scholarly journals Kenneth Waltz talks through Mark Rothko: Visual metaphors in the discipline of International Relations Theory

Semiotica ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (231) ◽  
pp. 171-191
Author(s):  
Serdar Ş. Güner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Production Of Knowledge ◽  
Visual Metaphors ◽  
Mark Rothko ◽  
Central Claim

Abstract Semiotics constitutes an untapped and interdisciplinary source of enrichment for the discipline of International Relations (IR) theory. We propose two visual metaphors to that effect to interpret the figure depicting the central claim of structural realism (SR) offered by late Kenneth Waltz who is one of the most disputed, read, and inspiring IR theorists. The figure is the tenor of both metaphors. The vehicles are two paintings by Mark Rothko, namely, “Green and Tangerine on Red” and the “Number 14.” The metaphors generate innumerable meanings for the tenor and eliminate the criticism that SR is a static and an ahistorical theory. Thus, they benefit the Discipline characterised by academic cleavages on the meaning of theory, science, and production of knowledge.

East Asia International Relations and International Relations Theory: Where Does a Poor Fit Exist, and What to Do about It

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 1202-1218 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-hyung Kim
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
East Asia ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Power Politics ◽  
Indigenous Theory ◽  
Core Concepts ◽  
Great Power Politics ◽  
Key Variables ◽  
Many Core ◽  
Central Claim

This article seeks to critically assess the relevance of International Relations Theory (IRT) for East Asia International Relations (IR). After identifying the shortcomings of IRT in explaining East Asia IR, the article provides several ways to modify it with a goal to make it more suitable for East Asia IR. Its central claim is that the IRT’s bias toward European experiences and great power politics generates unsatisfactory accounts for and inaccurate predictions about East Asia IR. This does not mean, however, that we should treat IRT as completely irrelevant and develop an indigenous theory of East Asia IR. Given that no single theory is complete and perfectly relevant across time and space and that many core concepts and key variables of IRT are also pertinent for East Asia IR, our efforts should instead be made to refine the existing IRT and make it more suitable for East Asia IR by problematising its major assumptions and central claims on the basis of East Asian experiences. This will save IRT from being a region-specific and a country-specific theory of IR.

1. International Relations Theory and the Middle East

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-38
Author(s):  
Fred H. Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
Alternative Perspective ◽  
The Many ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Neoliberal Institutionalism

This chapter discusses the different theories and approaches that characterize the study of international relations. Mainstream theories focus on the ways that states interact with one another in circumstances where no overarching authority governs their behavior — in other words, under conditions of anarchy. These theories include structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the scholarship on relational contracting. An important alternative perspective — the English School — argues that, even under anarchic conditions, there is a high degree of orderliness in world affairs. Meanwhile, proponents of constructivism assert that states take shape in specific historical contexts, and that the conditions under which states coalesce and become socialized to one another play a crucial role in determining how they conceive of themselves and formulate their basic interests. Scholars of the Middle East have so far addressed only a fraction of the many theoretical debates and controversies that energize the field of international relations.

Integrating anxiety into international relations theory: Hobbes, existentialism, and ontological security

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bahar Rumelili
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Condition ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Multiple Forms ◽  
Ontological Security ◽  
State Of Nature ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Existentialist Philosophy

This article draws on Hobbes and existentialist philosophy to contend that anxiety needs to be integrated into international relations (IR) theory as a constitutive condition, and proposes theoretical avenues for doing so. While IR scholars routinely base their assumptions regarding the centrality of fear and self-help behavior on the Hobbesian state of nature, they overlook the Hobbesian emphasis on anxiety as the human condition that gives rise to the state of nature. The first section of the article turns to existentialist philosophy to explicate anxiety's relation to fear, multiple forms, and link to agency. The second section draws on some recent interpretations to outline the role that anxiety plays in Hobbesian thought. Finally, I argue that an ontological security (OS) perspective that is enriched by insights from existentialism provides the most appropriate theoretical venue for integrating anxiety into IR theory and discuss the contributions of this approach to OS studies and IR theory.

Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The World

This text argues that theory is central to explaining International Relations (IR) and that the discipline of IR is much more relevant to the world of international relations than it has been at any point in its history. Some chapters cover distinct IR theories ranging from realism/structural realism to liberalism/neoliberalism, the English school, constructivism, Marxism, critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism, green theory, and postcolonialism. Oher chapters explore International Relations theory and its relationship to social science, normative theory, globalization, and the discipline’s identity. This introduction explains why this edition has chosen to cover these theories, reflects on international theory and its relationship to the world, and considers the kind of assumptions about theory that underlie each of the approaches.

Causes of a divided discipline: rethinking the concept of cause in International Relations theory

2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
MILJA KURKI
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Explanation ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Causal Analysis ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Constitutive Theory ◽  
Ir Theory

During the last decades ‘causation’ has been a deeply divisive concept in International Relations (IR) theory. While the positivist mainstream has extolled the virtues of causal analysis, many post-positivist theorists have rejected the aims and methods of causal explanation in favour of ‘constitutive’ theorising. It is argued here that the debates on causation in IR have been misleading in that they have been premised on, and have helped to reify, a rather narrow empiricist understanding of causal analysis. It is suggested that in order to move IR theorising forward we need to deepen and broaden our understandings of the concept of cause. Thereby, we can radically reinterpret the causal-constitutive theory divide in IR, as well as redirect the study of world politics towards more constructive multi-causal and complexity-sensitive analyses.

