民主国家政治影响力的崛起
1916年威斯特伐利亚条约是主权民族国家的兴起的结果，为了了解这些国家之间的关系应用而生一门新学科。像任何其他的学科，国际组织之间通过一系列的辩论，对话和理论分析，然后明白了其范围和领域。不同的学校提出他们如何看待现有的政治世界，并确定最佳方式帮助这些独立的国家共存。
由当时的真实事件引发了四大辩论关于这门学科的历史影响。根据韦弗所说，“将这些争论进行分类，对于这门学科的历史，，没有任何意义”（阴影施密特，第10页）。关于它的影响，一些学者认为，这些辩论局限于固有的想法，而另一些人认为它只是门支离破碎的学科并没有任何特定的方向。不过，值得一提的是，它获得控制权的方式是通过修改整个学科的重点和内容（伯奇尔和林克莱特，1995）。
The history of this discipline is influenced by four major debates which were triggered by the real events of that time. As Weaver remarked, "IR is categorized by these debates that there is no other mean of telling the history of the discipline" (cited in Schmidt, p.10). Regarding its impact, some scholars argue that these debates have confined the IR discipline to a certain rhetoric framework, while others maintain that it has only fragmented the discipline and left it without any particular direction. Nonetheless, it is worth mentioning that as each approach came to dominance, it immediately claimed hegemony by restructuring the focus and content of the entire discipline (Burchill and Linklater, 1995).
This essay shall focus on all four debates separately regarding its impact on IR theory - followed by the conclusion.
First Great Debate:
The first debate, which received the most attention in IR theory, was between the realist and idealist schools of thought.
In the initial years of the discipline, Idealist solely ruled the domain of IR. Idealist, motivated by the desire to prevent war, believed that a peaceful world can be created as harmony of interest exists among nations, through diplomacy, trade and institutions. After the horrors of World War I, they sought after a long-term peace and established the League of Nations based on the principle of collective security (Jackson and Sorenson 2007, p31-35).
During the 1930s, Abyssinia and Manchurian Crises, failure of the League of Nations, and the start of the Second World War marked the end of the idealist dominancy in the world politics and gave birth to a more pragmatic outlook in the form of realism. As noted by Young and Kent, the realist school of IR theorist was born out of the failure of liberal thinkers in the interwar period (2004, p.3).
Realism school places sovereign states as the primary centre of power. They view the world politics as a constant struggle for power among states that acts on the basis of pure self interest. They believe that anarchy of the political structure is mitigated through balance of power - which at times is created by military means (Baylis & Smith 2001, p.142-144). The realist reinforces its theme with the help from history of Thucydides, Hobbes and Machiavelli. For instance, Melian Dialogue from "History of the Peloponnesian War" validates the notion of power politics that, if possible, powerful states will strive to enhance their power, while others will work to protect their interests. Boucher even suggests that Thucydides has been identified by some as the prototype realist (1998, P67).
The principal character of the first debate was E. H Carr, who in his 1938 publication, The Twenty Years' Crisis, initiated this debate by heavily criticizing the idealist, mainly Angell and Zimmern, understanding of politics. Also dubbing it as utopianism, Carr criticized idealism for its underlying normative theme. He believed that Idealist studied the global politics on the basis of how they aspire it to be, as he states "wishing prevail over thinking... in which little attempt is made at a critical analysis of existing facts" (1939, p. 11), and thus undermining reality.
He continued that harmony of interest, greater good for greatest number, is a moral device invoked by privileged group in order to maintain their dominant position (P.102), as seen during the WWII and that utopianism has ignored power which is a decisive factor of political order (p.301). In response, Carr proposed the concept of realism with the purpose to understand the forces that guide human behaviour (Vasquez 1983, p.16). He claimed that politics cannot be detached from power (p.125) and is devoid of morality (p.194).
Another renowned Realist, Morgenthau took realism a step further in his 1948 book "Politics among nations" by applying positivist methodology to make this discipline more intellectually respected (Burchill 1996, p.73). His six principles summarises realism and further reiterates Carr criticism against utopianism.
Majority of the literature of that era shows that realist had succeeded in establishing their monopoly on the discipline. However, with realist inability to predict and explain the end of cold war and the revival of liberalism in the form of Liberal institutionalism suggests that the debate continues even today.
Assessment of the First Debate:
Despite the realists' claim of victory, there is growing number of intellectual's contending the impact of this debate on the discipline - with some even refuting this discourse as a myth, manufactured by a few scholars.
According to Ashworth, this discourse was more about realists striking Idealists, based on their assumption about IR, rather than a healthy debate about different ideas of the international arena (2002, p.33). During the inter-war period, Ashworth believes, idealism was never properly defined, and was oversimplified by Carr. He goes on to prove that the features of idealism highlighted by Carr does not bear any resemblance to the actual ideas professed by the five major idealists of those times (2006, p.292&301) - hence disqualifying this as a debate. Equally strong opponent, Wilson, inspite of conceding to the importance of Carr's publication, argues that by replacing a broad discipline with the term idealism, he has merely discredited the subject by making it synonym with terms like untruth, impractical, superficial (1998, p.8-9).
Another point of contention is the impact realism had on IR discipline. Many suggests that the monopoly of realism have marginalised those theories that offered alternate or contradictory view of the reality, as it by definition neglect change and encourages us to accept reality as it explains. As Burchill remarked, due to dominance of realism agenda, other discourses were effectively occluded from IR (1996, p81-83). Ashworth argue to the extent that it had managed to alienate a generation of intellects that understood the real problems of that era (2002, p.48) while Wilson claims that a number of related studies were neglected at that time due to Carr's critiques (1998, p.14) - which makes one wonder that debate may have hindered the progress of the field, and has merely bifurcated.
Furthermore, many regards realism as a one dimensional IR theory (Jackson and sorenson, p.89). Realism looks at the global system from a state centric view and in terms of power relations - it ignores and underestimates other aspect of international arena (ibid). Hence the dominance of realism have led others to view through the same framework - hence narrowing down the vision of IR in its development period.
Despite some heavy criticism, one cannot help but notice the impact this debate has left behind. Most often, realism has directed the IR theory with its ability to explain the real world events especially after WWII. According to Guzzini, Realism set the paradigmatic boundaries of the discipline and served the function of defining it as an independent field of study while Donelly suggests that through realism, partially though, we can review the development of IR field even (cited in Schmidt 2002, p.9). Even Long, while studying three strands of liberalism, claimed that the realism directed IR toward empirical methodology from a normative approach (1991, p. 286) - hence incorporating science to IR.
For intellects like Vasquez (1983, p15-23), each step has had an impact on developing IR. The idealist institutionalised the field and provided the goal for the discipline i.e. to end war, while the realist provided an understanding of the structure and underlining laws that govern behaviour - hence a paradigm for International politics. Realism may have laid the foundation and paved the way for other theories tobuild on but one wonders if IR theory would ever overcome the hegemony of realist ideas.
The Second Great Debate:
As theoretical boundaries of the IR discipline were under discussion, scholars moved toward the methodological aspect of the field which led to the second round of debate. This took place during the 1960s between traditionalism and behaviouralism.
The behavioural revolt in social science, driven by US academia gained prominence in the early 1960s (Knorr & Rosenau cited by Vasquez 1983, p.20). The overall environment of that time and attempts to gain rigor of science in IR field led scholars like Kaplan and others to adopt conceptual methods and approaches from other scientific fields (Bull, ibid). Whereas the traditionalistic approach is rooted in history, law, philosophy, and above all judgement (Bull 1966, p.361). In short, this debate was more so between the historical methods versus scientific methods for studying IR.
Behaviouralism relies on objective and verifiable laws to explain the world of IR. They collect empirical data (measurable and generalised) that leads to framing and testing from which theories are constructed (Hollis and smith 1990, p.28-29). Kaplan among Deutsch (cybernetics theory), Singer (Correlates of war) and Schelling (game theory) were the main proponent of behaviouralism (Brown 2001, p.35).
Assessment of the Second Debate:
Many considered this debate between realism and behaviouralism as it clashes with the underlining theme of realism. Realism relies on prior assumption about human nature which is beyond any possible observation where as in behaviouralism; theories are constructed on empirical data (Hollis & smith 1990, p.29). Regarding this, Vasquez rightly concluded that the debate is over scientific methodology (Vasquez 1983, p.20-22) while Knorr and Rosenau claimed that it is the mode of analysis that is under discussion, not the subject matter (ibid).
