Week 1- Course

Theory of International Relations

Thucydides- considered one of the firsts authors to write about the reason of the state
Thomas Hobbes- 1651 “Leviathan” (Realism)
- Human nature = bad

J.J. Rousseau. (Liberalism)

- Opposite view from Thomas Hobbes
- Human nature= good

F. Nietzsche- “The Genealogy of Morals”

- analogy between states and people
States are bigger people which behave like them

● The theories of International Relations are self fulfilling prophecies

● They were founded after WWI

1919- Aberystwyth
Woodrow Wilson- idealism

Foreign policy
- Look inside the state in order to know how it behaves

International Relations
- Interactions between states

Classification
Science -> object of study -> method

For political science, it is difficult to define specific objects of study/ methods

- We borough many ideas from sociology, philosophy, etc…

Theory of IR
Different paradigms that are portrayed in the theory of IR
- Realism
- Liberalism
- Constructivism
Debates
1. Idealism vs. realism (40s-50s)
2. Traditionalism vs. behaviorism (50s-60s)
3. Neo-marxism vs. neo-neosynthesis (decolonization)
4. Positivism vs. post-positivism (80s)

3 issues upon which Theories of IR do not agree

- Ontology (science of the being – what exists)
- Epistemology (knowledge- how can we know)- actors of IR/ states
- Method (quantitative vs. qualitative)

Positivism
- Trust in human reason
- Use exact methods in social sciences (find laws) and in exact sciences (use laws from
exact sciences and apply them in social sciences)

3 levels of analysis
1. Individual
2. State/ domestic
3. Systemic

These 3 represent man, the state and war

- K. Waltz 1959

A. Wolfers- analogy between the states and a billiard table

What are the differences between paradigms?
- Object of study which is considered relevant
Ex: realism- war; constructivism- identity
- Types of questions they formulate
WHY & HOW questions (explanation)
- Structure + hierarchy of questions
- How you interpret the results of the research

Seminar
Teams!!!!

Evaluation:
50% midterm (written exam) at the end of December
50% final in January
+ bonus from the participation in the seminar

Structure of exams:
1 subject from the course+ 1 subject from the seminar

Attendance: at least 5 seminars

**if we have a 10 in the midterm + active participation in seminar, we might get an extra point
for the final exam (only if Ivan agrees to it)
 Week 2- Course

Cosmopolitanism
- Branch of liberalism
- Kant is one of the fathers for idealism, he talks about reality as it should be

Foedus pacificum (Kant)

- Contract between countries for peace, collective security system

What is a nation?
- People that share culture, religion, language, ethnicity

Idealism vs Realism
- Debate began at the end of the 30s
- 1919→ 1939: 20 years in which the discipline tried to create a better world
- Wilson: there should be no secret cavenances (Idealism) between states (transparent
peace)
❖ Free trade
❖ Reduction of armies
❖ Five rights to people in colonies
❖ Collective security system

1939→ E. H. Carr: “The 20 years crisis”

- Criticism of idealism
- He invented the 2 terms (idealism and realism) to show the 2 approaches to which we can
have in IR
- See the world as it is in order to stop war
- Wishing prevailed reality

Realism
- opposes the collective security system, as peace cannot be achieved this way as states
will cheat
- The balance of power is much better because it’s more stable and discourages
unpredictable behavior
- Don’t impose rules (unlike in the collective security system) instead balance the states

**Carr starts the book by saying that Liberalism is utopian, as the League of Nations failed (for
Realism the concept of power is essential)
- IR is a zero sum game: everything that is gained by one side, is lost by the other →
balance of power
 - 1948→ H. Morgenthau: Politics Among Nations”

Carr and Morgenthau→ first generation realists (classical/traditional/human nature realism:

based on idea that human nature is bad and same goes for states)

Second generation (60s)

- Structural realism: based on the structure of the international system
- The structure in the international system: we do not have a ruler (lack of hierarchy)
❖ Anarchy: lack of central authority that can dictate states what to do
❖ Equality of states: as actors (but not in strength): CAPABILITIES
➢ Maximize your power (max) and survival (min)
➢ States cannot rely on other states

