Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 2: Broad Historical Overview of IR (Theory)
2.1. Defining IR
2.1.1 The ambiguous tractus of IR: Enter Politics, Philosophy and the Rest
For the sake of any prospective scholars of IR, regarding IR’s roots, the following diagram (as depicted below) was secured. It is the view and argument of the author of this study that the simplicity, in which this diagram was drafted, fulfills its intended purpose of providing, the desired historical clarity, of the tree of pedagogy. In order to achieve the clarification sought, which may intervene in any possible dispute(s), that may have or yet to be raised pertaining to the scholarly body of IR (theory). The connection with the other existing academic disciplines, could never be overlooked. Such a succinct presentation, which may be of assistance in this light, should be read, as the author of this study’s attempt, of avoiding at all cost to be guilty of being ahistorical. Special attention should be noted, in as far as how Philosophy connects to IR.
48
Figure 1.1: Philosophy and its relation to the other Academic disciplines
Source: Clare, J. et al.1996. Philosophy, An Introduction. Pp.8. Published by the Authors and Editors. Durban: University of Natal.
With international relations and IR already stipulated, returning back, to the question of stopping at diplomacy is due. From this posed question consequently a fitting response is sought, regarding where IR, may be located, amidst the other Social Science(s) disciplines. The following definition below, comes across as pertinent, as one of multiple responses sought:
…international relations is broad and complex. It involves the use, of many variables and the treatment of numerous interactions. This has always made it hard, to comprehend fully, the dynamics of the international system and all the interactions, within the system. The need for a
‘unifying conceptual framework’, comprising a manageably small number of conceptual elements, and therefore for a high degree, of abstraction (Nitze, 1959:1).
49
Elsewhere it is stipulated, by Nkiwane111 (2001) that “International Relations (IR) involves the study of power, between and among states” (Nkiwane, 2001:279). Two excellent texts, which match such a definition are Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations, The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948 112) and E.H Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis 1919-1939 (1939). Notice that both these texts, represent (ed) the Realist tradition in IR. With immediate effect here, the author of this study, was initially uncertain, whether or not to have agreed, with those, who may arguably, have also come across, as being cynical, in reference to the above definition. In considering the abstract nature, as highlighted in the above quote, by Nitze’s (1959) definition of IR, the resolution taken by the author of this study, to refuse to accept any single definition of IR- at this early stage of the study, should thus be understandable.
In the event however wherein remarks, pertaining to the somewhat sparse element, inherent in the above given definitions thus far, this may possibly be read, by some sceptics or critics alike, as perceived to hold, some invalid or inadequate ground. For the author of this study with all the above notwithstanding, the above definitions (more than anything else) consolidated the need, for the author of this study, to secure other relevant definitions. Based on the variety of perspectives, worth investigating, high contestability is anticipated. Such views (like any others which may be dimmed as relevant), deserve their fair share of space, for due consideration.
Further contemplation, should be embarked upon, notwithstanding any merit, which may, at best, indicate the enormous focus, on the theme of the state, as already been suggested, in some of the definitions above. Unpacking, the reference made, towards the concept of power, might also be enlightening here.
For Tansey and Jackson (2008:136) “States vary a great deal, in their organization and in their concept, of the role of government. Bernard Crick 113 has suggested, a good starting point for the classification of states, which brings out, some of these differences. These categories are however, extremely ‘broad-brush’…”So in continuation, mention of Republican, Autocratic and Totalitarian examples, are thus given. These governments are defined as follows
50
Republican –government as a constitutional process, in which disparate group views, on the public interest, are reconciled through a political process, of discussion…Examples: eighteenth- century Britain, classical Athens, modern liberal democracies. Autocratic- Public interest defined by government. Subjects’ involvement in politics seen as suspicious/subversive, Government’s role mainly limited to taxation, foreign policy. In ‘private affairs’ citizens pursue their own happiness, without interference. Examples include monarchic governments, of the eighteenth century, military regimes. Totalitarian-Government defines public interest, that is all-inclusive, political opposition is treason, no private sphere- good citizens participate enthusiastically, in rebuilding society. Official ideology, defines happiness. Examples include: Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union (Tansey and Jackson, 2008:136).
