Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 2: Broad Historical Overview of IR (Theory)
2.1. Defining IR
2.1.4 IR- A Misfit or a Hit as the name of such an eclectic informed Discipline?
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.
74
Amnesty International, as it is conventional peace talks or the workings of the United Nations (UN) (Brown and Ainley, 2005:1).
In affirming Brown and Ainley’s (2005:1) above view, of different definitions employed, pertaining to IR, Robert Cox (1996) furthermore describes IR as being
… an area of study, concerned with the interrelationships among states, in an epoch in which states, and most commonly nation-states, are the principal aggregations of political power. It is concerned with the outcomes of war and peace and thus has obvious, practical importance.
Changing practice has, however, generated confusion, as to the nature of the actors involved, (different kinds of state, and non-state entities), extended the range of stakes (low as well as high politics), introduced a greater diversity of goals pursued, and produced a greater complexity, in the modes of interaction and the institutions within which, action takes place (Cox, 1996:205).
In further pursuit, of the discussion of what may constitute IR, further investigation of descriptions, as noted by the author of this study, consistently make similar reference to data, related to themes, concerned with the interdependent global system. The overall subject matter or focus of IR, based on the majority of the abovementioned descriptions, may thus safely be assumed, to include amongst others, the themes circulating around governance. It is such broad characteristics or features of IR, which may contribute, to the difficulty of unpacking, the highly contested content of IR.
As already noted above by the author of this study, most of the abovementioned articulations remain, subject to multiple interpretations. Judging from most of these abovementioned definitions, it seems as though, no simple definition of IR, when presented may be accepted en masse, without any disagreements or notable shortcomings (owed mostly to ambiguity as a reality of reliance towards an overly eclectic trait, that is utilized to constitute the bulk of the body of IR).
75
So if one is to go ahead, with most of the above descriptions, IR may therefore be read as a study area, mainly focused on discussing matters related to inter-state relations. Although the author of this study, may agree, alongside fellow doubting Thomas’s, that this above view, may possibly just as well, not be entirely true. It is the view of the author of this study, that the bulk of the definitions, which emphasise the focus on inter-state issues, have merely painted a narrow and far too limited description, in their attempt(s) of describing IR. In the case however wherein IR is being read, as a field, which is solely focused, on discussing inter-state relations, as it appears from the above definitions, then the following warning, needs to be registered ,with caution, befitting the under mentioned words:
The term ‘international relations’ is misleading. It implies that all we are concerned with is relations between the nations of the world, which in effect, means relationships between nation- states. And yet in the contemporary world, this is only one, of the discipline’s principal concerns (Burchill, 1996:9).
In addition to the above statement, further commentary regarding an appropriate name is captured from the following statement “… some argue that ‘global politics’ is a more appropriate description of the subject” (Burchill, 1996:9).This name saga, seems to be ongoing, perhaps this may be, a manifestation of the broadness, of subjects involved in IR. At this point, given most of the above definitions, researcher thinking ponders, whether or not, IR’s ambiguity (via the abovementioned definitions and remarks) may to some extent, at least, have been clarified? In the attempt of proceeding forward, may one comfortably park the search, of an ‘all encompassing’ definition of IR, at this juncture?
The closing question, in the previous paragraph, seems pertinent especially when considering, definitions such as follows “International relations deals with human behavior. Therefore, the study attempts to include, almost the totality of human knowledge” (Reynolds, 1971:4). This is another definition (in addition to Snow and Brown’s) that may be read as being in line, with Afrocentric ideals. Brief and overly general as it may seem, it however highlights the emphasis, of the all encompassing human factor (which knows no restrictions of race, class, gender etc) and the complexities, involved, in the ambitious task of defining and unpacking IR. On the flip
76
side however it remains too broad, running the risk of widening its pool, of interpretations and inherent assumptions.
Consistent with the above definition, it is reiterated here that “as IR scholars, We are also interested in finding out, how non-state-based authority- such as that which resides in, say, financial markets, or in the world Council of Churches, or in the moral stature of someone like Nelson Mandela-contributes towards the organizing and managing of relations, between international actors” (McGowan et al, 2007:12). It should be kept in mind however that, such specific reference to non-state actors, may equally be open, to anyone’s interpretation, which may consequently lead scholars, arriving at varying viewpoints, about what may or may not precisely constitute, the subject matter, which may be qualified, to be categorized, as fitting under IR.
In the on-going pursuit, of the discussion of what may constitute IR, further investigation of descriptions, as noted by the author of this study, consistently make similar reference to data, related to themes, concerned with the interdependent global system139. The overall subject matter or focus of IR, based on the majority of the abovementioned descriptions, may thus safely be assumed, to include predominantly themes, circulating around governance and states. It is such broad characteristics or features of IR, which may contribute to the complexity of unpacking, the highly contested content, of IR.
