a post-positivist epistemology, which is why this particular Class led into Part II of this resource, dedicated to post-positivist approaches. Feminist IR theories still include some positivist sub-strands, especially as far as empiricist feminists are concerned, but standpoint and poststructuralist feminism are solidly within the post-positivist frame. Post-positivist theories covered then included Marxist IR theory, poststructuralism and post-colonialism. Finally, Part III of this resource has been dedicated to a comparison of these approaches in relation to two conceptual themes in IR, the agent-structure problem and the ways to conceptualise the role of ideas in IR. This Class completes Part III of the resource in that it provides a final comparative overview of the various IR theories. In the next section, we compare the various theories one final time, before we complete this Class and the overall resource with a plea to embrace diversity and dissent as the way forward in analysing international relations.

Comparing IR theories

When thinking about how to compare IR theories, Benjamin Cohen provides one undercooked attempt. On one hand, he identifies an ‘American School’, defined as characterized by a pure hard science model, positivism and empiricism as well as objective observation and systematic testing. On the other hand, he refers to a ‘British School’ identified by a research focus on institutions and history and characterised by an interpretive methodology. In general, the British School would have a ‘more relaxed attitude toward Marxism and other leftist doctrines’ (Cohen, 2007: 213). In this very sentence, of course, Cohen reveals his own normative assumptions. By describing some approaches in derogatory terms as ‘leftist doctrines’, he automatically relegates them to a place of inferior importance.

Instead of pursuing such a charged comparison of the theories introduced in this resource, our focus here is on a comparison along the following three categories: (1) ontology, i.e. what ‘is’ in IR; (2) epistemology or the way we obtain and produce knowledge; and (3) methodology, i.e. the way we analyse ontological units within a specific epistemology. The following Table summarises such a comparison:

Neo-realism’s ontology is an international system of states, it follows a positivist epistemology and carries out research in line with an objectivist methodology. Liberal approaches have a different ontology, but are characterised by a similar epistemology and methodology. Positivist constructivism in line with Alexander Wendt differs from the other mainstream approaches in its ontology, including also ideas in the form of intersubjective meanings as part of the structure, but again its epistemology and methodology are the same. Historical materialism with a focus on the social relations of production as its ontology is a clear example of a post-positivist epistemology, emphasising interpretivist understanding. In its methodology, the focus is on the internal relations between different forms, ultimately understood as the expression of the same underlying social relations of production. Poststructuralism, finally, and many post-colonial approaches also fall into this group, including an ontology consisting of discourses and practices. Its epistemology is post-positivist. The poststructural methodology focuses on the relations between power and knowledge. Feminist approaches can be allocated to the various groups depending on the particular sub-strand pursued.  

THINK POINT

In what way is diversity in IR theory preferable to a synthesis of different approaches?

Embracing diversity and dissent

Benjamin Cohen (2007) bemoans what he describes as a dialogue of the deaf across the transatlantic divide between the American and British Schools. It would, therefore, be necessary to build bridges towards the formation of a synthesis. Nevertheless, calls of this type for a synthesis often only result in an enforcement of orthodoxy. As a consequence, ‘unruly’ critical approaches that do not fit into either camp or the resulting synthesis, are often marginalised and excluded from the canon of accepted IR theories.

By contrast, we plead for a celebration of diversity and dissent. We agree with Steve Smith that ‘we should remain deaf to those who want to privilege the settled assumptions of a quasi-realist orthodoxy while silencing dissenting perspectives’ (2008: 310). In writing What is History?, it was E.H. Carr (1961/1990: 27) who said that 'Knowledge is always for some purpose. The validity of the knowledge depends on the validity of the purpose'. Of course, in theorising the international and linking back to Class 6, it was Robert Cox (1981: 128) who took this on and famously argued that 'theory is always for someone and for some purpose'. Usefully, Ken Booth (2017: 27) also extends this in a recent chapter entitled 'What's the point of IR?', to highlight that theory is also 'by someone from somewhere'.

Time and place exert a great deal of influence on what we think significant, how we theorise, and what we believe most meaningfully constitutes the international. The classes we offer as part of our teaching resource on the international are therefore a set of constantly evolving reflections, open to further development and fresh insight. That said, the dominant frame of reference in theorising the international is still neo-realism, which in the words of Robert W. Cox (1985/1996: 57) continues to 'appear ideologically to be a science at the service of big-power management of the international system'.

Ultimately, it is the diversity of IR theory, which makes it such an interesting field of enquiry and area to teach. We hope to have contributed to the celebration of diversity in IR theory with this module.

References

Bleiker, Roland (1997) 'Forget IR Theory', Alternatives, 22(1): 57-85.

Booth, Ken (2017) 'What's the Point of IR' The international in the invention of humanity', in Synne L. Dyvik, Jan Selby and Rorden Wilkinson (eds) What's the Point of International Relations? London: Routledge, pp. 21-33.

Carr, E.H. (1961/1990) What is History? London: Penguin.

Cohen, Benjamin J. (2007) ‘The Transatlantic Divide: Why are American and British IPE so different?’, Review of International Political Economy, 14(2): 197-219.

Cox, Robert W. (1981) 'Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory', Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10(2): 126-55.

Cox, Robert W. (1985/1996) 'Realism, Positivism, and Historicism', in Robert W. Cox with Timothy J. Sinclair, Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-59.

Smith, Steve (2008) ‘Debating Schmidt: Theoretical Pluralism in IR’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 36(2): 305-10.