Thinkers in realism
● Thucydides
● Machiavelli
● Hobbes
● Richelieu
● Bismarck
● Kisinger

State is always in danger

- Fear
- Power
- Self-interest

Classical Realists are skeptics around the concept of morals in politics, deeming it has no place
in politics
Machiavelli
- there are patterns that repeat themselves in history (human nature)
- Analyze the past events to foresee the future
 - Human nature→ love is held by moral obligation, but fear is something that bounds you
(“it is better to be feared than loved”)
- There can be no good laws if there are no good arms (enforcement)
❖ There can be no international law if there is no one to enforce it
❖ Morals of the state are different from morals of the individual

➔ Double moral standard (totally different)

- Internationally
- Internally

● The assumptions are compatible

- In realism they assume human nature but who is to say human nature exists and
instead it is a problematic of social construct?
- It can be argued that realism exists in order to maintain the system

Seminar

Thucydides
- Athenians weren’t diplomatic (they stated their intentions, not willing to negotiate) →
classical diplomacy (based on interest in terms of power
- Lesson: focus on survival and focus on what is tangible (not what we wish to happen)
- In an agreement you had to swear on God in order to show you are committed and will
respect it (instrument in classical diplomacy)

Kant (idealist)
- Goal→ perpetual peace
- Objective→ the articles

2. argument against imperialism; moral issue of this approach

- Marriage of nations in order to create a more powerful one
- No country should be in possession of another

3. Armies should be abolished (problem)

- Problem with the right of humanity (soldiers)

4. Existence of a credit system is a danger to the idealist world because it might finance war

5. Problematic of interference with the constitution

 - You can interfere when there is a failed state and there is no one to protect the citizens, no
government to negotiate with: UN
- He was against the interference as it would undermine the authority of those people, even
if there is internal discord

6. Refrain from using dishonorable tactics, because it would undermine future peace

Republican Constitution
- Separate the executive power from the legislative power
- Civil constitution
- Spirit of representativeness (not possible in a democratic system - the fewer people are in
power, the more they represent)
- In democracy all power in the hands of the executive

Federation of free states

- Federations of nations
- League of peace (end all wars) vs. treaty of peace (end one war)
- Common laws to follow

Universal hospitality
- Encourages the collaboration between states
- Should have limits (not supposed to stay there or that would be occupation)
 Week 3
Seminar

***The most important concepts when referring to realism→ balance of power, self- help,
relative gains (when a state is gaining more than others), anarchy

Week 4
Course
Liberal tradition in the IR

Liberalism
- Enlightenment ideas
- 18th century, Europe
- Built upon the idea of political liberalism
- Starts from the idea of individual which is placed in society as a base of the political
community
- In a liberalist state, the state must do everything in its power to make individuals develop
as they wish, ensure the liberty that they need, offer space to flourish
- The state makes policies based on the preferences of the individual, they prefer peace
(state that allows the individual to develop)
- Diverse (includes grant theories, more targeted theories)

Main values of liberalism

- Individual
- Freedom (political→ participate in the decision making; economic→ the state should not
interfere in the economy, allow the complete freedom of the market)
- Governments make decisions based on the preferences of individuals- they choose peace
over war (political freedom)
- State allows citizens to pursue economic interest as they wish; trade is better pursued in
conditions of peace (economic freedom)

2 main categories:
A. Liberal internationalism
1. Theory of the democratic peace→ due to the political leaders serve the interests of the
citizens (peace) liberal democratic states will be rather inclined to peace; democracies
don’t wage war to one another
 Further developed the idea that the victims from the Cold War had proven the….. , more
and more states will adopt the democratic government (Francis Fukuyama 1992 “The
End of History and The Last Man”)
End of history→ no longer have wars/ all countries will adopt this system
Reality immediately contradicted this idea → there were less wars btw states, but after
Cold War a lot of more wars arose (civil wars)
Dominance of the West→ they challenged this idea by stating their own right to create
their own political system according to their current values

2. Economic liberalism→ theory that shifts the political to economic→ free trade which
brings peace, individuals want to increase their wealth

Trade has further effects→ trade makes societies connecting together

This idea further developed to interdependence (70s)→ linked the fact that when states trade,
their economies become interlinked in such a way that they depend on other states→ the more
commerce is developed the more these links become indestructible

