The Creation of Myth: Starting the First "Great Debate" in International Relations Theory
https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2015-6-45-30-39
Abstract
From one textbook to another wanders the story about three (sometimes - four) Great debates, which formed the canonical history of the theory of international relations. In reality everything was much more complicated, and the theoretical richness much wider than many times repeated antinomic pairs - realism vs. idealism, traditionalism vs. modernism, rationalism vs. reflectivism The author regards the discussions between different trends of the political thought in the interwar period, which were later called the First "Great Debates", which, according to the author's view were pre-paradigmal.
About the Author
T. A. Alekseeva
Mosraw State Institute of International Relations (University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Кун Т.Структура научных революций. М.: АСТ, 2009. 310 с.
2. Ashworth, Lucian M. Of Great Debates and the History of IR: Why the “Great Debate” Story is Wrong//E-International Relations Publishing. 12.02.2014. Режим доступа: www.e-ir-info/2014/02/12/of-greatdebates-and-the history of IR (дата обращения: 14.12.2015)
3. Banks, Michael. The Evolution of International Relations Theory // Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations. Ed. by Michael Banks. Brighton: Wheatsheaf. 1984. 256 p.
4. Banks, Michael. The Inter-Paradigm Debate // International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory. Ed. by Light, Margot and A.J.R. Groom. London: Pinter. Pp. 7-26.
5. Bull, Hedley. The Theory of International Politics. 1919-1969 // The Aberystwyth Papers: International Politics. 1919-1969. Ed. By Brian Porter. London: Oxford University Press. 1969. Pp. 30-55.
6. Carr E.H. The Twenty Years' Crisis: 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. NY: Perennial. 2001. 244 p.
7. Holsti, K.J. The Dividing Discipline. Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory. Boston: Allen and Unwin. 1985. 176 p.
8. International Relations and the First Great Debate. Ed.by Brian C. Schmidt. London: Routledge University Press. 2012. 192 p.
9. Kahler, Miles. Inventing International Relations: International Relations Theory after 1945 //New Thinking in International Relations Theory.Ed.by Doyle, Michael and G.John Ikenberry. Boulder: Westview Press. 1997. Pp. 395-414.
10. Lasswell, Harold D. Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. NY: Meridian Books. 1958. 264 p.
11. Maghroori, Ray. Introduction: Major Debates in International Relations //Globalism Versus Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate. Ed. by Bennet Ramberg. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 1982. 237 p.
12. Osiander, Andreas. Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited //International Studies Quarterly. 1998. 42 (3). P. 415. Pp. 409-432.
13. Porter, David. David Davies and the Enforcement of Peace // Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crises: Inter-War Idealism reassessed. Ed. By Long, Davis and Peter Wilson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1995. Pp. 58-78.
14. Quirk, Joel and D. Vigneswaran. The Construction of an Edifice. The Story of a First Great Debate// Review of International Studies. 2005. Vol.31. № 5. Pp. 89-107.
15. Reus-Smit, Christian. A Strange Death of Liberal International Theory // European Journal of International Law. 2001. Vol.12. No. 3. Pp. 573-593.
16. Waever, Ole. Still a Discipline After All These Debates// International Relations Theories: Discipline And Diversity. Ed. by Dunne, Tim, Milja and Steve Smith ( Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2013. Pp. 297-318.
17. Wilson, Peter. Carr and his Early Critics: Responses to The Twenty Years Crises,, 1939-1946.// Cox, Michael. (Ed.) E.H. Carr. A Critical Appraisal. London: Palgrave. 2000. Pp.165-197.
18. Wilson, Peter. The Myth of the First Great Debate // Review of International Studies (Special Issue). 1998. Pp. 1-16.
Review
For citations:
Alekseeva T.A. The Creation of Myth: Starting the First "Great Debate" in International Relations Theory. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2015;(6(45)):30-39. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2015-6-45-30-39
Views:
2176
Email this article 