In
his article, International Theory: The Case
for a Classical Approach, Hedley Bull developed a well expressed argument
against the scientific approach to International Relations. In seven
propositions, Bull thoroughly conveyed his grievances with this approach along
with stating that the classical approach is a competent model for studying IR.
I would like to comment on two
things regarding this particular article. Firstly, Hedley Bull’s article is one
of the first academic writings that I have read in which the author puts forth
his ideas in a precise and simple manner. Unlike other academic writings that I
have come across recently, the author does not make use of excessive flowery
language or unexplained terminology which makes it easier for the reader to
grasp the main purpose of the article. Also, the author does not frustrate the
reader by ‘beating around the bush’. Instead, Bull begins his article by
specifying his objective behind writing this article. Along with this, he does
not leave the reader wondering and guessing what exactly the classical approach
is. Rather, he clearly explains the difference between the classical and
scientific approaches in the very beginning. Therefore, Bulls article was an
easy read as it allows the reader to direct his/her attention towards the
arguments being presented rather than leaving the reader to dissect and
determine the real meaning behind what the author is saying like a piece of
English literature.
Secondly, in my opinion, a danger
that seems to lurk behind the analysis of different approaches to IR is the
danger of focusing too much on how IR is studied rather than why or what the
field is trying to say. The debate between the scientific and non – scientific
approaches is perhaps a never ending debate and although it is extremely
important to assess the ways in which a field is being studied, it should be
done so with caution. The reason behind this caution is that the progress of
the subject matter of the field should not be stalled or overshadowed by the
endless debates on how the field is studied. Having said that, I was reminded
of our class discussions on how IR can be studied where we concluded that a
mixed approach to the field is the best way to go.
I agree with the writer that a mixed approach should be attempted that explains why some phenomenon is occurring and how statistics could assert the existence of any phenomenon. The empiricists' view about conducting field research is now disregarded, because the methods only allow the explanation of an observable entity, i.e. political institutions but do not explain why people subject to these institutions daily in their affairs. Here, we see a social scientist cannot explain social phenomenon by methods of natural sciences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mariyam on the point that the scientific method should not completely be rejected even though it does have some limitations. Hence a mixed approach should be adopted as it enables to overcome the limitations of the scientific approach thereby making the results more accurate.
ReplyDeleteI like that you noted how well written and organized Bull's piece is. To get your message across, you should be precise and clear in your own writing. Waltz's piece is also written exceptionally well.
ReplyDeleteThe field of IR is vast and right now we are exploring the evolution of theoretical approaches to the study of the field. We will, of course, talk about more substantive issues in IR, but we first need to have a firm understanding of how scholars in the field approach these issues.
I like how you have highlighted the positive elements of the article. However, it would have been better if you had also mentioned the negatives of the article i.e. where the author is lacking etc and then drawn a conclusion.
ReplyDelete