Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 October 2009
Throughout the 1980s and continuing into the 1990s the academic discipline of international relations has witnessed a prolonged period of intense intellectual ferment about the contemporary identity of the field. The significance of this academic controversy is evidenced by the designation that it most fundamentally represents the discipline's third ‘Great Debate’. The importance of the third debate to a field characteristically immune from meta-theoretical self-reflection has been aptly acknowledged by those who recognize the changed nature of philosophical and theoretical inquiry in the post-positivist age. The variety of contending classifications that have been put forth to elucidate the overall character of the third debate is but another indication of the considerable importance that scholars have attached to the outcome of this dispute as we approach the next millennium.
1 On the third debate in general, see Maghroori, Ray and Ramberg, Bennett, Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations Third Debate (Boulder, 1982)Google Scholar; Banks, Michael, ‘The Inter-Paradigm Debate’, in Light, Margot and Groom, A. J. R. (eds.), International Relations A Handbook of Current Theory (London, 1985)Google Scholar; Banks, Michael, ‘Where We Are Now’, Review of International Studies, 11 (1985), pp. 215–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; George, Jim, ‘International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate’, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (1989), pp. 269–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 While the ‘third debate’ has been characteristically defined as an inter-paradigm debate, there are recent alternative conceptualizations of the debate. For example, see Peterson, V. Spike, ‘Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (1992), pp. 183–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Smith, Steve, ‘The Forty Years' Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (1992), pp. 489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
4 Wight, Martin, ‘Why is there no International Theory?’, in Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, Martin (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of International Politics (London, 1966), p. 20Google Scholar.
7 Bull, Hedley, ‘The Theory of International Politics, 1919–1969’, in Porter, Brian (ed.), The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics 1919–1969 (London, 1972), p. 33Google Scholar.
8 Vasquez, John A., The Power of Power Politics: A Critique (New Brunswick, 1983), p. 13Google Scholar.
9 There are some notable exceptions. For example, see Kauppi, Mark V. and Viotti, Paul R., The Global Philosophers: Western Politics in Western Thought (New York, 1992)Google Scholar. For a critical account of the notion of a tradition in international relations, see Derian, James Der, ‘Introducing Philosophical Traditions’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17 (1988), pp. 189–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Walker, R. B. J., ‘History and Structure in the Theory of International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18 (1989), pp. 163–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar: Dunne, Timothy, ‘Mythology or Methodology? Traditions in International Theory’, Review of International Studies 19 (1993), pp. 305–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 See Walker, R. B. J., Inside/Outside: International Relations As Political Theory (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar.
13 For a critical discussion of Gunnell's work, see Nelson, John S. (ed.), Tradition, Interpretation, and Science: Political Theory in the American Academy (Albany, NY, 1986)Google Scholar.
14 Gunnell, John G., Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory (Amherst, 1986), p. 95Google Scholar.
16 See Gunnell, John G., ‘Disciplinary History: The Case of Political Science’, Strategies: Journal of Theory, Culture and Politics, 4/5 (1991), pp. 182–227Google Scholar.
17 See Dunne, ‘Mythology or Methodology?’.
19 See Wight, Martin, ‘An Anatomy of International Thought’, Review of International Studies 13 (1987), pp. 221–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wight, Martin, ‘Western Values in International Relations’, in Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, Martin (eds.), Diplomatic InvestigationsGoogle Scholar; Wight, Martin, International Theory: The Three Traditions, ed. Wight, Gabriele and Porter, Brian (Leicester and London, 1991)Google Scholar.
22 Keohane, Robert O., ‘Theory of World Politics: Structural Realism and Beyond’, in Finifter, Ada W. (ed.), Political Science: The State of the Discipline (Washington, 1983), p. 503Google Scholar.
26 On the ambiguous nature of realism, see Goldman, Kjell, ‘The Concept of “Realism” as a Source of Confusion’, Cooperation and Conflict, 23 (1988), pp. 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, see Griffiths, Martin, Realism, Idealism and International Politics: A Reinterpretation (London, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
28 Gilpin, Robert G., ‘The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism’, in Keohane, Robert (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986), p. 306Google Scholar.
