Logo image
Back
Reading and Writing International Relations
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Reading and Writing International Relations

S.M. Makinda
Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.54(3), pp.389-401
2000
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/713613524
url
Link to Published Version *Subscription may be requiredView

Abstract

Alexander Wendt, "Social Theory of International Politics". Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 429 pp. Brian C. Schmidt, "The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations". Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998. 309 pp. Stefano Guzzini, "Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing Story of a Death Foretold". London: Routledge, 1998. 272 pp. As we enter the twenty-first century and the third millennium, International Relations (IR) is arguably more fragmented than it was 50 years ago. Realism, which has been closely identified with the discipline since the 1940s, is still dominant in North American IR, but even there it is increasingly regarded as just one of the paradigms. Most textbooks now include sections on liberalism, neoliberalism, international society, postmodernism, feminism, post-structuralism, constructivism and critical theory (see Jackson and Sorensen 1999; Nossal 1998; Baylis and Smith 1997; Brown 1997). A distinctive feature of recent IR debates is that most theorists tend to address more critically such themes as science and interpretation; objectivity and subjectivity; norms and practices; and materialism and idealism. Very little is assumed or taken for granted. While these debates have provided platforms for previously marginalised Western viewpoints, they have also unfortunately produced cult-like mentalities. Many scholars talk of ‘opening space’ when all they do is provide an ‘opening’ on one side and a ‘closure’ on the other. Others appear to find it attractive to accuse earlier theorists of closure even when they have not engaged broadly the writings of these earlier thinkers. I am of the view that one cannot be serious about ‘opening’ when one insists that certain phenomena cannot be studied scientifically or vice versa. The emancipatory power or hegemonic status of any theoretical framework should not be taken for granted. Indeed, anti-essentialism, like rationalism, has the potential for both closure and opening.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Source: InCites

Metrics

120 Record Views
5 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Citation topics
6 Social Sciences
6.27 Political Science
6.27.50 International Relations
Web Of Science research areas
International Relations
ESI research areas
Social Sciences, general
Logo image