Ex: EU depended on Russia for a large extent of its resources, managed to shift its dependency
on Russia and has 90% sources from other countries and only 10% from Russia

Theories of integration
- Based on the economic branch of liberalism
- The agenda after 1945→ to understand the causes of war and create an international
system where wars are not possible anymore
- David Mitranny→ early 40s he gave the first formulation of the integration theory the
world should not longer be created in nation states, but rather have different agencies/
sectors of activities which organize the functions in the society (functionalism)
- If states become more integrated, the costs from withdrawing will increase
- Reality proved that it was very difficult to overcome nation states

Ex: The creation of the EU→ difficulties encountered when you try to get rid of the political

Ernst Hass (1968)→ neo-functionalism→ main idea based on the spill-over effect

B. Liberal institutionalism
- Emphasis lays on institutions and their capacities of changing the entire organization of
the system
- Anarchy→ state of nature of Thomas Hobbs (realism)
- Anarchy→ state of nature of John Locke (liberalism), no war but competition
- The international system is not entirely anarchic, but is regulated through norms
 - Regulated interactions among states
- The term “Institutions” from institutionalism→ are sets of rules and norms around which
the expectations of actors converge (they are not considered as normal institutions, but
they have a broader meaning in this case)
- Realist paradigm and liberalist paradigm→ during the 70s, it was discovered that they
have a lot in common→ together make the mainstream approach of IR (ex: states are the
primary actors of international politics; international anarchy have the same perspectives
of anarchy considering the mildness of the anarchy)
- Realists say that states don’t cooperate; liberalists say that states are inclined to
cooperation because they gain from it

Issues which realists and liberalists debate on

1. Cheating
- JJ Rousseau
- If someone finds easier ways to accomplish their goals on their own, then they
should do it (without cooperation)
- They say that institutions reduce the possibilities of cheating for states bc they
make 4 major changes in the contractual environment (describes conditions which
surround the ideas of contract- relations among states are conceived in analogy
like the relations between markets)
Major changes
1. Institutionalized interactions (“shadow of the future”)→ in real life, in society you can
at some point steal something from someone and run away. We can separate from people
which we hurt→ this can’t happen in IR→ if you interact constantly in institutions links
become tighter→ if you cheat this will be remembered
2. Issue- linkage
3. Increasing level of information in the system
4. Reduction of transaction costs

2. Relative vs. absolute gainings

- International politics→ zero sum game (realists)
- Don’t focus on cooperation, but the difference (liberals - absolute quantity of
gains)
Series of other issues which preoccupy liberalism
➔ Debate on human rights→ liberalism presents human nature, human rights is being
universal
- Whether human rights, being formulated by philosophers (18th century)→ are those
rights universal or not?
- Dominant western culture
- Contesting the hierarchy of human rights
- other rights which are conditioning the right to freedom (it’s not enough to have
freedom→ school, security system, health)→ need support from these aspects

➔ Debate about humanitarian intervention vs. sovereignty→ how can we preserve

peace in this domestic realm? Debate between supporters of sovereignty
➔ Debate on globalization (free trade)

Transitional phenomena are more important than top down international phenomena which are
conceptualized by mainstream theories

R2P- responsibility to protect- transforming the content of notion of sovereignty→ it doesn’t

mean that states have rights, but that they have obligations (to protect their citizens)

“Rise and falls of great powers”- Paul Kennedy

[email protected] - David Schultz

 Week 5
Seminar

Liberalism
- Liberal states are peaceful and will refrain from going to war, but are still prepared
- Free trade/ market
- Value cooperation (through international institutions, that create the framework)

Liberal Pacifism
- Schumpeter
- Capitalism + pacifism= forces for peace
- Modern imperialism
- desire to expand (war)
- gain resources
- patterns

- export monopolism (market expand and gets monopolized by an entity/state; eg: absolute
monarchies)
- Who cashes on war: war profiteers, military aristocrats (which are a minority) and the
rest of the population loses
- Materialistic monism: (Spinoza) in the universe there is one substance that composes the
situation: economic objectives are the only thing that matter
- Political life of individuals is monogenized focused on achieving material warfare, they
are individualized
- War politics: homogenized all states tend to evolve towards free trade, liberty