29 Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (Boston, 1985), p. 1Google Scholar.
36 For example, see Morgenthau, Hans J., Scientific Man Versus Power Politics (Chicago, 1946)Google Scholar and Bull, Hedley, ‘International Theory: The Case of the Classical Approach’, reprinted in Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, 1969)Google Scholar.
37 For example, see the recent exchange of Dryzek, John, Leonard, Stephen, Gunnell, John and Seidelman, Raymond, ‘Can Political Science History Be Neutral’, American Political Science Review 84 (1990), pp. 587–607Google Scholar. Also, see Gunnell, John G., ‘The Historiography of American Political Science’, in Easton, David, Gunnell, John G. and Graziano, Luigi (eds.), The Development of Political Science (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Gunn, J. A. W., ‘In Praise of Whiggism and Other Good Things’, in Easton, David, Stein, Michael and Gunnell, John G. (eds.), Regime and Discipline: Democracy and the Development of Political Science (Ann Arbor, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Collini, Stefan, Winch, Donald and Burrow, John, That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History (Cambridge, 1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
41 On the ‘voices of dissent’ in international relations, see the special issue of International Studies Quarterly 34 (1990)Google Scholar, and Rosenau, Pauline, ‘Once Again Into the Fray: International Relations Confronts the Humanities’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 19 (1990), pp. 83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 For examples of critical interpretive readings of the “classic” texts in international relations theory, see Williams, Michael C., ‘Rousseau, Realism, and Realpolitik’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 18 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garst, Daniel, ‘Thucydides and Neorealism’, International Studies Quarterly, 33 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hurrell, Andrew, ‘Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 16 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, see Schmidt, Brian C., review of Hans J. Morgenthau and the Ethics of American StatecraftGoogle Scholar, by Russell, Greg, in Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21 (1993), pp. 541–4Google Scholar.
44 The theoretical underpinnings of contextualism can be found in Skinner, Quentin, ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory, 8 (1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tully, James (ed.), Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and His Critics (Princeton, 1988)Google Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., Politics, Language, and Time (London, 1972)Google Scholar. A contextual frame of reference is clearly apparent in the recent work by Ross, Dorothy, The Origins of American Social Science (Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar.
45 Hoffmann, Stanley, ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’. Daedalus, 106 (1977), p. 41Google Scholar.
49 Sked, Alan, ‘The Study of International Relations: A Historian's View’, in Dyer, Hugh C. and Mangasarian, Leon (eds.), The Study of International Relations: The State of the Art (New York, 1989), p. 90Google Scholar.
54 Olson, William C. and Onuf, Nicholas, ‘The Growth of a Discipline: Reviewed’, in Smith, Steve (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford, 1985) p. 12Google Scholar.
56 Olson, William C. and Groom, A. J. R., International Relations Then and Now: Origins and Trends in Interpretation (London, 1991), p. 137Google Scholar.
58 Lyotard, Jean-Francois, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (Minnesota, 1989), p. xxivGoogle Scholar.
59 For those who have questioned the existence of international relations as a discipline, see Wright, Quincy, The Study of International Relations (New York, 1955)Google Scholar; Kaplan, Morton A., ‘Is International Relations A Discipline?’, The Journal of Politics, 23 (1961), pp. 462–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ransom, Harry Howe, ‘International Relations’, The Journal of Politics, 30 (1968), pp. 345–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
61 For examples of those who have discussed the national-internationa l character of the discipline, see Holsti, The Dividing Discipline; Alker, Hayward R. Jr. and Biersteker, Thomas J., ‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire’, International Studies Quarterly, 28 (1984), pp. 121–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dunn, David J., ‘On Perspectives and Approaches: British, American and Others’, Review of International Studies, 13 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives
62 See Crick, Bernard, The American Science of Politics: its Origins and Conditions (Berkeley, 1964)Google Scholar.
63 See Gunnell, John G., The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation (Chicago, 1993)Google Scholar.
Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.