The spokesperson of traditionalist school, Bull believed that IR relies on intuition and judgement, thus cannot be studied by mathematical and statistical tools. He claimed that nothing significant would come out by confining the discipline to strict methods of testing, verification, and proof (1969, p.361). To which, Kaplan replied that since great scientific discoveries are the product of intuition, this further supports involvement of scientific methods (1966, p.3). Bull harshly called this "a great disservice to theory in this field by conceiving it as ... of so-called "models". He conceded that international politics require rigor, logic and precision but persisted that it can be provided with the classical approach as done by Hoffmann and Waltz. (1969, p.370-375).
Despite severe attack, behaviouralism went on to dominate the discipline primarily in U.S where majority supported the quantitative and scientific methods as compare to English school that rejected the challenge and continued with the traditional approach (Jackson and Sorenson 2007, p.42 & 45; Bull 1969, p.363). Moreover, behaviouralism assumed the positivism as it was the dominant model of science that regrettably established the kind of science the discipline would adopt (Kurki and wight 2007, p.17). Furthermore, this discussion paved the way for reformulation of realism and idealism under positivist methodology as discussed below (Jackson and Sorenson, p. 42).
Third Great Debate:
The consensus around a commitment to positivism laid the foundation for the third debate between Neo-realism and Neo-Liberalism (Kurki and Wight, p.18), also known as inter-paradigm debate. The events of real world, such as the politics of super powers during cold war versus the socio economic changes produced theories: neo-realism and neo-liberalism (Brown, p.36).
Neo-Liberalism (also termed as pluralism) takes its meaning from Keohane and Nye's model of "complex interdependence" where states are not the only significant actors, and institutions can achieve greater cooperation among states (Baylis & Smith, p.189). Keohane, as quoted by Baldwin, acknowledges that "Neo-Liberalism is derived equally from realism and liberalism" (ibid, p.184).
Alternatively, Neo-realism came to the limelight with the work of Waltz "theory of International politics" which is an attempt, as hollis and smith puts it, "to rectify realism inability to deal with economic issues" and to respond to the pluralist challenge posed by interdependency theory (p.36 & Burchill, p. 83). Waltz's, borrowing core assumption from realism, defines the structure as anarchical and order in terms of balance of power, whereas denote power in terms of states capabilities. (Baylis & Smith, p.185 and Jackson & Sorenson, p.77). Another feature of neo-realism is Greico's concept of relative gain - as oppose to absolute gain contested by neo-liberalism (Baylis & Smith, p.186).
Assessment of Third Debate:
Baldwin highlighted disputes, among many similarities, between these two groups. The critical point is of relative gains where he quote Greico's that neo-liberalism has overlooked the importance of relative gain which is source of state inhibitions about international cooperation (cited in Jackson & Sorenson, p.118). He claims that "the fundamental goal of any states is to prevent others from achieving advances in relative capabilities". While some scholars undermine the importance of relative gain especially in economic matter - Keohane acknowledges that in certain conditions, neo-liberalism does underestimate the importance of relative gains (Baldwin 1993, p.5-8).
It seems that the difference between both the approaches is quite insignificant as compare to the divide that existed earlier. Keohane and Martin called the institutional theory a "half sibling of neo realism (1995, p.191) while Mearsheimer writes down neo-liberalism by claiming it 'to be neo-realism by another name' (Jackson & Sorenson, p.118).
Weaver, however looks at inter-paradigm debate as a contest "not to be won but a pluralism to live with", in contrast to the previous debates, as each paradigm acknowledges the other's perspective. He concludes that realism and liberalism self-limiting redefinition gave birth to a neo-neo synthesis that became the dominant rationalistic research programme of the 1980s ( year, p.155-156 & 163). However, this neo-neo synthesis is not much acknowledged in U.S where the division of both school is still quite relevant (Schmidt, p.15).
Even though this debate is ongoing, one could take the liberty to suggest that this has the potential to find a middle ground between realist and liberalist approaches which is critical for IR discipline. However, scholars like Robert Cox simply relegate these approaches as problem solving theories that merely represent the status quo and does not suggest reforms in International system (Baylis and Smith, p.184&212) - which brings us to the fourth debate.
Fourth Great Debate:
The fourth debate looks at the understanding and explanatory divide in IR along with encompassing the positivist and post-positivist debate (Kurki and Wight, p.22-23 - hence bringing the discussion back to science. Fundamentally, this debate questions the epistemological foundation of the discipline.
