The field of International Relations may be
distinguished for its other counterparts such as Political Science and Philosophy
for the purpose of deeper understanding. Since, Politics is the study that
defines our everyday lives, according to Aristotle; one may take into account the
contribution that these related fields make towards International Relations. Although our approach while doing so may be
selective for the sake of simplification.
When defining International Relation theory
one may consider viewing it in a broad spectrum, making the subject matter general,
refraining from reflecting a stagnant situation, and categorising it under different
sets of analysis while accounting for all possible factors. The study of International
Relations should also consider the political structure and distribution of
power; especially within functioning entities. Furthermore, the relation
between foreign and domestic policy and the consequence of these relations must
also be considered. A solution given by Kent is to base theories upon idealised
situations instead of allowing politicians to relay on the past for enduring
the present.
The question remains, is it possible to
derive International Relations Theory that has concrete structure and
encompasses all aspects of the field?
Despite the fact that overtime scholars
have come up with different theories depending on their own interpretation of
the scenarios, these tend to be excessively philosophical. They are based on
assumptions about people and their societies which limits their usefulness in
practical life. Also, the methods by which these theories are verified are a
little too scientific making the study itself, delusional.
Also, I think that due to these different opinions there is a never ending dispute among different theorists when it comes to viewing global issues and no one simplistic method can be adopted to understand relations between countries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the questions raised in your response. However, I feel that you contradict yourself in the last paragraph. On the one hand, you believe that different theories tend to excessively philosophical and on the other you feel that the study itself is delusional because it verifies it's theories through scientific means.
ReplyDeleteFirst, being excessively philosophical should not make the theories any less useful than theories from natural sciences. Second, if they do use scientific methods to verify their "excessively philosophical" theories shouldn't that add more substance to their theories?
Agreeing with what Zainab has said, use of scientific methods and empirical research can only add value to a theory. That means that the ramblings of someone who calls themselves a scientist - whether they're a social scientist or otherwise - are validated if there is evidence to back them up.
ReplyDeleteHopefully through this course you will be exposed to a range of theories and both qualitative and quantitative methods to test those theories. Theories are developed to help explain complex phenomena and different theories help explain different things. We will try to examine the strengths and weaknesses of competing international relations theories throughout this course.
ReplyDelete