Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science

Millennium - Journal of International Studies

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 1987, Pages 189-206

  Smith, Steve ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84970639346     PISSN: 03058298     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/03058298870160022501     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. See Martin Wight ‘Why is there no International Theory'? ‘in H. Butterfield and M. Wight (eds.) Diplomatic Investigations (London: George Allen and Unwin. 1966), pp. 17 – 34: Hedley Bull The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977): Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (eds.) The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). For a review of the ‘English’ school see Hidemi Suganami ‘The Structure of Institutionalism: An Anatomy of British Mainstream International Relations'. International Relations (Vol. 7, No.5. 1983), pp. 2363–81. A critical review of the approach can be found in Roy Jones ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 7. No. 1. 1981). pp. 1–14.
2. See especially Charles Reynolds. Theory and Explanation in International Relations (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1973). For a debate over this interpretation see Geoff Berridgc ‘International Relations’, Teaching Politics (Vol. 10, No. 1, 1981). pp. 78–84; and Steve Smith ‘Berridge on International Relations'. Teaching Politics (Vol. 11. No. 1. 1982). pp. 23–9, followed by Berridge's reply, pp. 30-32.
3. For a recent survey of the differences between the British and American international relations communities see Gene Lyons. The Study of International Relations in Great Britain'. World Politics (Voi. 38, No. 4, 1986), pp. 626–45. The same concern formed the theme for the essays in Steve Smith (ed.). International Relations: British and American Approaches (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985). For a discussion of the situation of the subject in France. see Gene Lyons ‘Expanding the Study of International Relations: The French Connection'. World Politics (Vol. 35. No. 1. 1982). pp. 135–149.
4. Hedley Bull International Theorv: The Case for a Classical Approach’, World Politics (Vol. 18, No. 3. 1966). pp. 361 – 77. This essay along with a number of rejoinders is reprinted in Klaus Knorr and James Rosenau (eds.). Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press. 1969).
5. For an excellent analysis of US dominance of international relations see Stanley Hoffmann ‘An American Social Science; International Relations, Daedalus (Vol. 106, No. 3, 1977), pp. 41 – 60. This has been invaluable in writing this paper.
6. For a good overview of the history of the subject see William Olson and Nicholas Onuf ‘The Growth of the Discipline: Reviewed ‘in Steve Smith (ed.), An American Social Science; International Relations, Daedalus, pp. 1 – 28. See also Richard Little, ‘Teaching International Relations: Working with Paradigms’, Interstate: A Journal of International Relations (1984, No. 1), pp. 3–10; Richard Little ‘The Evolution of International Relations as a Social Science’ in Randolph Kent and Gunnar Neilsson (eds.), The Study and Teaching of International Relations (London: Francis Pinter, 1980) pp. 1–27; Steve Smith ‘The Development of International Relations Theory’, Teaching Politics (Vol. 14, No. 1), 1985. pp. 103–123; Michael Banks ‘The Evolution of International Relations Theory’ in Michael Banks (ed.). Conflict in World Society (Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books, 1984). pp. 3–21.
7. Hedley Bull ‘The Theory of International Politics 1919-1969’, in Brian Porter (ed.) The Aberystwyth Papers International Politics 1919-1969 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 34.
8. Richard Little, ‘The Evolution of International Relations as a Social Science ‘The Aberystwyth Papers International Politics 1919-1969 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 9.
9. E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years’ Crisis (London: Macmillan, 1939).
10. John Vasquez, The Power of Power Politics (London: Frances Pinter, 1983). A summary of the argument of this book can be found in John Vasquez ‘Colouring it Morgenthau: New Evidence for an Old Thesis on Quantitative International Politics’. British Journal of International Studies (Vol. 5, No. 3), 1979), pp. 210 – 228.
11. J. Handelman, J. Vasquez, M. O'Leary and W. Coplin ‘Color it Morgenthau: A Data-Based Assessment of Quantitative International Relations Research’, unpublished paper, Prince Research Studies, Syracuse University, 1973. p. 31.
12. Most clearly expressed in K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
13. See, for example, Robert Keohane, ‘The Theory of Hegemonic Stability and Changes in International Regimes, 1967-1977’ in Ole Holsti, Randolph Siverson, and Alexander George (Eds.), Change in the International System (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1980), pp. 131 – 162;
14. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little Brown, 1977);
15. Stephen Krasner, Defending the National Interest: Raw Materials Investments and U.S. Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).
16. For a review of Neo-Realism see the powerful attack on it in Richard Ashley, ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization (Vol. 38, No. 2, 1984), pp. 225 – 286, and comments by Gilpin, Kratochwil and Andrews that follow (pp. 287-304, 305-320, 321-327). See also the collection of essays on the topic in Robert Keohane (ed.). Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press. 1986).
17. E.H. Carr, ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization (Vol. 38, No. 2, 1984), pp. 225 – 286; Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York: Knopf, first published 1948. fifth edition 1973). Quotations from the fifth edition.
18. Hans Morgenthau, ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization (Vol. 38, No. 2, 1984), p. 3.
19. For a discussion of the role of Morgenthau's assumptions about human nature see Steve Smith. ‘War and Human Nature ‘in Tan Forbes and Steve Smith (eds.). Politics and Human Nature (London: Frances Pinter, 1983), pp. 164 – 179.
20. For an early, and still most helpful, critique of Morgenthau's Realism sec Stanley Hoffmann (Ed.), Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1960). pp. 30 – 39.
21. Stanley Hoffmann ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1960), pp. 45 – 47.
22. Robert Rothstein, ‘On the Costs of Realism’, Political Science Quarterly (Vol. 87. No. 3, 1972), p. 348.
23. Stanley Hoffmann ‘An American Social Science: International Regions’, (Vol. 87. No. 3, 1972), p. 48.
24. Richard Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin, ‘Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics ‘in Richard Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin (Eds.), Foreign Policy Decision Making (New York: Free Press, 1962), pp. 14 – 185.
25. Morton Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics (New York : John Wiley, 1957).
26. See Immanuel Wallerstein, The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century (New York: Academic Press, 1974); and Immanucl Wallerstein, The Modern World System II (New York: Academic Press. 1980).
27. John Burton, International Relations: A General Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965); John Burton, Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); and John Burton. World Society (Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1972).
28. See, for example. Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye (Eds.), Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972); Richard Mansbach. Yale Ferguson and Dale Lampert. The Web of World Politics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976).
29. Ray Maghroori and Bcnnett Ramberg (Eds.), Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate (Boulder; Westview Press, 1982).
30. Michael Banks. Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate (Boulder; Westview Press, 1982).
31. Michael Smith, Richard Little and Michael Shackleton (eds). Perspectives on World Politics (London: Croom Helm. 1981).
32. Fred Northedge ‘Transnationalism: The American Illusion ‘Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol. 5. No. 1. 1976), pp. 21 – 27.
33. For a stimulating article that challenges this division see Peter Gourevitch, ‘The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics’, International Organization (Vol. 32. No. 4, 1978), pp. 881 – 912.
34. I have discussed this assumption in democratic theory in Steve Smith, ‘Reasons of State ‘in David Held and Christopher Potlit (Eds.), New Forms of Democracy (London: Sage, 1986), pp. 192 – 217.
35. Peter Gourevitch. New Forms of Democracy (London: Sage, 1986), pp. 192 – 217.
36. K.J. Holsti. The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London: Allen and Unwin. 1985).
37. Hayward Alker and Thomas Biersteker, ‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire ‘. International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 28, No. 2. 1984), pp. 121 – 142.