-Wiz Khalifa
Paul W. Schroeder is an American historian who has engaged with International relations theorists. His critique on neo realism provides us some very good ideas, actually mostly historian largely ignored neo realist theory in their work, but Schroeder is one of those who examined neo realist theory with History. These types of experiments give new directions to international relations and at the same time it also open doors for criticism and long debates!
This session is actually a part of debate between Schroeder and Elmens. Elmens systematically analyze the whole article of Schroeder, and give their point of views. In the thesis statement Elmans first talk about the positive points of the Schroeder’s article that how he provide evidences then Elmens describe the weak point of the articles.
Elmens very elegantly target those things which are basic foundations of the Schroeder’s article. According to them, Schroeder made two kinds of mistakes in the article i) Theoretical ii) Conceptual and these mistakes leads to two errors. First, it mischaracterizes neo realism. Secondly, it misunderstands the kinds of evidences. Elmens certainly not defending the neo realism but they are criticizing the method used by Schroeder. They claim that writer unintentionally supporting the neo realism instead of undermining.
At the same time, Schroeder very diplomatically and precisely reply to the Elmens’ critique. He clearly mention about the purpose of his writing and why he is not giving a full satisfactory response! Schroeder very gracefully clear his position in such a limited space.
Paul W. Schroeder is an American historian who has engaged with International relations theorists. His critique on neo realism provides us some very good ideas, actually mostly historian largely ignored neo realist theory in their work, but Schroeder is one of those who examined neo realist theory with History. These types of experiments give new directions to international relations and at the same time it also open doors for criticism and long debates!
This session is actually a part of debate between Schroeder and Elmens. Elmens systematically analyze the whole article of Schroeder, and give their point of views. In the thesis statement Elmans first talk about the positive points of the Schroeder’s article that how he provide evidences then Elmens describe the weak point of the articles.
Elmens very elegantly target those things which are basic foundations of the Schroeder’s article. According to them, Schroeder made two kinds of mistakes in the article i) Theoretical ii) Conceptual and these mistakes leads to two errors. First, it mischaracterizes neo realism. Secondly, it misunderstands the kinds of evidences. Elmens certainly not defending the neo realism but they are criticizing the method used by Schroeder. They claim that writer unintentionally supporting the neo realism instead of undermining.
At the same time, Schroeder very diplomatically and precisely reply to the Elmens’ critique. He clearly mention about the purpose of his writing and why he is not giving a full satisfactory response! Schroeder very gracefully clear his position in such a limited space.
I personally believed that both responses have equally importance and they writers correctly describe their arguments in their own way. The main thing I noticed is that there is no universality in terminology we use in this discipline. For example, Schroeder gave his own concept of “self-help” and the Elmens gave their own perception about “self-help”. But this point also makes this field more diverse as most of debates starts due to this aspect. The main takeaway from these critiques is that we should challenge and analyze the basic assumptions and concepts used in a theory and try to remain diplomatic while answering the negative critique. These things are essential for the growth of a field because it leads to progression.
I forgot to check the dropbox and wrote the response from the course pack's reading!
ReplyDeleteI hope there will be no issue.
Cheers.
Quoting Wiz Khalifa, eh? Well it proves the point that a thoughtful critique is useful. I agree that because of the lack of clear definitions on oft-used terms - such as self-help, but this could be expanded to others such as balance of power, anarchy, etc. - this opens up room for debate in the field about theory and reality. Since no one can agree on any singular definition of a term, we are destined to continue to debating this issues now and into the future.
ReplyDeleteAnd no worries about not seeing the dropbox - your post was fine.