Liberal Imperialism
- Machiavelli
- Republics: not pacifists, but the best for imperialistic expansion
- Competition is important
- Separation of power (btw executive and legislative powers- in Republics) which gives the
options for the population to decide whether they go to war or not
- Purpose: creation of an empire

Liberal Internationalism
- Kant
- Free movement, free trade, universalism
- Political imprudence: liberal states will think twice before going to war
- Pacification of foreign relations among liberal states: create a union
Approaches of International Relations- Henry Bull

- Classical approach
- intuition
- exercise of judgment

- Scientific approach
- procedures/verification
- deny what cannot be verified; reject evident from philosophical/ historical resources
(not productive, we need both)

Course

Traditionalism vs. Behaviorism

- Cybernetics is developed in USA (50s-60s), it reignites a debate that exists in the

philosophy science since the 15th century→ social scientists are now able to discover
more because in cybernetics you can analyze more data, so positivism makes a comeback
- Positivism (Auguste Comte- invented the term around 1850)
- Intellectual tradition based on enlightenment: trust in human reason
- Propose: we should use the same methodology from exact science
- Based on idea that is a causal explanation for every phenomenon: prediction about future
- Main stake: capacity to make predictions about the behavior of actors, based on discovery
of general laws that govern society (like in physics for example)

Thomas Kuhnp “the Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

- Paradigm shifts: group of scientists who try to replace the older ones (taking their place
and proposing a different perspective inclined towards scientific ……)- quantitative
methods (vs traditionalists: qualitative)

Behaviorism
- Analyze the behavior of actors
- 50s-60s
- American political science review
- USA is investing lots of money in this research (wanting to make predictions)
- What science produces is highly linked with political realm (where the funding comes
from)
- Strong empirical orientation→ try to apply theories to the existing world; make
predictions; quantify their data; clear distinction between facts and values
 - Based on data quantifying techniques (samples, mathematical models)

In IR
1. Theory of quanta (quantum physics) → idea of unpredictability of atoms→ turbulence
and chaos in international politics (JJ Rousseau- Turbulence in National Politics)
2. Meteorology → a butterfly that flows it’s wings in shanghai will create a tornado in
USA→ minor actions that have long lasting and big consequences on IR
3. Math, Physics→ general theory of systems, laws about how a system self-regulates
Ex: in IR, the system of balance of power
- 1967: Marton Kaplan→ “System and process in International Politics”→ polarity in
international system= expression of the distribution of power

Identifies 6 types in IR:

- The balance of power system
- Rigid bipolar system
- Flexible bipolar system
- Universal international system
- Hierarchical international system
- Unit veto international system (each component part could reverse the action of another)

- Karl Deutsch “The Waves of Government”

➔ Inspired from biology; government is compared to the nervous system of living
beings

- 1964: David Easton “Framework for Political Analysis”→ analyzing public policy in
general

- C.R.E.O.N (69-77)= project

- Comparative research on the….
- Ch. Hermann
- Objective: understand foreign policy of status
- The findings were unsatisfactory compared to the resources that were put into it
- It was the peak of Behaviorism, after that it fell off

Behaviorism was expensive; time consuming; the findings were unreliable; they couldn't actually
predict
Vs.
Traditionalism
Emphasizes the need to historically understand IR, not needing mathematical models, but an
understanding on history, law and philosophy (basis for IR)
 - The english School
- Tries to nuance the realism school by focusing on the element of order in IR (the anarchic
scale in IR)
- The anarchy is ordered in IR

Representatives
- Hedley Bull
- Martin Wight

- John Lake

1977: “The Anarchical Society” (Hedley Bull)→ paradox: his point is to show that we might
speak of an anarchic IR because we don’t have an entity of authority; but it is not chaos

- Society of states: the main pillar is the acceptance of a system of rules, norms and
institutions, discovering that they have common values and interests
- Preservation of status quo principles (maintaining how things are)
- Preservation of external sovereignty of states
- Peace (=absence of war)
- Limitation of violence (all states in a society of states should limit violence
● Jus ad bellum (customs that establishes when states can go to war, in the right to
war→ Michael Walzer- “Just War”)
● Jus in Bello (body of law in international law, custom, rules when in
war→international humanitarian law)

