Advertisement

Alternative Post-Positivist Theories of IR and the Quest for a Global IR Scholarship

  • Indraneel BaruahEmail author
  • Joren Selleslaghs
Chapter
Part of the United Nations University Series on Regionalism book series (UNSR, volume 17)

Abstract

This chapter outlines a few post-positivist theories of international relations and compares them with positivist theories. At its core, the chapter aims to demonstrate that these two camps are not to be viewed as in constant turmoil, but in terms of complementarity and their objective contribution to the advancement of social science and IR. Thus, rather than critically comparing these two schools of thought, or focusing solely on their contradictions or strengths and weaknesses, it elucidates the complementary strengths of both these camps of thought. In addition, it outlines the relative advantages and disadvantages of both camps. In essence, in light of the standards used during that era, positivist theories seek to organise the early social scientific theories by using similar methods to those used to study the natural sciences. Post-positivist theories are a consortium of theories that are not particularly complimentary or unified in perspective with one another, but allied in their rejection, and critiques of core positivist rationales. Positivism was influenced by the wider political and social context of the time, just like post-positivism was, and still is influenced by contemporary social and international contexts. Both of these theoretical schools were conceived in lieu of (contrasting) social and international contexts. Positivism was devised with the advent of the Enlightenment and Renaissance movements. Post-positivism was devised later, after the World Wars and the Cold War, with the advent of new actors, opinions, values, and in sum a much larger variety of variables impacting the global order. In doing so, it has advanced the debate pertaining to theory and method in social science. With the advent of change in the international system and the global order, both schools have undergone revisions. Despite their differences, this chapter essentially strives to portray that both these schools are to be seen not from a perspective of opposing camps, but as genuine attempts to study the social and international systems as driven by the nuances and structural changes of the social and international systems and the resultant changes in global order.

Keywords

Positivism Post-positivism IR theory Social science Natural science Constructivism Critical theory Postmodernism Relational theory Global IR Project Social and International context Perspective Flux 

Further Readings

  1. Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2010). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D. (Eds.). (2008). The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (Eds.). (1996). International theory: Positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

