Internalism Versus Externalism in the Disciplinary History of International Relations

2018 ◽  
pp. 127-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
History Of

Terminological Entrepreneurs and Discursive Shifts in International Relations: How a Discipline Invented the “International Regime”

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Steffek ◽  
Marcus Müller ◽  
Hartmut Behr
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Regime Theory ◽  
International Regime ◽  
Corpus Linguistic ◽  
Digital Discourse ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Linguistic Methods

Abstract The disciplinary history of international relations (IR) is usually told as a succession of theories or “isms” that are connected to academic schools. Echoing the increasing criticism of this narrative, we present in this article a new perspective on the discipline. We introduce concepts from linguistics and its method of digital discourse analysis (DDA) to explore discursive shifts and terminological entrepreneurship in IR. DDA directs attention away from schools of thought and “heroic figures” who allegedly invented new theories. As we show exemplarily with the rise of “regime theory,” there were entire generations of IR scholars who (more or less consciously) developed new vocabularies to frame and address their common concerns. The terminological history of “international regime” starts in nineteenth century international law, in which French authors already used “régime” to describe transnational forms of governance that were more than a treaty but less than an international organization. Only in the 1980s, however, was an explicit definition of “international regime” forged in American IR, which combined textual elements already in use. We submit that such observations can change the way in which we understand, narrate, and teach the discipline of IR. DDA decenters IR theory from its traditional focus on schools and individuals and suggests unlearning established taxonomies of “isms.” The introduction of corpus linguistic methods to the study of academic IR can thus provide new epistemological directions for the field.

Who f(o)unded IR: American philanthropies and the discipline of International Relations in Europe

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deniz Kuru
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Historical Narrative ◽  
World War ◽  
Academic Field ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Narratives ◽  
Major Factors

This article aims to present a history of International Relations (IR) that looks at the role of three big American foundations (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rockefeller, and Ford foundations) in the development of IR as an academic field in continental Europe. Its framework goes beyond the usual disciplinary history narratives that focus on IR’s US or UK trajectories, pointing instead to American foundations’ interwar and early post–World War II influence on French and German IR. The cases emphasize US foundations’ interactions with European scholars and international scholarly organizations as major factors shaping IR’s developmental pathways. This study offers a way to consider foundations’ role in IR’s gradual academic institutionalization by connecting disciplinary historical approaches to disciplinary sociology. Its sociologically conscious position underlines the significance of American philanthropies in a historical narrative and recognizes the relevance of transnational dynamics by going beyond usual emphases on ideas and national contexts.

A Discussion of Robert Vitalis’s White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1126-1126
Author(s):  
L.H.M. Ling
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Black Power ◽  
World Order ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Construction Of Knowledge ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
Alain Locke ◽  
History Of

In White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations, Robert Vitalis presents a critical disciplinary history of the field of international relations, and the discipline of political science more broadly. Vitalis argues that the interconnections between imperialism and racism were “constitutive” of international relations scholarship in the U.S. since the turn of the 20th century, and that the perspectives of a generation of African-American scholars that included W. E. B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and Ralph Bunche were equally constitutive of this scholarship—by virtue of the way the emerging discipline sought to marginalize these scholars. In developing this argument, Vitalis raises questions about the construction of knowledge and the racial foundations of American political development. These issues lie at the heart of U.S. political science, and so we have invited a range of political scientists to comment on the book and its implications for our discipline.

The history of international thought and International Relations theory: from context to interpretation

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Hall
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
History Of Political Thought ◽  
The Past ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
History Of ◽  
Made In ◽  
International Thought

Over the past two decades, historians of international thought have markedly improved our understanding of the disciplinary history of International Relations (IR) and its wider intellectual history. During that period, ‘contextualism’ has become a leading approach in the field, as it has been for half a century in the history of political thought. This article argues that while the application of contextualism in IR has improved our understanding of its disciplinary history, its assumptions about the proper relationship between historians and theorists threaten to marginalise the history of international thought within IR. It argues that unless the inherent weaknesses in contextualism are recognised, the progress made in the field will go unrecognised by a discipline that sees little reason to engage with its history. It suggests that historians of international thought adopt an extensively modified version of contextualism that would allow them to rebuild bridges back into IR, especially IR theory.

Historiography and International Relations

1999 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD LITTLE
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Political Economy ◽  
Alfred North Whitehead ◽  
The Political ◽  
State University ◽  
Founding Fathers ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
Considerable Debate ◽  
History Of

Stafano Guzzini, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold, London and New York, Routledge, 1998Brian C. Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1998The philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, cautioned many years ago that ‘A science which hesitates to forget its founders is lost’. If this injunction is true, then there would appear to be very little hope for the study of international relations. Although there is considerable debate about who constitute the founding fathers – names as different as Thucydides, Grotius and Kant come to mind – without doubt, interest in the seminal thoughts about international relations of such figures has never been higher.

The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations.

2000 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 1871 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Patterson ◽  
Brian C. Schmidt ◽  
Spencer R. Weart ◽  
Gary B. Ostrower
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
The Political ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
History Of

A Discussion of Robert Vitalis's White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 1123-1125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neta Crawford
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Political Development ◽  
Black Power ◽  
World Order ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Construction Of Knowledge ◽  
Disciplinary History ◽  
Alain Locke ◽  
History Of

In White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations, Robert Vitalis presents a critical disciplinary history of the field of international relations, and the discipline of political science more broadly. Vitalis argues that the interconnections between imperialism and racism were “constitutive” of international relations scholarship in the U.S. since the turn of the 20th century, and that the perspectives of a generation of African-American scholars that included W. E. B. Dubois, Alain Locke, and Ralph Bunche were equally constitutive of this scholarship—by virtue of the way the emerging discipline sought to marginalize these scholars. In developing this argument, Vitalis raises questions about the construction of knowledge and the racial foundations of American political development. These issues lie at the heart of U.S. political science, and so we have invited a range of political scientists to comment on the book and its implications for our discipline.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document