Abstract
The concern of this study is admittedly narrow; it is focused on the issue of how International Relations has developed as a social science. Within that general focus it is concerned specifically with the dominance of a US view of the subject as a social science. Of course, such a definition of International Relations theory is partial, and certainly many Would resent the very suggestion that the subject is, or should become, a social science. However, my interest is with the reasons why US views of the subject have dominated the broad development of paradigms within the discipline. This issue has crucial relevance for any understanding of the evolution of the discipline, and for any possibility of inter-paradigm debate. My broad argument will be two-fold: on the one hand, the US view of International Relations as a social science has led to the subject strongly reflecting US policy concerns; on the other, this US concern with policy relevance has made it very difficult for the subject to evolve on a cross-national, cumulative basis. Both of these factors make the task of paradigm confrontation even more complex than is implied by those philosophers of social science who have taken the concept of ‘paradigm’ to imply an essentially relativistic epistemology. After outlining the development of the subject as a social science, this study will discuss the existence of a US dominance of the discipline, then conclude with an examination of the implications for the inter-paradigm debate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
E. H. Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis ( London: Macmillan, 1939 ).
J. Handelman, J. Vasquez, M. O’Leary and W. Coplin, ‘Color it Morgenthau: A Data-Based Assessment of Quantitative International Relations Research’, unpublished paper, Prince Research Studies, Syracuse University, 1973, p. 31.
K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics ( Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979 ).
Steve Smith, ‘War and Human Nature’ in Ian Forbes and Steve Smith (eds), Politics and Human Nature ( London: Frances Pinter, 1983 ), pp. 164–179.
Stanley Hoffmann (ed), Contemporary Theory in International Relations ( Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1960 ), pp. 30–9.
Robert Rothstein, ‘On the Costs of Realism’, Political Science Quarterly (Vol. 87, No. 3, 1972 ), p. 348.
Richard Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin, ‘Decision-Making as an Approach to the Study of International Politics’ in Richard Snyder, H.W. Bruck and Burton Sapin (eds), Foreign Policy Decision Making ( New York: Free Press, 1962 ), pp. 14–185.
Morton Kaplan, System and Process in International Politics ( New York: John Wiley, 1957 ).
Ray Maghroori and Bennett Ramberg (eds), Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate ( Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1982 ).
Michael Smith, Richard Little and Michael Shackleton (eds), Perspectives on World Politics ( London: Croom Helm, 1981 ).
Fred Northedge, ‘Transnationalism: The American Illusion’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol. 5, No. 1, 1976 ), pp. 21–7.
Peter Gourevitch, ‘The Second Image Reversed: The International Sources of Domestic Politics’, International Organization (Vol. 32, No. 4, 1978 ), pp. 881–912.
Steve Smith, ‘Reasons of State’ in David Held and Christopher Pollit (eds), New Forms of Democracy ( London: Sage, 1986 ), pp. 192–217.
K. J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory ( London: Allen & Unwin, 1985 ).
Hayward Alker and Thomas Biersteker, ‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archeologist of International Savoir Faire’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 28, No. 2, 1984 ), pp. 121–142.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 1989 Millennium: Journal of International Studies
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Smith, S. (1989). Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science. In: Dyer, H.C., Mangasarian, L. (eds) The Study of International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20275-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20275-1_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-46528-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-20275-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)