Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 2: Broad Historical Overview of IR (Theory)
2.2 Defining IR (Theory): Clarity and Distinctions
2.2.1. Contemplating about theory and its purpose in IR
The following IR scholars below, pilot us off, with their various responses. In their attempt of introducing theories, concepts, and debates within IR. They remark as follows:
As is often the case in the Social Sciences, in IR there is no one best way to master the subject.
Instead, what we have are several significant theories and theoretical traditions: Realism, Liberalism, International Society and International Political Economy. They interact and overlap in interesting and important ways, which we investigate... However each one, explores the subject of IR, in its own distinctive way (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003: xiv).
When referring back to the overview provided in the opening chapter, scholars should note that the abovementioned theories, may be categorized, as forming part of the first theories of IR, hence being labeled as IR’s Mainstream theories. With that having been mentioned, the above scholars, summarily (via a tabulated effort), addressed this theme of IR (theory) elaborately in Boxes 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. Observation here, of subsequent engagement, referred to as methodological debates, amongst IR scholars, affiliating to the various theoretical school’s of thought, in so far as their respective efforts, of understanding relations of various phenomena, in the global arena, is what is hypothetically argued, to have ultimately led to the growth, of the various theories of IR. It is important for background purposes, to have grasped, that the abovementioned theoretical traditions, should be understood to be informing, at least the gist, of what may be labeled as IR’s Core theories.
If the above reference to theoretical traditions, is to be taken as significantly, as is suggested above, by Robert Jackson and George Sorensen, then elaborating on theory and its role, in the context of IR, may immediately be recommended here, before going any further. “Theory is a set or sets of propositions and / or hypotheses that are logically related to each other” (Coplin, 1971:9). In further elaboration, it is indicated that “Theory brings organization and the capacity to accumulate knowledge, to a field and it enables scholars, to tie together the propositions, they have developed at different levels” (Ojo. et al 1990:7). According to Stanley Hoffman 141
“Theory is understood as a set of inter-related questions capable of guiding research both of the empirical and of the normative variety” (Hoffman, 1960:80).
84
In remaining on this subject of ‘theory’ Peter Finn indicates that “To ask what international theory is for, requires us to understand what theory itself is (Finn, 2007:1).” Elsewhere denotatively theory is defined as “a view held, a conception of the relation and especially of the causal connexion between facts, a system of the laws or principles of an art or science or department of action or knowledge, the sphere of speculative thought or doctrine, as distinguished from those of certainty and practice” (Fowler and Fowler,1969:883).
In another denotative explanation, theory is defined as “conjecture or speculation; a body of fundamental or abstract principles, underlying an art, science, etc.; proposed explanation” (The New International Webster’s Standard Dictionary, 2006:275). These immediate definitions, in the context of what the author of this study, plans to employ them for (with all their inherent merit and shortcomings) disappointingly, come across as either overly ambiguous or simply sparse. A more elaborate and helpful definition, according to the author of this study, is the definition provided below:
In science, a way of looking at a field that is intended to have explanatory and predictive implications. The task for the philosophy of science has often been posed, in terms of demarcating good or scientific theories, from bad, unscientific ones (see Falsifiability142, Popper143). In the heyday of *logical positivism144, highly formal approaches to theories, treated them in terms of axiomatic systems, whose theoretical terms, were tightly tied, to an observational vocabulary, supposed to give a foundation, in empirical meaning. A less formal and more contextualized approach, heralded in the work of Thomas *Kuhn145, stressed the open-endedness of scientific activity, the heuristic value of analogies and models, and the elasticity and the *holism of meaning, all of which suggested, that an excessively formal approach distorted the subject (Blackburn, 2008:361-362).
So from the above definition, scholars should grasp the following point. Any form of theory, should be read, with the realization that it emanates, from a particular philosophical premise, and is usually activated, to support an expressed claim. On the point of Karl Popper’s Falsifiability (as noted from the above quote), the author of this study is reminded of the highly rated,
85
Mainstream IR scholar Robert Keohane’s criticism of Feminist theory in IR, he argued that Feminists, need to get over themselves and begin, to develop Scientific Falsifiable theories. One of the keynote responses, to such a comment, came from one of the leading Feminist IR theorist (s) J. Ann Tickner. Her response has been captured, in what eventually became her most famous article, titled You just don't understand 146. This selected title by Tickner, aptly summarised her desired response to Keohane.
Although Tickner’s response is discussed, at length further on, in this study (under the theme of The Gender Dilemma in IR, as located in the third chapter of this study) while still on the point of theory and its use, its worth being briefly discussed at this stage, particularly for explanatory (for example) purposes. In her rebuttal, Tickner raises the concern of Mainstream IR scholarship, being unable to grasp the critical potential, which may be derived and appreciated from Feminist theory.
Moving from the premise, that Feminist theory in IR, is misunderstood, Tickner explains that, the reason for that is mainly informed, by the fact that Feminist IR, opted for a deconstructivist approach, to be applied towards knowledge. This is mainly argued, on the belief that theories reflect, the sexist social positioning, of their authors. It is from such a basis, that the attack on Positivist theory, should be read. For Tickner Mainstream male scholars of IR, harbour male chauvinistic driven attitudes, which claim that Feminist IR theory, may obscure, the male gender bias, in as far as politics of knowledge construction, is considered.
From the above explication by Tickner, the use or perhaps abuse, of opting for a particular Mainstream theory, in IR, which may claim to have covered, the concerns sought to be addressed by Feminist theory in IR, should be captured. It may serve scholars well, to recall that any type of theory brought afore, at any given period emerges to be engaged. It could be rejected or adopted, as a means of assisting to explain, certain phenomena. After having been brought forth
86
and contextually employed (given the philosophical premise of binding) any theory in question, when investigated, should most likely be traced back, to a particular school of thought.
Depending on one’s knowledge of the depository of Western Philosophy, most of the presented theories, falling under the rubric of Mainstream IR theory, tend to usually be traced back, to the numerous Westerncentric philosophers and their respective scholars. For the author of this study, such a worrisome pedagogic practice, which historically has continued to rely enormously, on the parochial lens, has ensured the renewal of the inherent, ahistorical challenges located in academia. Scholarly disciplines such as IR, are no exceptions to the rule. In short most theories, claimed to be new, when investigated in depth, may actually reveal, that they stem from others, which already have been in existence. With a more advanced investigation, data which inform(s) most of Mainstream IR theory, may even be located or traced back to thought (s) as expressed by early inhabitants, residing all over the diaspora.
From the above realization, who could then fault Robert Cox, when he stipulated that “Theory is always for someone and something” (Cox, 1981:87). Explained further “if we are to understand theory, as a set of arguments and meanings, textual or otherwise, which we use, to make sense of reality, one site where the modern, seems to exercise an unrestrained hegemony, is in the context of theory” (Shakuntala, 2003:2). The main duty of theory after all, is to assist to explain facts.
Elsewhere the following Afrocentrist succinctly reminds scholars that “…every practice produces a theory” (Cabral, 1979:75).