In shifting the focus to the concept of politics, the following is captured
In the context of politics, the concept of power, is paraphrased as follows “…the production of intended effects” (Bertrand Russell114, 1938) “…the probability, that one actor within a social relationship, will be in a position, to carry out his own will, despite resistance regardless of the basis, on which the probability arises (Max Weber115, in Gerth and Mills, 1948)” (Tansey and Jackson, 2008:5).
Striking, as both these definitions may be, along with the earlier definitions on the state, all of the abovementioned, may nevertheless be worthwhile, to keep in mind, as this study progresses.
Evidence of the noted emphasis on power within international relations analysis, may be observed in the various TRIP 116 surveys, to be discussed, in more detail in the subsequent chapters. A perusal of Box 1.2 (IR Values and Theories) as displayed in the addendum is also recommended, in order to support the above made observation, by the author of this study. All these sources should at least be read, as augmenting towards a clear (er) picture, of what the enterprise of IR, may be, all about. Notably from most of the above sources, the theoretical schools classified under Mainstream IR category, range from Realism, Liberalism and Marxism et al.
51
It is the abovementioned theories that feature by far, ahead of IR’s other (Non-Eurocentric) or simply theories not thought/perceived as relevant to IR theory117. An elaborate discussion, which seeks to provide evidence of the abovementioned observation, is addressed (supported by utilising various diagrams, figures etc) and discussed in depth throughout Chapter 3.
Confusion regarding the dominance of specifically Realism, as pointed out in the preceding paraphragh, is further supported when comparison with other Mainstream IR theories, ranging from Liberalism, Marxism, Constructivism, Feminism, English School is/are made. The author of this study, also remarked on the above statement, after noticing that when Realism is erected alongside the Non- Paradigmatic theories (although these as depicted in Box 1.6, under the category of Post-positivists, may be read as (highly-) debatable, in some scholarly quarters-see Stuart Croft’s elaborate refusal (page 159) of Realism, not necessarily being a leading IR theory).
For the author of this study, whether a foremost or leading IR theory or not, Realism however remains as a gigantic oak tree, within the forest of IR literature, complete with protruding Eurocentric leaves. Whatever amount of scepticism, at least the scholars, under the Post- positivists category, may much to their credit optimistically, arguably provide some form of samples, which may at least, serve as examples, of Non-Paradigmatic theory.
Given the amount of emphasis, on texts such as Carr’s Twenty Years Crisis as typically illustrated by contemporary IR scholars, such as Kuniyuki Nishimura118, as observed in his recent doctoral thesis, defended at San Francisco State University titled Politics at its Demise: E.H Carr, 1931-1939 (2009) further support Realism’s hegemonic status. Such emphasis has also been bestowed upon Morgenthau’s, critically acclaimed Politics Among Nations, as illustrated in Box 1.3 (First Major debate on IR) courtesy of Jackson and Sorensen (2003:44). From the perspective of emphasis, placed on such texts, not much argument of Realism’s commanding dominance, over Utopian liberalism, may be questioned, to date.
52
Resistance or opposing views to the one expressed in the above paragraph however, should be acknowledged and noted, as some respondents, in the respective TRIP Survey (s), have been observed to subscribing to such a position. Thought here, should be spared, for those, who may differ, with the above view. On that score, elimination of any doubt, pertaining to Realism’s dominance, as the most employed theoretical approach, within the discourse of IR, should be registered.
The detailed statements below, in response to questions posed, related to this query, advisably from the results of the TRIP Survey (2009) are thus worth, being read. In the light, of definitions given thus far, the amount of complexity involved is indeed registered. Christopher Clapham’s119 response below, concurred with Nkiwane’s (2001) earlier mentioned definition:
international relations as a subject of academic study, has conventionally been primarily concerned, with the interaction between states. This has not, of course, excluded the recognition, that states themselves, are complex and variable structures. The behavior of which in the international arena, is often critically affected, by their internal composition, and especially by the nature, of their domestic power structure (Clapham, 1996: 244).
In the continuous bid, of achieving clarity, perhaps seeking the role played by IR, might lead scholars out of the current forest of ambiguity. In support of the complexness of IR, as expressed in the above definitions, other scholars, define IR, as performing the following function:
… International Relations as the subject that studies global order: how order emerges, and how it is maintained and transformed, in the global system, through the use of authority and/or power to structure and manage the relations, among actors. These relations may involve states, in any combination of two or more, or may exclude states, or may involve states and actors, that are not states (McGowan, et al, 2007:12).
The author of this study, is open to the possibility that the above broad definition(s), noted thus far, may consequently, still lead some scholars, to arrive at varying viewpoints, pertaining to precisely, what may constitute IR. If the above immediate definition, is anything to go by, then
53
perhaps the following utterance, may also be of help “International relations is an elusive subject and analysts are apt to differ, concerning the focus of the subject and the appropriateness of various approaches, to its study” (Williams, 1989: ix).
A consideration of approaches to IR, as particularly found in the TRIP (2009) survey, may perhaps explain, why such a dilemma exists. As Maliniak et al (2009:15) reveal in their question 4, which seeks to ascertain the “areas of the world studied substantially by IR scholars in their Introduction to IR course(s)”. Response provided by participants, in this questionnaire, indicates that the closer a scholar is to a region, the more likely, that scholar will focus, on data focused from that region. According to the researcher of this study, the jury still remains out, on whether the above trend, is a positive or negative factor, in as far as growth of IR, is concerned.
Further on, in question 39, of the same TRIP (2009) survey, which was interested in finding out, from the interviewed scholars -who their “most influential IR scholars120 (Maliniak et al (2009:43)” were? Response recorded, seems consistent with feared concerns of IR sceptics, given IR’s current scholarly form. Considering that the scholars, are entirely emanating from the Western hemisphere, these findings, may have shed some light, in as far as explaining emphasis, placed on Eurocentric views, as observed in IR literature. Not a single Afrikan nor Afrocentrist’s name, made it onto that list. Should this be read, as shocking? Not if scholars, have noted the growing empirical evidence, provided and illustrated, in the addendum of this study.
Having been suspicious, of the level of complexity, in which fellow IR scholars, may also have encountered, in their attempts to define IR (as observed in the above definitions thus far), the following summary statement, is thus made. In reference to emphasis, towards the state, (as it earlier caused a debacle, for the author of this study, when raised by Nkiwane’s (2001) definition) IR is poignantly described, here as “the study of how authority and / or power is used to organize and manage, trans-border relations, between actors, and how this contributes to the establishment, maintenance and transformation, of order in the world system” (McGowan et al, 2007:13). The
54
sought specificity, provided here, regarding the subject matter of IR, allows for some sense of relief, in as far as specific interests, which are assumed to be addressed by IR.
Based on the above definition, if ever there may have been, any suspicious room, inviting any form of doubt, which may suggest, that the abovementioned definitions, thus far, may be faulted for being somewhat sparse, effort to include other definitions, with the aim of addressing, such a concern (in some degree or other, mainly for clarity seeking purposes) is thus acknowledged at this point. Of note here, is that the above definitions, articulated by Nicholson (1990), Couloumbis and Wolfe (1978), McGowan et al (2007)- have all contributed their fair share, in comfortably complimenting Nkiwane’s (2001) earlier expressed, statecentric definition.
The emphasis of interstate power relations and preoccupation, with issues circumventing around the theme of the state, in the above definitions, bear testimony to their level of consensus. So for the author of this study, the comments made, by the above scholar’s, supported thus far by the findings from the TRIP (2009) survey, certainly should vindicate Nkiwane’s (2001) earlier definition, from any further scrutiny. In the event, that this should really be the case, considering Nitze’s (1959) mention of “a high degree of abstraction, involved in the comprehension of the dynamic system”, followed by the comment which pointed out, thatIR’s “goal was utopia, its methodology a mixture of history and exhortation” (Lerche and Said, 1970:1-2) and lastly combined with William’s (1989) comment about “the elusive subject” that is IR, should be noted.