- Pacta sunt servants (respect the international treaties that you sign)
- Territorial stability (not change borders by force)→ basic common interests that states
need to have in order for a society of states to exist
- anticipation = we can’t make accurate predictions, but we can anticipate

Hadley Bull: “New Medievalism” (1977)→ he anticipated what was not yet present in IR
● In the future we will have the amplification of regionalism
● Supranational forces
● States disintegration
● Emergence of international private violence (terrorism)
● Importance of transnational organizations and a unification of the world
 Week 6
Course

Main paradigms of international relations theory: liberalism and realism.

They share common assumptions about states, such as the fact that the state is the main
international actor that is unitary and rational.
In the 70s – the neo-versions of these theories. Realism becomes even more structuralist, while
in the liberal paradigm you have discussions about complex interdependence in the international
system.
Neo-neo synthesis
You have theories that are marginal and contesting the realist and liberalist assumptions, which
are considered mainstream.
Period marked by decolonization. Sudden emergence of a great number of states – former
colonies which become independent – this shifts the balance inside the General Assembly in the
UN where already in the 70s there is a majority formed by newly independent states. The most
important issue is then underdevelopment.
This is why theories of international relations try to understand this structure in which you have
core countries (the formal imperial power) and then kind of periphery (underdeveloped states
that are struggling to keep up with the economic development in the center). This is where new
formulations of the marxist theories are introduced.
Dialectics is a method of understanding history, and it comes from the greek philosophy, but was
rather developed by Hegel in the 19th century and later of course Marx.
Hegel thinks that history is directed toward an end and that everything that happens is somehow
organized. The dialectical movement is based on the conflict. From the conflict something new
appears and this is how history evolves.
Quantitative accumulation
The dialectics is a movement composed of these 3 steps: thesis, antithesis and synthesis.

One of the most important disputes in social sciences is between agency and structure.
There are sociologists who say that humans are free agents and that they can influence the
society in which they live. And there are other sociologists (like Emile Durkheim) who consider
that it is the social structure which determines the behavior of agents. This can be translated to
international relations. (Ex. Small countries’ foreign policy; the structure is shaping your actions
as a state. Your place as a state in the world limits your possibilities of action).
Marxism is very structuralist.

Another debate: between marxism and realism.

The main question in this debate is: who are the most important actors in IR? For realists, it’s
states. For marxists, it’s social classes.
Theory of Marx: historical materialism (Or dialectic materialism)
Marx believes that the fundamental structure of society is made of matter, meaning the means of
production. The economy is the basis of a society, and everything else (culture, art, social
relations) is determined by the distribution of the means of production. This economic structure
is also what determines the movement of history.
Marx: at the beginning, people struggled to conquer and to control the forces of nature, and when
they finally managed, they became trapped in the system of the social division of labor. When
the society appeared, individuals were already trapped and determined by their place in the
society.
Main social conflict – among classes.
Historically, the three main social classes are aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletarians.
The proletarians/working class emerged with the industrial revolution. The first important shift
in history was the bourgeois revolution, through which the bourgeoisie replaced the aristocracy
as the ruling class.
Then came industrialization, which led to 2 important things in Marx’s theory: first, man became
eliminated. They were obliged to perform routine tasks. They were alienated with respect to their
true self, because they couldn’t fulfill their human potential. They were trapped in this capitalist
system in which they were obliged to work. According to Marx, the ruling class is the class
which controls the means of production (during the middle ages it was land, but during the
industrial revolution it was the factories. The bourgeoisie owned the factories, and the working
class were obliged to sell their work in order to be able to live).
Marx says that people are not free, but are trapped within society, especially the working class.