Rationalism widely associated as an explanatory and positivist tradition based on empiricist epistemology, came up against a wide range of theories that were critical of this particular approach to IR theory (ibid). Rationalism, primarily used by Keohane for his rational choice theory, is epitomised by neo-neo debate for its underlying positivist and empiricist methodology (smith 2001, p.227)
Reflectivism, a term penned by Keohane in 1988, refers to approaches like critical theory, post structuralism, etc have nothing in common except their rejection of the positivist account of science to study social processes (Kurki and Wight, p.23). Post-positivism challenges the classical way of knowledge creation and suggests that people conceive and construct the world they live in including the international world (Sorenson and Jackson, p.292).
Assessment of the Fourth Debate:
Keohane famously challenged to evaluate reflectivism program on the basis of testable theories -suggesting positivism as the only way to evaluate research program, thus concluding its dominance (Smith 1996, p.12). Lapid, on the other hand, argues that the demise of empiricist and positivist science has compelled scholars to re-examine the ontological, epistemological, foundations of their scientific endeavours (1989, p.235-6). Many others such as Maghroori and Ramberg call this debate as the third discipline-defining debate in IR - Infact Bank goes further by suggesting that this discourse is potentially the richest and most promising debate ever occurred in IR (ibid).
Moreover, Holsti defends the question of pluralism raised by the last two debates by suggesting that since we live in a complex world; it is therefore unlikely that any single theory could adequately explain all of its essential character and account for change. This debate will thus avoid over-simplification in IR caused by the realism model (1989, p.256).
The debate has challenged the core bases for classical way of knowledge creation and has the potential to completely change the shape of the IR. As said by Vasquez, post-positivism challenge of the epistemological foundation of the field has put the scientific study of world politics in a serious crisis. On the other hand, some scholars see this as a way of reconstructing IR, providing room to think about issue currently comprising the subject matter of the field. While this debate has allowed multiple voices/ perspective to analyse and explore the world and questing existing truths, it is still unclear on the impact it will have on the mainstream IR field (cited by Schmidt, p.15-16).
Concluding thoughts:
As shown above, the history of IR theory is marked by four debates where competing view are contested to define the discipline of IR. The problem however is that, as Kirk's notes, even after a quarter of century of discussion, the field is still in the condition of considerable confusion. The scope of the field, the method of analysis.. all matters are of continuing controversy (cited by Schmidt, p. 3 ).
While many may argue that these debates have fragmented the discipline rather than forming a coherent field with well defined boundaries - we ought to acknowledge that IR takes its roots from various other disciplines such as law, politics etc. This undertaking of synthesising such broad disciplines has to certain extent hampered the effort to create a unified coherent discipline (Wright cited in Schmidt, p.6).
Furthermore as Kuhn's suggests, science evolves through a series of distinct stages, dominated by paradigms that generate knowledge till confronted by an alternate idea. These periodic shifts determine the shape of the discipline - while a paradigm matures when scholars are unable to satisfy certain anomalies and are preceded by others. (cited in Burchill & Linklater, p.10-11).
Similarly, despite its drawbacks, one could relate these debates as the evolutionary period in IR theory - starting with idealism and then realism serving as the dominant paradigm in defining the framework and disciplinary boundaries. While realism supremacy has affected IR theory by subjugating alternate outlook, it has provided foundational assumptions for explaining IR (Schmidt, p.16). There is no dominant IR theory but as noted by Hollis and smith, "despite fragmentation, there exist a strong shared assumption about the character of the discipline" (1990, p.38). These debates further led to a reconciliation of these approaches in a neo-neo synthesis providing a ray of hope to IR theory.
On the other side, positivism has been the dominant model of science since the 1950. However, a wide range of sceptics has recently questioned this version of science for the study of social explanation. Their impact on IR theory is not yet clear, however if established, it could alter how the discipline is viewed and could also affect the credibility of the existing approaches.
Further to this, as the event of world politics changes, as suggested by Schmidt and Holsti, new theoretical innovations will overcome or submerge these existing paradigms as well (2002, p.10; , p.259). As Mearsheimer suggested in his speech, IR needs competing thought to understand the complex world of global politics. In order to make sense of the world, we need to have a variety of perspectives at our disposal (2005, p.149-151) - so far which have largely been provided by the great debates.
本文编号：43775
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenshubaike/lwfw/43775.html
