Skip to main content

‘Classical’ and ‘Scientific’ Theory

  • Chapter
  • 20 Accesses

Abstract

For most men of affairs the term ‘theory’ has pejorative overtones — hence the commonly voiced criticism that although some projected policy may be alright in theory, in practice it leaves a great deal to be desired. Theory is believed to obscure rather than illuminate reality by getting between the observer and the raw data of facts and experience. To the extent that he is influenced by it, the practitioner is unlikely either to make an accurate diagnosis of the problem which confronts him or to devise appropriate prescriptions for its solution. The uselessness of theory in the field of international politics has been commented on many times. Roger Hilsman quotes one secretary of state as referring to the attics of foundations being stuffed with junk.1 And Z. Brzezinski is reported as saying that roughly 90 per cent of the research done in universities is useless and irrelevant to policy-makers.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. R. Hilsman, ‘Research, Policy, and the Political Process’ in N. D. Palmer (ed.), A Design for International Relations Research Scope, Theory, Methods, and Relevance (Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, Monograph no. 10, 1970) p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid., loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The phrase is borrowed from W. T. R. Fox. See his book The American Study of International Relations (Columbia: Institute of International Studies, University of South Carolina, 1968) p. 81.

    Google Scholar 

  4. W. T. R. Fox, ‘The Uses of International Relations Theory’ in W. T. R. Fox (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of International Relations (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959) p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  5. O. R. Young, ‘The Perils of Odysseus’ in R. Tanter and R. H. Ullman (eds), Theory and Policy in International Relations (Princeton University Press, 1972) p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. J. Lieber, Theory and World Politics (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973) p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W. T. R. Fox (ed.), op. cit., p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  8. D. Easton, The Political System (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1953) p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Quoted in A. A. Said (ed.), Theory of International Relations: The Crisis of Relevance (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1968) p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. W. T. R. Fox (ed.), op. cit., p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Rapoport, ‘Various Meanings of Theory’, American Political Science Review, vol. LII, no. 4 (December 1958) p. 980.

    Google Scholar 

  12. O. R. Young, op. cit., p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  13. H. Bull, ‘International Theory; The Case for a Classical Approach’ in K. Knorr and J. N. Rosenau (eds), Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton University Press, 1969) p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See for example L. F. Richardson, The Statistics of Deadly Quarrels, ed. Q. Wright and C. C. Lienau (London: Stevens, 1960) and also his Arms and Insecurity, ed. N. Rashevsky and E. Trucco (London: Stevens, 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  15. See for example, A. Rapoport, Strategy and Conscience (New York and London: Harper & Row, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  16. See for example, C. J. Hitch, Decision-Making for Defense (University of California Press, 1965).

    Google Scholar 

  17. H. Bull, op. cit., p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  18. O. R. Young, op. cit., p. 179.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See S. Hoffmann, ‘The International System’, The New Republic, vol. 156, no. 9 (4 March 1967) p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  20. O. R. Young, ‘Aron and the Whale’ in K. Knorr and J. N. Rosenau (eds), op. cit., p. 143.

    Google Scholar 

  21. E. J. Meehan, The Theory and Method of Political Analysis (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1965) pp. 127–67.

    Google Scholar 

  22. H. Bull, ‘The Theory of International Politics’ in The Aberystwyth Papers (London: Oxford University Press, 1972) p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid., footnote, p. 30.

    Google Scholar 

  24. H. J. Morgenthau, ‘Common Sense and Theories of International Relations’, Journal of International Affairs, vol. XXI, no. 1 (1967) p. 209.

    Google Scholar 

  25. See M. Wright, Systems of States, ed. H. Bull (Leicester University Press, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid., pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. Rapoport, ‘Various Meanings of Theory’, pp. 979–82.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid., p. 981 (author’s brackets and italics).

    Google Scholar 

  29. W. Weaver, ‘Scientific Investigation’, Science, vol. 143, no. 3612 (20 March 1964) p. 1297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. C. P. Snow, ‘The Two Cultures and The Scientific Revolution’ in C. P. Snow, Public Affairs (London: Macmillan, 1971) pp. 13–80.

    Google Scholar 

  31. H. Bull in Knorr and Rosenau (eds), op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  32. J. D. Singer, ‘The Incompleat Theorist’ in ibid., pp. 85–6.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Susan D. Jones and J. D. Singer, Beyond Conjecture in International Politics (Itasca, Illinois: F. E. Peacock, 1972) p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ibid., p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ibid., loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  36. J. D. Singer (ed.), Quantitative International Politics: Insights and Evidence (New York: The Free Press, 1968) p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid., loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid., p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  39. S. D. Jones and J. D. Singer, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See C. A. W. Manning, The Nature of International Society (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1962

    Google Scholar 

  41. M. A. Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics (New York: John Wiley, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  42. C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, 8th edn (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1946) p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  43. C. L. Stevenson, Ethics and Language (Yale University Press, 1944) p. 71 (author’s brackets).

    Google Scholar 

  44. R. Pettman, Human Behaviour and World Politics: A Transdisciplinary Introduction (London: Macmillan, 1975) p. 19.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. R. Dahl, ‘The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Movement to a Successful Protest’, American Political Science Review, vol. LV, no. 4 (December 1961) p. 767.

    Google Scholar 

  46. M. J. Levy, Jr., ‘“Does It Matter if He’s Naked?” Bawled the Child’, in Knorr and Rosenau (eds), op. cit., p. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  47. G. A. Almond and S. J. Genco, ‘Clouds, Clocks and the Study of Politics’, World Politics, vol. XXIX, no. 4 (July 1977) p. 510.

    Google Scholar 

  48. H. Bull in Knorr and Rosenau (eds), op. cit., p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Quoted by C. Bay, ‘Politics and Pseudopolitics: A Critical Evaluation of some Behavioral Literature’, American Political Science Review, vol. LIX, no. 1 (March 1965) p. 39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. S. Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery (London: Andre Deutsch, 1972) p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  51. R. Pettman, op. cit., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  52. M. Banks, ‘Two Meanings of Theory in the Study of International Relations’, Yearbook of World Affairs 1966 (London: Stevens and Sons, 1966) p. 231.

    Google Scholar 

  53. H. Bull in Knorr and Rosenau (eds), op. cit., p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  54. R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford University Press, 1946) p. 214.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ibid., p. 213.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid., loc. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ibid., p. 214.

    Google Scholar 

  58. E. H. Carr, What Is History? (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  59. See H. P. Rickman (ed.), W. Dilthey Selected Writings (Cambridge University Press, 1970) p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  60. C. A. W. Manning, op. cit., p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ibid., p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  62. K. E. Boulding, The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society (University of Michigan, 1956). See in particular his Introduction, pp. 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid., p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  64. P. Winch, The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relation to Philosophy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1958) pp. 40–66.

    Google Scholar 

  65. H. Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1977) pp. 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  66. P. Winch, op. cit., p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  67. K. E. Boulding, op. cit., p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  68. J. N. Rosenau, The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy (New York: The Free Press, 1971) p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ibid., p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  70. R. D. McKinlay and R. Little, ‘The U.S. Aid Relationship: A Test of Recipient Need and the Donor Interest Models’, Political Studies, vol. XXVII, no. 2 (1979) pp. 236–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ibid., p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1984 John C. Garnett

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garnett, J.C. (1984). ‘Classical’ and ‘Scientific’ Theory. In: Commonsense and the Theory of International Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-17504-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics