Session 19

In 'The Poverty of Neorealism' Richard K. Ashley talks about the beginning, evolution, and implications of neorealism. The author aims at exposing faults within the theoretical framework by tracing out the arguments of its proponents, exhibiting contradictions and reliance on other traditions, therefore the inheritance of the others criticism, and also by closely examining its premises. The author concludes by stating that neoliberalism by having fundamental assumptions i-e: state as actor role, which defines and validates the theory, is in fact a shortcoming. The author admits to some shortcomings of his own work, but at the same time encourages students to break 'orbs' or pre-conceived notion.

The article begins by mentioning Thompson's attack on structural marxism in the European academia and links it with the relevance it has with his criticism against neoliberalism. The author classifies the work done by the last two generations of academic scholars in the americas such as the likes of Kenneth Waltz, Keohane, Krasner, and Modelski as 'neoliberalism'. The author then mentions the scientific way through which it sought to reduce myths and alternative theories. The framework also borrowed concepts from realism and structuralism with regard to concepts of power or state. However, through a series of arguments pertaining to its faults and limitation the author criticizes the framework and states neoliberalism as an 'orrery of errors' that incorporates statist, structuralist, positivist, and utilitarian notions yet it sides with the victors of the American revolution i.e; the realist and scientific schools. However, the author states that it betrays both the realist and scientific by betraying reducing political practice to an economic logic and by betraying the critical faculties of science by "swallowing methodological rules that render science a purely technical enterprise".

I personally admired the use of the socratic dialectic method the author applies in various instances. The paper is a beautiful read that incorporates theatrical and literary notions and also uses dialogue as a means of revealing the inner dialectic direction towards dispelling incorrect assumptions and coming up with a clearer picture. The paper also has a skeptic tinge to it which encourages the questioning of pre-conceived notions. Overall, the paper presents the readers with a view that challenges fundamental assumptions in the field of International Relations and encourages its growth along a more traditional-scientific line.