References

  1. Acharya, A. (2014). Global international relations (IR) and regional worlds: A new agenda for international studies. International Studies Quarterly, 58(4), 647–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acharya, A. (2016). Advancing global IR: Challenges, contentions, and contributions. International Studies Review, 18, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acharya, A., & Buzan, B. (2007). Why is there no Non-Western IR theory: An introduction. International Relations of the Asia Pacific, 7(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adem, S. (2007). Democratic peace theory and Africa’s international relations. Paper Presented at the ISA Convention, Chicago, IL, February 28–March 3.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, C. (2012). Ashoka: The search for India’s lost emperor. London: Hachette.Google Scholar
  6. Ashley, R. K. (1986). The poverty of neorealism. In R. O. Keohane (Ed.), Neo-realism and its critics (pp. 255–301). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barkawi, T., & Laffey, M. (2001). Introduction: The international relations of democracy, liberalism, and war. In T. Barkawi & M. Laffey (Eds.), Democracy, liberalism, and war: Rethinking the democratic peace debate. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  8. Barnett, M., & Duvall, R. (2005). Power in international politics. International Organization, 59(01), 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berenskoetter, F. (2007). Friends, there are no friends? An intimate reframing of the international. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 35(3), 647–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biersteker, T. J. (1989). Critical reflections on post-positivism in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 236–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boesche, R. (2002). The first great political realist: Kautilya and his Arthashastra. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  12. Bourdeau, M. (2015). Auguste Comte. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition) (E. N. Zalta (Ed.)). Access at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/
  13. Brown, C. (2009). Understanding international relations (pp. 48–52). Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buzan, B. (2001). The English school: An underexploited resource in IR. Review of International Studies, 27(3), 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buzan, B., & Little, R. (2001). Why international relations has failed as an intellectual project and what to do about it. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 30(1), 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cox, R. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 10, 126–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. George, J. (1989). International relations and the search for thinking space: Another view of the third debate. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gold, T., Guthrie, D., & Wank, D. (2002). An introduction to the study of Guanxi. In T. Gold, D. Guthrie, & D. Wank (Eds.), Social connections in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of Guanxi (pp. 3–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haas, M. (1995). When democracies fight one another, just what is the punishment for disobeying the law? Paper presented at the 91st annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, September 1.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffmann, S. (1977). An American social science: International relations. Daedalus, 106(3), 41–60.Google Scholar
  21. Hwang, K.-G. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 944–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hwang, K.-G (Eds.). (2004). Mianzi: Zhongguoren de Quanli Youxi (Face: Power game of Chinese people). Beijing: Remin University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, R., & Sørenson, G. (2003). Methodological debates: Classical versus positivism approaches. In R. Jackson & G. Sørensen (Eds.), Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2010). Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Khanna, P. (2016). Connectography: Mapping the future of global civilization (First ed.). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  26. Khanna, P. (2019). The future is Asian: Commerce, conflict, and culture in the 21st century. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  27. Kołakowski, L. (1978). Main currents of Marxism (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kurki, M. (2006). Causes of a divided discipline: Rethinking the concept of cause in international relations theory. Review of International Studies, 32(2), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1 vol). London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lapid, Y. (1989). The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in a post-positivist era. International Studies Quarterly, 33(3), 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lyotard, J. F. (1992). The postmodern explained: Correspondence, 1982–1985. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mann, M. (2001). Democracy and ethnic war. In T. Barkawi & M. Laffey (Eds.), Democracy, liberalism, and war: Rethinking the democratic peace debate. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  33. Monteiro, N. P., & Ruby, K. G. (2009). IR and the false promise of philosophical foundations. International Theory, 1(1), 15–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nicholson, M. (1996). The continued significance of positivism? In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Nye, J. S. J. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  36. Olivelle, P. (2013). King, governance, and law in ancient India: Kauṭilya’s Arthaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pye, L. (1968). The spirit of Chinese politics: A psychological study of the authority crisis in political development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Qin, Y. (2016). A relational theory of world politics. International Studies Review, 18(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ravlo, H., Gleditsch, N. P., & Dorussen, H. (2003). Colonial war and the democratic peace. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(4), 520–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ringmar, E. (2012). Performing international systems: Two East-Asian alternatives to the Westphalian order. International Organization, 66(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roach, S. C., Griffiths, M., & O’Callaghan, T. (2014). International relations: The key concepts. London/New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  42. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  43. Shea, C. (1997). Political scientists clash over value of area studies. Chronicle of Higher Education, January 10. Available at http://chronicle.com/article/Political-ScientistsClash/75248/
  44. Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. (2010). Beyond paradigms: Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and beyond. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith, S. (1997). New approaches to international theory. In J. Baylis & S. Smith (Eds.), The globalisation of world politics (pp. 165–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, S. (2002). The United States and the discipline of international relations: Hegemonic country, hegemonic discipline? International Studies Review, 4(2), 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, S., Booth, K., & Zalewski, M. (1996). Positivism and beyond (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trautmann, T. R. (1971). Kauṭilya and the Arthaśāstra: A statistical investigation of the authorship and evolution of the text. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
  50. Vasquez, J. (1995). The post-positivist debate. In K. Booth & S. Smith (Eds.), International relations theory today (pp. 217–240). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  51. Waltz, K. N. (1993). The emerging structure of international politics. International Security, 18(2), 44–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waltz, K. N. (2007). The anarchic structure of world politics. In R. Art & R. Jervis (Eds.), International politics: Enduring concepts and contemporary issues. Boston: Pearson Higher Ed.Google Scholar
  53. Watson, A. (1992). The evolution of international society (p. 14). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Wemheuer-Vogelaar, W., et al. (2016). The IR of the beholder: Examining global IR using the 2014 TRIP survey. International Studies Review, 18(1), 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it. International Organization, 46(2), 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Governance and Global AffairsLeiden UniversityThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations