Inventing+International+Relations+International+Relations+Theory+after+1945

Kahler, Miles (2002) “Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory After 1945,” in Michael Doyle and G. John Ikenberry (eds.) //New Thinking in International Relations Theory// The field of international relations was shaped by four factors: 1.) historical events, 2.) a drive to create a disciplinary identity in an interdisciplary field through increased differentiation from other fields, 3.) the alignment with Political Science, and 4.) the need to meet practical demands of practitioners. Rather than revealing a cummulative approach to knowledge, the development of the field of international relations reveals a series of “great debates” shaped by these four factors. 1. Beginnings (1920s – 1930s) a. This period was marked by a debate between realists and so-called idealists or liberal materialists. i. __Liberal materialists__ (e.g. Normal Angell and James Shorwell ) argued that economic interdependence, scientific advances, and industrialization had made war too costly. Having faith in democratic activism, they sought to influence public opinion and focused on educational efforts. ii. __Realism__ (e.g. Hans Morgenthau) originated in war-torn Europe and came to the US via european immigration. Realists (e.g. Hans Morgenthau) emphasized the role of power in international relations. They viewed themselves as pessimistic observers who saw the world as it really was, rather than optimistic change-agents. In this early period, they were suspicious of rationalism and positivism and attacked liberalism, reason, and scientific approaches. iii. __In the debate between “idealism” and realism, realism won.__ b. __The Chicago School__ (e.g. Merriam, Laswell, and Wright) developped during this time. They viewed world politics in the broader context of power and politics at all levels (including local and national), but didn’t examine power in terms of military might as the realists did. Instead, they took a behavioralist approach. A consequence of the Chicago School is that International Relations came under the umbrella of Political Science. 2. Postwar Period a. Influenced by the events of the 1930s, World War II, and the Cold War, the field was marked by the __rise of__ __Realism.__ Liberal Materials, previously attached as “idealism” and now as niaive “utopianism” was discredited. b. Meanwhile, a __debate existed betweenTraditionalists (who focused on law and diplomacy) and the Behavioralists__ (who focused on scientific approaches to understanding human behavior). i. Behavioralism won these debates. c. __Debates between Realism and Behavioralism__ i. Behavioralists claimed realists were unscientific. ii. Realists claimed Behavioralists ignored history and the .imitations of their own assumptions. d. Disciplinary Differentiation: i. As a consequence of all of these debates, the field becomes more fragmented. International relations separates from international law, political philosophy, and diplomatic theory. ii. Sparked by the Cold war, new interest grows in peace studies and security studies. 3. 1960s, 1970s a. __Neoliberalism:__ focused on peace research (especially among West European scholars), international organizations, international economic relations and interdependence, and transnational relations. b. __Dependency Theory:__ Analyzed economic relations in terms of the center vs. periphery. Focused on international capitalism, not just state actors. c. The Vietname War protests called into question the Cold War mentality of realists. d. __Neorealism:__ Integrated realism with rational choice theory and game theory. e. __Neoliberalism and Dependency Theory ultimately faded away.Neorealism dominated. Here are some possible explanations why:__ i. More parsimonious. ii. Could be integrated with rational choice theory and game theory, which were now on the rise. iii. Seemed practical in the context of the re-freezing Cold War (1979-1980) iv. Rise of the Washington think tanks: Neorealist scholars focusing on security studies were funded by foundations in Washington. 4. 1990s and beyond a. Historical context: End of the Cold War. i. Neorealism could not explain the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. b. New Interests in broader liberal theory: i. International economy and trade involving developing countries. ii. European Community – institution-building. iii. Sources of national policy iv. And more. Generally speaking, this is a time of proliferating research interests. c. __Postmoderns__ question neorealist scientific claims. d. __Sociologists__ question neorealists’ individualistic approach and focus on state actors. 5. Conclusion: Directions for future research a. Need more systems-level theories. b. Need more research on change and evolution. Focus on social learning models can be beneficial in this regard.
 * Thesis:**
 * Method:** Historical
 * Summary of Key Points:**