The Discipline of International Relations: Still an American Social Science?

Abstract

This article reviews the state of the discipline of international relations. It starts from statements made by the editors in their editorial published in the first issue of this journal. The editors noted that there seemed to have been less adherence to positivism in international relations than in other areas of political science and that there was both more opposition to positivism and more methodological and epistemological openness in international relations than in political science generally. The article outlines the current state of the field, focusing on the rationalist mainstream and then on the reflectivist alternatives, before looking at social constructivism, seeing it as the likely acceptable alternative to rationalism in the mainstream literature of the next decade. It then turns to examine whether international relations is still an American social science, before looking at the situation in the United Kingdom. It concludes that the editors' comments were indeed accurate, but that the fact that there is both more opposition to positivism in international relations and more openness in the UK academic community does not mean that the mainstream US literature is anything like as open or pluralist. The UK community is indeed more able to develop theory relevant to the globalised world at the new millennium, but the US academic community still dominates the discipline.In their editorial in the first issue of the British Journal of Politics and International Relations, the editors made some provocative remarks about the state of the discipline of international relations (IR) in the United Kingdom. In this article I address these comments by examining the state of the discipline at the turn of the millennium. I will focus specifically on the overall character of the discipline, looking at the mainstream and at the

Why is there no Queer International Theory?

“…(Wight, 1966;Smith, 2000). My claim is that from a Disciplinary IR perspective, theories -including queer international theories -fail because they are judged not to be making progress toward this goal.…”

Is International Relations still an American social science discipline in Latin America?

“…This idea of the American prevalence among the discipline of International Relations is reinforced by cyclical production in the literature (Hoffman, 1977;Alker & Bierstekerr, 1984;Holsti, 1985;Waever, 1998;Smith, 2000;Aydinli & Matthews, 2000;Kristensen, 2012) into account is the fact that the acquisition of theory in the developing countries may be filtered due to the inequality among local academic groups and also by the commitment to the theory of these groups. Aydinli and Matthews (2009) have called attention to the fact that in Turkey there is the division between one core group and one "non-elite" group and that this division "operated like a domestic core and periphery.…”

Feminismo Decolonial e Teoria <em>Queer</em>: limites e possibilidades de diálogo nas relações internacionais

“…Contudo, a disciplina é difícil de ser permeada por discussões que extrapolem as perspectivas racionalistas tradicionais de estudo (neorrealismo e neoinstitucionalismo), as quais possuem lugar privilegiado na produção e difusão científica, sendo denominadas de RIs disciplinadoras por estabelecerem regras rígidas sobre o que deve ser considerado ciência no campo (SMITH, 2000).…”