Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 2: Broad Historical Overview of IR (Theory)
2.1. Defining IR
2.1.3 Commentary on the various definitions of IR
Returning our attention back, to more definitions of IR, it appears as though, for some IR scholars, clarity about an understanding of IR, as their field of specialization, is of fundamental importance. Such an observation is eloquently expressed, in the following remark
While recognizing that the term international relations is too narrow- perhaps relations between powerful groups, would be technically better- it seems advisable to accept predominant usage. The term international relations, will therefore be used, as the subject of study, dividing it into such special studies, as international politics, international law, international organization, international economics, international education, international ethics, and the psychology and sociology of international relations. The term will, however, also be used to include, such studies as world history, political geography, political demography and technology which have a world rather than an international orientation. These studies, are clearly fundamental, to the understanding of international relations (Wright, 1955:7).
Quincy Wright’s (1955) abovementioned definition, to its credit, may be read as helpful, in as far as broadening IR’s horizons and ensuring, that IR scholars are not found, to be continuously second guessing, about the eclectic character, of their discipline. This is based on sticking, not only to any one or the other, of the enlisted disciplines, as hinted from the abovementioned definitions listed. The corpus of insight, drawn from all these various fields, enables IR, (at least to those scholars, who may opt to see it, as such), to come across, as being much more than IR scholars, may have simply assumed IR to be. An ambitiously scholarly discourse, constructed on basis of eclectic traits. Such a claim at best argues that the study of IR, may arguably be worth its salt.
71
From the above stanza, an effort of portraying IR, as a worthy field of academic enquiry, is noted.
The author of this study may agree, with such a view if IR may primarily, not be concerned, simply with politically inclined global phenomena. For the author of this study, Wright’s (1955) definition, certainly endorses any IR scholar, to be careful of dismissing any contribution (s), which may, when tested against his definition, be found to be also relevant, in various contexts.
If most of the above definitions are anything to go by, IR scholars and their descriptions of IR, cannot be entirely vindicated, of their narrow scope(s). The following description, at least comes across, as more accommodative “International Relations (IR) can be described as the ways that countries of the world, group of people and even individuals, within those countries, interact with and affect one another” (Snow and Brown, 2000). For the author of this study, such a definition (its broadness notwithstanding) is consistent, with the values of Afrocentricity. This is so because its most outstanding feature, is the acknowledgement, of the effort of international advancement, being pursued by a “group of people even individuals” on behalf of their respective states, organisations and so on.
In being mindful of what has been noted above, without acknowledgement or recognition of
‘people’ or ‘individuals’ being behind, any form of whatever may have been labeled, as international thinking activity, then something should be clearly realized, as being amiss. The human factor (in all its contradictions), ideally should immediately, be noted. This would be in line, with whatever may be presented, as constituting Afrocentric characteristics. Such a view, may hopefully be further discussed, in subsequent chapters, as the relevant responses, to the two main questions posed, at the beginning of this study, are continuously being sought, as this study progresses.
Extensive emphasis centered, on issues, circulating around the theme of state, should thus be noted. As in the opening quotes of this chapter, Nitze (1959:1) admits to the level of broadness and complexity in which, modern scholars of IR, may have never assumed, existed. Admittedly the author of this study, shares the same view. Nitze (1959:1) in extrapolating complication
72
based on the involvement of “the use of many variables and the treatment of numerous interactions” for all its worth, given the dynamics of the international system and all the interactions, within such a system, Nitze’s(1959) comment, should indeed be read, as being relevant, in the quest of such a study.
So it may be worthwhile, for IR scholars to recognize existence, of the abovementioned complication. Taking into cognizance, all that has been quoted thus far, in an effort to define and understand IR, all the above mentioned definitions, may at least be read, as helpful, in pursuit of achieving further clarity, on IR. Ambiguity encircled around the emphasis on the state, still remains an obstacle, which appears to be, like an albatross, chained across the bulk of IR literature. Such a burden appears to continuously, still need to be addressed, in an effort of finally laying, such a challenge to rest, amicably.
In an attempt to elaborate further, about the abovementioned interstate interaction, the following remark, is worthy of being noted
This interaction includes inter-alia, the world’s governments; non-state actors (such as international organizations, multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and individuals); social structures (including economics, culture, and domestic politics135); and geographical and historical influences (Goldstein, 2002).
As important, as most of the above contributing factors have been to IR, for the author of this study, the lastly mentioned ‘historical influences’ stands out, from the rest. It is this factor, which may perhaps indicate, IR’s main challenge, of being considered, as presenting a genuinely representative or equally global, outlook.
In addition, to the above descriptions, possible confusion, in particular reference, to the naming, of such a discipline, should expectedly be raised, questioned and should the need arise, maybe
73
even be-interrogated as well. Dismissal, of any recorded views (positive or negative towards positions found and upheld, by various researchers) however should simply, be discouraged. Let us recall, that researchers, should always seek to be open-minded, in order for merit, in their commentary, to be recognized as such.