Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A “Pluralist Turn” in International Relations?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pluralism and Engagement in the Discipline of International Relations

  • 393 Accesses

Abstract

Pluralism—which maintains that there are many legitimate “ways of knowing” and thus endorses a wide range of epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and empirical perspectives—has recently become one of the major topics discussed and debated in the field of International Relations (IR). Furthermore, there is a voluminous literature arguing for pluralism. In fact, Tim Dunne, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight observe that “everyone” in IR agrees that pluralism is a “desirable position” (Dunne et al. 2013: 415). Taken far enough, one could even claim that IR is currently experiencing a pluralist turn. However, several critical questions still remain underexplored. This chapter identifies what is missing or unclear in the ongoing debate over pluralism in IR. In doing so, the chapter shows where the principal concerns of the book are placed and what contributions the book makes in terms of deepening and broadening the debate.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and 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
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This book follows the convention of using “IR” to denote the academic discipline of International Relations and “international relations” to refer to its substantive domain of study (i.e., the practice of world politics).

  2. 2.

    It is, however, unclear if such acknowledgment—be it from positivists or (critical) post-positivists—is well translated into disciplinary practice. I will come back to this important point shortly.

  3. 3.

    I will come to this point later in the next chapter where I discuss the philosophical underpinnings of “analytical eclecticism” and draw out the epistemological and theoretical consequences of its actual practices for pluralism. 19 and 20.

  4. 4.

    See https://www.routledge.com/series/IRTPA (Accessed November 26, 2015).

Bibliography

  • Acharya, Amitav. 2014. Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds: A New Agenda for International Studies. International Studies Quarterly 58(4): 647–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acharya, Amitav. 2016. Advancing Global IR: Challenges, Contentions, and Contributions. International Studies Review, doi:10.1093/isr/viv016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, Richard K. 1984. The Poverty of Neorealism. International Organization 38(2): 225–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashley, Richard K., and R.B.J. Walker. 1990. Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissident Thought in International Studies. International Studies Quarterly 34(3): 259–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq, Thierry and Stéphane J. Baele. 2010. The Third Debate and Postpositivism. International Studies Encyclopedia. doi:10.1111/b.9781444336597.2010.x. http://www.isacompendium.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781444336597_yr2015_chunk_g978144433659719_ss1-33. Accessed 11 December 2015.

  • Bull, Hedley. 1977. The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, David. 2013. Poststructuralism. In International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 3rd edn, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, 223–246. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, Tim, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight. 2013. The End of International Relations Theory? European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 405–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eun, Yong-Soo. 2012. Why and How Should We Go for a Multicausal Analysis in the Study Of?: (Meta-) Theoretical Rationales and Methodological Rules. Review of International Studies 38(4): 763–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, Yale H. 2015. Diversity in IR Theory: Pluralism as an Opportunity for Understanding Global Politics. International Studies Perspectives 16(1): 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • George, Jim. 1989. International Relations and the Search for Thinking Space: Another View of the Third Debate. International Studies Quarterly 33(3): 269–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, Gunther. 2014. Methodological Transnationalism—Europe’s Offering to Global IR? European Review of International Studies 1(1): 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Christopher C. 2003. The Changing Politics of Foreign policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, Stanley. 1977. An American Social Science: International Relations. Daedalus 106: 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, Valerie M. 2007. Foreign Policy Analysis: Classic and Contemporary Theory. Boulder, CO: Rowman &Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurrell, Andrew. 2016. Beyond Critique: How to Study Global IR? International Studies Review. doi:10.1093/isr/viv022, http://isr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/recent . Accessed 11 February 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchings, Kimberly. 2011. Dialogue Between Whom? The Role of the West/Non-West Distinction in Promoting Global Dialogue in IR. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(3): 639–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Patrick. 2011. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Fear of Relativism. International Studies Perspectives 16(1): 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Lloyd. 1982. Explaining Foreign Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——— 2011. Area and Regional Studies in the United States. PS: Political Science and Politics 34: 789–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratochwil, Friedrich. 2003. The Monologue of ‘Science.’. International Studies Review 5(1): 124–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, David. 2011. Why ‘Isms’ are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress. International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Theory is Dead, Long Live Theory: The End of the Great Debates and the Rise of Eclecticism. European Journal of International Relations 19: 567–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapid, Yosef. 1989. The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era. International Studies Quarterly 33: 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebow, Richard Ned. 2011. Philosophy and International Relations. International Affairs 87(5): 1219–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2013. Leaving Theory Behind: Why Simplistic Hypothesis Testing is Bad for IR. European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 427–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mignolo, Walter. 1992. Putting the Americas on the map (geography and the colonization of space). Colonial Latin American Review 1(1/2): 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, Alex. 2004. How Do Leaders Make Decisions?: A Poliheuristic Perspective. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 48: 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neack, Laura. 2008. The New Foreign Policy: Power Seeking in a Globalized Era, 2nd edn. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, Kai. 2014. Delineating the Scope Conditions of the Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making: The Noncompensatory Principle and the Domestic Salience of Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy Analysis 10(1): 23–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasha, Mustapha Kamal. 2011. Western Nihilism and Dialogue: Prelude to an Uncanny Encounter in International Relations. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(3): 683–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patomäki, Heikki. 2007. Back to the Kantian ‘Idea for a Universal History’? Overcoming Eurocentric Accounts of the International Problematic. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 35(3): 575–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengger, Nicholas. 2015. Pluralism in International Relations Theory: Three Questions. International Studies Perspectives 16(1): 32–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reus-Smit, Christian. 2013. Beyond Metatheory? European Journal of International Relations 19(3): 589–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robbie, Shilliam. 2011. Decolonising the Grounds of Ethical Inquiry: A Dialogue between Kant, Foucault and Glissant. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 39(3): 649–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sil, Rudra. 2000. The Foundations of Eclecticism: The Epistemological Status of Agency, Culture, and Structure in Social Theory. Journal of Theoretical Politics 12(3): 353–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sil, Rudra, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2010. Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms Across Research Traditions. Perspectives on Politics 8(2): 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. De-centering, Not Discarding the ‘Isms’: Some Friendly Amendments. International Studies Quarterly 55(2): 481–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Steve. 1987. Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 16(2): 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Dialogue and the Reinforcement of Orthodoxy in International Relations. International Studies Review 5(1): 141–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suganami, Hidemi. 2013. Meta-Jackson: Rethinking Patrick Thaddeus Jackson’s Conduct of Inquiry. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41(2): 248–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, Arlene B., and Ole Wæver, eds. 2009. International Relations Scholarship Around the World. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tickner, J. Ann. 2005. So What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions? International Studies Quarterly 49(1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ree, Gerard. 2013. ‘The Politics of Scientific Representation in International Relations.’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 42(1): 24–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Ree, Gerard. 2014. Saving the Discipline: Plurality, Social Capital, and the Sociology of IR Theorizing International Political Sociology 8(2): 218–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wight, Colin. 2006. Agents, Structures and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Xuetong, Yan. 2011. Ancient Chinese Thought, Modern Chinese Power. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

    Yong-Soo Eun

Authors
  1. Yong-Soo Eun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eun, YS. (2016). A “Pluralist Turn” in International Relations?. In: Pluralism and Engagement in the Discipline of International Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1121-4_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation