Why IR Needs Deweyan Pragmatism

Abstract

This article argues that international relations (IR) theory, defined by its paradigms, theories, and models, has responded not to questions of human experience in world politics, but rather, has been primarily an exercise in self-definitional or privately satisfying research interests. I demonstrate this through analysis of two of the most cited and discussed IR approaches of the past half-century, Waltz's structural realism and Wendt's constructivism. The article argues that a reconstruction of IR premised on John Dewey's pragmatism would enable IR to succeed in responding to questions of practical import. Such questions inherently cannot be determined by privately satisfying research interests of academia, but rather, are defined as problems of lived human experience in world politics as determined by the public itself.

A framework for analyzing and practicing Integrative Governance: The case of global animal and conservation governance

“…While there are many contributions to and interpretations of pragmatism, one of its core characteristics is indeed this focus on making a difference or the use value of an analysis (Light and Katz, 1996; Rorty, 1982; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998). As Isacoff (2015: 27) puts it: “theories should be no more, and no less, scientific or ‘rigorous’ than is necessary to achieve the particular task at hand”. The pragmatic perspective is especially relevant here, since the framework is not only meant for analyzing, but also practicing IG, and can be used by practitioners to reflect on IG practices and improve governance performance.…”