The above two views, suggestively indicate “analysts differ” on how best to deal with the issues, which make up, the academic field of IR. The volume of abstractness, related to the subject matter of IR, has inevitably gone a long way, in leading the author of this study, to embrace Nkiwane’s (2001) earlier presented definition, as is. If anything, the definitions below, nevertheless seem to build up, on Nkiwane’s (2001) statecentric121 definition.
On proceeding forward, almost in sync, with the definitions given so far, the following IR scholar, opens up the scope of IR, a bit more. This is seemingly done, in an effort to provide
55
another view of IR, as opposed to the narrow appeal, as implied, by most of the above definitions thus far:
Strictly defined, the field of international relations (IR) concerns, the relationships among the world’s national governments. But these political relations, cannot be understood, in isolation.
They are closely connected, with other actors (such as the United Nations, multinational corporations, and individuals); with other social relationships (including economics, culture, and domestic politics) and with geographic and historical influence. IR is a large subject, that overlaps several other fields (Goldstein, 1996:3).
From the above definition, may Goldstein’s (1996:3) reference to “…political relations…” imply that the study of IR, is also a study of politics? Given the ongoing reference in most texts (both contemporary, as mostly, under discussion in this study and ancient scholars122, dating back from scrolls, as authored by Western philosophers ranging from
Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Politics, the influence of Thucydides’s Peloponnesian war, Thomas Aquinas’s Treatise on Law, David Hume’s Treatise of Human Nature (Book III, Parts I and II) and his Political Essays (especially “of the Original Contract”), Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, Immanuel Kant’s Philosophy of Law and Jeremy Bentham’s Principles of Morals and Legislation (Gewirth, 1965:31).
From the above quote, the Eurocentrically driven trend, observed from pioneering philosophical thought, should be noted. The discourse of Philosophy, may have possibly contributed, towards the field of IR, apparently more than, was originally suspected, by the author of this study. Given that the core interest, of this study, is located on an Afrocentric philosophical enquiry, such underlying reliance to works from Mainstream Philosophy, may be worthy of further discussion.
Consistent references made to state, interstate relations, governance, world system and intergovernmental organisations, such as the wide ranging political shenanigans, that require, the continuous intervention of the United Nations etc, should thus not be surprising, to fellow IR scholars, in the context of the earlier posed question, when enquiry about IR, being a study of politics was raised. As picked up in the last quote, reference to politics, may be in turn located from the various works, of Mainstream Western Philosophers (as already named above).
56
The response to the above posed question, immediately, sparks a need to distinguish IR, from politics. Perhaps the best way to reply, to this question, would be to define politics (not in passing, as was done earlier), but with the length, that it may justifiably deserve- as undertaken further below.
To begin with, scholars are consistently reminded of Aristotle’s words that ‘man is by nature a political animal’ because for Aristotle “the highest purpose of human life is participation in the political community (polis123).This participation, means helping to make, the fundamental decisions, that guide society and carrying out our responsibility, to serve common interest”
(Scott and Garrison, 1995:17).
Since IR may be read as a branch/subfield of politics, the author of this study thus argues that it is necessary, to define politics elaboratelty. Elsewhere, another attempt of defining politics is captured below:
Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which, people make, preserve and amend the general rules, under which they live. Although politics is also an academic subject (sometimes indicated by the use of ‘Politics’ with a capital P), it is then clearly the study, of this activity.
Politics is thus inextricably linked, to the phenomena of conflict and cooperation. On the one hand, the existence of rival opinions, different wants, competing needs and opposing interests, guarantees disagreement, about the rules, under which people live. On the other hand, people recognize that, in order to influence these rules or ensure, that they are upheld, they must work with others- hence Hannah Arendt’s 124 …definition of political power as ‘acting in concert’. This is why, the heart of politics, is often portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, in which rival views or competing interests, are reconciled with one another. However, politics in this broad sense, is better thought of as a search for conflict resolution, than as its achievement, as not all conflicts are, or can be, resolved. Nevertheless, the inescapable presence of diversity (we are not all alike) and scarcity (there is never enough to go around) ensures, that politics is an inevitable feature, of the human condition (Heywood, 2007:4).