Dryzek and Leonard said "disciplinary
history in political science, as in other fields is generally used to legitimate
a particular perspective while delegitimating competing approaches."
This comes
to show that in international relations there are so many different approaches
from which world politics can be viewed from. The same action of a political
figure may be interpreted differently depending on which ideological school one
belongs from. Schmidt identifies two main ways which can be used to understand
international relations. The first if the classical approach which focuses on
theories of various scholars while the other approach suggests that events
shape situations on which theories are formulated. Schmidt then presents his
own argument which he calls ‘critical
internal discursive’. This view talks about various topics in a coherent manner
and attempts to shape an alternate view on international relations.
Moreover,
political science can also be viewed from a scientific, post structural, contextual
and postmodern point of view which leads to many contradictions and variations
within the field. Furthermore, when it comes to the origins of political
interactions there are disagreements on how the discipline developed. Also,
conflict over the years has increased because several opinions exists which
make it difficult for a consensus to be reached. There is a historical approach
that looks on traditions which have prevailed in the earlier centuries and how
these traditions have shaped today’s relations. On the other hand there is an analytical
approach which is based upon how certain scholars perceive events rather than
how various historical traditions were carried out over the years.
Therefore,
in conclusion the origins of political science and international relations are ambiguous.
Just like in other fields there are differing opinions, similarly when it comes
to international events are more complex than they seem and there is no one
right way of looking at global relations.
I would like to add another point to zoha's analysis that American political thought has greatly influenced the field of IR and the author says that since this a sub-field of political science created under the rubric of political discourse in America; hence, to create an actual history of IR requires analysis of the discussions that took place between the American political scholars.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ali's comment and I agree with Zoha's argument that there are many different ways to examine international relations. With so many competing theories and paradigms out there, it gets a bit messy trying to figure out which one to believe. But we have to believe something and looking to theories is a good place to start. By examining the merits of competing theories, we're able to come up with a better understanding of the field and how to understand international relations.
ReplyDelete