International Relations Theory, International Law, and the Regime Governing Atrocities in Internal Conflicts

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
Internal Conflicts ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Cross Fertilization

Over the last ten years, international relations (IR) theory, a branch of political science, has animated some of the most exciting scholarship in international law.1 If a true joint discipline has not yet emerged,2 scholars in both fields have clearly established the value of interdisciplinary cross-fertilization. Yet IR—like international law—comprises several distinct theoretical approaches or “methods.” While this complexity makes interactions between the disciplines especially rich, it also makes them difficult to explore concisely. This essay thus constitutes something of a minisymposium in itself: it summarizes the four principal schools of IR theory—conventionally identified as “realist,” “institutionalist,” “liberal” and “constructivist”—and then applies them to the norms and institutions governing serious violations of human dignity during internal conflicts (the “atrocities regime”).

Desire all the way down

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROXANNE LYNN DOTY
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
First Principles ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
The Unconscious ◽  
Metaphysical Foundation ◽  
The One ◽  
The Way

Alex Wendt's Social Theory of International Politics demonstrates perhaps more long and hard thought about social theory and its implications for international relations theory than most international relations scholars have dared to venture into. He admirably attempts to do in an explicit manner what most scholars in the discipline do only implicitly and often accidentally: suggest a social theory to serve as the foundation for theorizing about international relations. However, there are problems with his approach, a hint of which can be found in the epigraph he has chosen: ‘No science can be more secure than the unconscious metaphysics, which tacitly it presupposes’. Because metaphysics cannot ultimately be proven or disproved, it is inherently insecure. The insecurity and instability of the metaphysical presuppositions present in Social Theory are not difficult to find, and what Wendt ends up demonstrating, despite his objective not to, is the absence of any secure, stable, and unambiguous metaphysical foundation upon which IR theory could be firmly anchored. Indeed, what Social Theory does illustrate is that there is no such ultimate centre within the discipline except the powerful desire to maintain the illusion of first principles and the essential nature of things. If I may paraphrase Wendt, this is a ‘desire all the way down’ in that it permeates his relentless quest for the essence of international relations. Two goals characterize this desire: on the one hand, to take a critical stance toward more conventional international relations theory such as neorealism and neoliberalism; on the other, to maintain unity, stability, and order within the discipline. Social Theory oscillates between these two goals and in doing so deconstructs the very foundations it seeks to lay.

International Relations Theory

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Cristol
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ir Theory ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Starting Point

International relations (IR) theory is difficult to define. It is often taught as a theory that seeks both to explain past state behavior and to predict future state behavior. However, even that definition is contested by many theorists. Traditional IR theories can generally be categorized by their focus either on humans, states, or on the state system as the primary source of conflict. Any bibliography of international relations theory is bound to create controversy among its readers. Why did the author choose one theory and not the other? Why did the author choose one source and not the other? Indeed, a wide variety of permutations would be perfectly valid to provide the researcher with an adequate annotated bibliography, so why were these particular entries chosen? This article identifies Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism as the three major branches of IR theory. These three branches have replaced the earlier realism-idealism dichotomy. The “English School” could be considered part of any of the aforementioned three branches, and its placement in the IR theory world is the subject of some debate. It has therefore been given its own section and is not included in any of the other sections. Critical IR theory and Feminist IR theory are often considered part of constructivism; however, there is much debate over whether they constitute their own branches, and so they are included in this article (as well as in their own entries in the OBO series), though the sources are somewhat different. Post–Cold War IR Theory is given its own heading because there are a number of theories that were proposed in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War that are still widely taught and discussed in the field. Perhaps the most controversial inclusion is that of Neoconservatism. Though it is quite possible to mount a case for it to be considered a theory of US foreign policy, it is theoretically distinct from other IR theories (the belief in bandwagoning instead of balancing). The final three sections are included to show how political theory has influenced IR theory, and how history and foreign policy have influenced IR theory (and vice versa). The included sections and citations represent both the mainstream of IR theory and those nonmainstream theories that have just started to break into the mainstream of IR theory. This article provides a starting point for both the beginning and the serious scholar of international relations theory.

It takes all types: social psychology, trust, and the international relations paradigm in our minds

2009 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian C. Rathbun
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Multiple Levels ◽  
Neoliberal Institutionalism

The insights of social psychology are not thoroughly integrated into international relations theory, yet social psychology has much to offer. Social psychology provides a conceptualization of a number of varieties of trust – moralistic, strategic, and generalized – and their opposites that implicitly drive the logic of major works of international relations. It also reveals the empirical presence of a number of different types of trusters who make different assumptions about the trustworthiness of others and consequently show markedly different propensities towards cooperation. The rough correspondence between these different ‘social orientations’ and the logics of the three approaches of structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism suggest that individuals carry a crude paradigm in their minds. Metatheoretically, the implication for international relations theory is that scholars capture a part but not the totality of world politics, the behavior of those who trust (or do not trust) in a particular way that matches the logic of their paradigms. Theoretically it suggests a research agenda at multiple levels of analysis, utilizing all of the types of trust and trusters. I review the work of others that offers some preliminary evidence for its plausibility, suggest some hypotheses of my own, and address potential theoretical objections.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document