As noted earlier on, by the author of this study, consequently most of the abovementioned articulations pertaining to IR remain, subject to multiple interpretations. Judging from most of these abovementioned definitions, it is worth repeating, that it seems as though, no simple definition of IR, when presented, may be accepted en masse, without any disagreements or notable shortcomings. This may be as a result, of the overall ambiguity, as noted from most (if not all) the above mentioned, descriptions of IR, as recorded thus far within this study.
77
May IR’s ambiguity have been satisfactorily addressed, so far in this study? May one comfortably park the search of an all encompassing definition of IR, at this juncture, after having noted all the above definitions? If the following statement below, is anything to go by, then it indicates just how much other aspects, would need to be considered, before ‘any parking of defining IR’ may take place. In recalling that the study of IR, indeed “attempts to include almost the totality of human knowledge” (Reynolds, 1971:4), perhaps this may be read as an instructive clue.
As elaborate, as most of the abovementioned definitions, presented so far may be, a common thread amongst them, seemingly sticks out like a sore thumb. According to these descriptions in question, IR is to be understood as a discipline, overly interested in issues, mainly related to the state and other state-centric factors. These may range from themes related to economics, human rights, transnational corporations, international organizations, environmental themes, gender inequalities, development and terrorist acts, amongst other factors. The definition of Reynolds (1971) seems to strongly suggest, that, much more than these factors, may constitute an interest, within the field of IR.
The abovementioned final definition of IR, hopefully may provide, some of the much needed relief, sought by the author of this study. This may somehow be used, as some form of guidance, in the process of proceeding further. The envisaged relief, is mainly to do, with the concern raised, against the backdrop of most of the abovementioned definitions, which overwhelmingly, place a great amount of emphasis, on issues related to states. Out of all the already mentioned definitions of IR, (as derived from various texts, by selected contemporary IR scholars), reference to this final definition, may be read, in the researcher’s view at this stage, as the definition of choice, in as far as defining IR is concerned. In taking such a decision however, the author of this study, is of the view that ‘ambiguity’ may repeatedly still feature, as an immediate adjective, that may repeatedly spring to mind, amongst most IR scholars, whom may also have taken interest, in the study of IR.
78
Due to the earlier mentioned suspicion, based on the dilemma that has been posed by ambiguity, it is the hope of the author of this study, that this last description of IR, may be able to paint a clear (er) picture, to both novices and acclaimed scholars of IR. As already stated, the last description, as advanced by Reynolds (1971) of IR, is the one that appeals more, to the author of this study, based on its inherent Afrocentric characteristic. This is particularly based on the rationale, in which the investigation of this study, is concerned. It may be mentioned here, that the soft spot or preference of the last definition, as succinct as it may seem, stands out as opposed, to the majority (if not all) of the fixed definitions, that preceded it. Amongst other reasons, is that it may require a scholar’s own definition, to be forwarded, than anything else. Any open interpretation, may never be dismissed as superfluous, by the author of this study.
The above opinion, in reference to the last preferred definition, is based on the grounds of its direct, brief yet enabling explanation. The level of complexity, that is brought forth by words such as the “ totality of human knowledge” really lift any limits, to whatever may have previously been viewed, to be some form of rigid or uniform content, which may be argued as being relevant, under the banner of IR. The window of broad generalization however is accepted, as a serious flaw, towards this description of choice, for the author of this study. Simultaneously however the lifting of boundaries, also creates opportunities, of other arguably vital aspects, to also be considered, under the banner of IR.
As hinted in the closing remark, of the above paragraph, may there really be other factors besides those mentioned, in the previous stanzas, which should be considered, under the umbrella of IR?
When considering all, that has been stated thus far, it should be understandable that a straightforward response, at least at this juncture for the author of this study, remains uncertain.
IR scholars however , are advised to register the following notice, regarding the emphasis on state and non-state actors “At one extreme the scholarly focus is exclusively on states and interstate relations; but at another extreme, IR includes almost everything that has to do with human relations, across the world” Jackson and Sorensen (2003:21).
79
So based on the immediate remark, as presented in the previous paragraph, a concise reply to the opening question of this paragraph is a somewhat cautioned –yes, however at this stage, it is uncertain to decide, which other themes, should be excluded. It is the author’s contention, that it will do IR scholars well, on the path ahead, to be mindful of the murky effect, caused by the realization of ambiguity, as noted, throughout most of the recorded definitions, thus far.