History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look

Elman, Colin; Elman, Miriam Fendius; Schroeder, Paul W.

doi:10.2307/2539222

Cited by 34 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even during the highwater mark of the neo-neo grip on IR theory, few advocates of either sensibility denied the importance of history as a means of testing their approach. 1 In this way, Colin and Miriam Elman (1995Elman ( , 2008 found neorealism to be perfectly compatible with historical research, while figures as varied as Robert Gilpin (1981), John Mearsheimer (2003) and Arthur Eckstein (2006) have carried out major pieces of historical research aiming to validate, fill in or challenge the Waltzian frame. In a similar vein, Robert Keohane (1984), Lisa Martin (1992) and others have applied historical analysis to a neoliberal institutionalist research programme in order to draw out its explanatory potential.…”

Section: Scripture and Butterfly: History And International Relationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The eternal divide? History and International Relations

Lawson

2010

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On one level, history is used by all parts of the International Relations (IR) discipline. But lurking beneath the surface of IR's approach to history lies a well-entrenched binary. Whereas mainstream positions use history as a means to fill in their theoretical frames (seeing history as a kind of 'scripture' of abstract lessons), many post-positivists reduce history to a pick-and-mix of contingent hiccups (a 'butterfly' of what-ifs and maybes). Interestingly enough, this binary is one reproduced throughout the social sciences. As such, there is a bigger story to the apparently 'eternal divide' between history and social science than first meets the eye. This article uses the various ways in which history is used -and abused -in IR to probe more deeply into the relationship between history and social science as a whole. This exploration reveals four frameworks, two drawn from history (context and narrative) and two drawn from social science (eventfulness and ideal-typification) which illustrate the necessary co-implication of the two enterprises. The article employs these tools as a means of re-imagining the relationship between history and social science (including IR), conceiving this as a single intellectual journey in which both are permanently in view.

show abstract

Section: Scripture and Butterfly: History And International Relationsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The eternal divide? History and International Relations

Lawson

2010

European Journal of International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, Waltz's [neorealist] theory should not be discarded until something better comes along to replace it. 116 By these criteria, Popper's idea of theoretical pluralism becomes unlikely, if not impossible.…”

Section: Examples Of Conveniently Ignoring Anomalies and Criticismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper

Walker

2010

Persp on Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A common theme in the Centennial Issue of the American Political Science Review was how subfields have grown more specialized and insulated from one another. In this essay I argue that this trend has been hastened by the inappropriate incorporation of paradigm mentalities, first presented by Thomas Kuhn and later developed by Imre Lakatos. I show how paradigm mentalities help justify rigid opposition to theoretical alternatives and limit critical insight. While paradigm mentalities may be fitting for disciplines that demonstrate Kuhn'sconcrete scientific achievements,they constrain the study of political science and international relations in particular. I begin with a primer that compares Kuhn and Lakatos to Karl Popper. Next, I point to harmful consequences resulting from applying paradigm mentalities to the study of international relations. Among these is the tendency to act as if realism has earned the status of a paradigm and then invoke criteria of incommensurability and “subsumption” to deflect criticism. I conclude by discussing how Popper's model of science provides a better platform for the study of politics by encouraging theoretical and methodological pluralism.

show abstract

“…Walt's balance of threat, a notion that mixes neorealism with constructivism, was rejected by many neorealists not because it is false but because threat cannot be captured with deductive panache. “Material power,” argued Shibley Telhami (2002:163), “is the primary variable for neorealism…specifying threat as an alternative to power would beg an entirely new theory of international politics.”“Only better theories can replace theories,” added Elman and Elman (1995:192), “but we have yet to construct a competing research program that can account for both new facts and anomalies as well as past patterns of state behavior. Thus, Waltz's theory should not be discarded until something better comes along to replace it.” Neorealists leave us with the bizarre conclusion that it is better to cling to an incorrect but parsimonious theory than to admit that international politics may be too complex to describe neatly.…”

Section: Constructivist Visions and Balancing Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating IR's Crystal Balls: How Predictions of the Future Have Withstood Fourteen Years of Unipolarity

Fettweis¹

2004

Int Studies Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fall of the Berlin Wall inspired a variety of scholars to speculate about why the Cold War came to such an abrupt and shocking end, why no school of thought anticipated its demise, and what the event meant for international relations theory. A set of articles simultaneously emerged purporting to identify the most salient aspects of the new system, structural and otherwise, and to anticipate the direction in which it was heading. This paper begins a re-examination of some of those predictions, using the evidence that has accumulated over the decade and a half since the collapse of bipolarity to evaluate how early visions of the post-Cold War international system matched events that followed. In all the main areas of contention between neorealist and constructivist predictions -over balancing, the rise of multipolarity, and conflict -constructivism, with its emphasis on the role of ideas and norms in state behavior, has proven more prescient.

show abstract

History vs. Neo-realism: A Second Look

Cited by 34 publications

References 37 publications

The eternal divide? History and International Relations

The eternal divide? History and International Relations

The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper

Evaluating IR's Crystal Balls: How Predictions of the Future Have Withstood Fourteen Years of Unipolarity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About