The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, contains the first ever references to globalization
as a description as a world which is shaped by capital. The main thesis is that capitalism greatly
contributed to the leveling of societies through trade. Capitalism is based on the idea of
expansion, of finding new markets. During this trade, you increase contacts between society, and
slowly, the differences between societies disappear. (A leveling of culture)
Over time the differences between nations will be replaced by differences between classes. The
proletariat will at some point acquire the consciousness that it is exploited (class consciousness),
and they will proceed to the proletarian revolution.
According to Marx, capitalist societies insist on ideas of democracy and freedom in order to
mask the reality of the class divisions between the proletarian and the bourgeoisie. In reality,
individuals are not free because they are determined by their place in society.
Marx is trying to create a theory that is objective and scientific, however, he is also openly
normative, because he says that so far philosophers tried to interpret the world while the true
stake is changing the world (that is the point). He introduces this normative turn of social
science.
The proletariat has a feeling of transnational solidarity which the bourgeoisie does not have
according to Marxist theory. Marx and Engels expected that the proletarian revolution would
begin in the modt industrialized country in the world at the time (England) and that from there it
would expand to the entire world.
WWI was very nationalist in its form was a clear contradiction of the thesis of Marx, but you
saw that the national bourgeoisie was fighting alongside the national proletariat. National
feelings were more important than class feelings. The logical explanation found for this was
sketched by two Soviet politicians: Lenin and Bukharin.
They both wrote essays in which they tried to explain what happened during WWI. Their
argument is: WWI was the result of a desperate need of new markets because there was an
overproduction of goods which were accumulated by the capitalist state. In the capitalist
societies, there developed a kind of unnatural alliance between the bourgeoisie and what Lenin
calls the working class aristocracy (the leaders of the working class) which were attracted on the
side of the bourgeoisie.
According to Lenin, the development of capitalism leads to 2 opposing tendencies: 1. The
emergence of national movements and the fight against national oppression. And 2. The
multiplication of international contacts which leads to the kind of globalization described by
Marx and Engels.

Several theories of IR are based on Marxism.

1. the critical theory (the Frankfurt school)
neomarxism = a version of marxism which lays less empashis on the economic as being
the infrastructure of society.
Instead of explaining the historical evolution in material terms, neomarxists are directing
their attention to what Marx called the ‘super structure’. It is more culturally oriented.
2. Third World Marxism (Tiersmondisme)
Based on the idea of Lenin of the existence of 2 complementary tendencies, one towards
globalization and the other towards fragmentation.
Center – periphery.
(Developed – undeveloped countries)
Societies in the periphery become in their turn capitalist. They feel they are exploited but
the only answer they can give is the struggle for national independence. So, this is an
explanation for nationalism which become a masked form of the class struggle. This is
also an explanation for what happens in the Central and European countries several years
after they became part of the EU (sovereign political tendencies – claims that Europe is
exploiting them, Europe is bad, etc.)
3. Dependency theories
4. World-system theory
Developed by Immanuel Wallerstein
States that peripheries will always remain peripheries.
5. Neo-Gramscian school
Based on the idea of ‘modern global hegemony’. Which is based on strong cooperation
between elites in the developed countries (in the center) and the elites in the periphery.
The instruments of global hegemony are the economic and political institutions of global
governance such as the IMF or the World Bank. These institutions are constraining
governments into adopting a neoliberal perspective on the state, the society and the
economy. And that they institute mechanisms of surveillance and control associated with
conditionality and international pressures in favor of the deregulation of the economy.
Or deregulation of the economy will only deepen the gaps of development between the
rich and poor countries. The periphery will never be competitive with the products of the
center.
 Free market is in favor of the most developed countries, and it will never lead to
development in the periphery.
Later on, several other theories of IR are related to Marxism, such as postmodernism, feminism,
green theory, the theories of globalization.
How do we recognize the marxist roots in theories of IR? It speaks of one of the following
issues: class relations and property relations; it has a strong economic dimension; it speaks about
globalization; it speaks bout inequalities, poverty; it has a critical tendency of deconstruction of
the main discourses.
 Week 7
Course

Debate: Rationalism vs. Reflectionism

This debate has opposed the two theories (realism and liberalism) which make the so-called
‘mainstream’ of IR. The common points of these theories have led to a synthesis between
neo-liberalism and neo-realism in the 70s (as discussed last time). Both theories believe in the
possibility of scientific knowledge of IR, and in the objectivity of the researcher and in the
separation between the subject of knowledge and the object of knowledge.
The object of knowledge (in the case of IR): the relations between states
The subject of knwoledge: us/the researcher/the person that tries to understand the world
This dinstinction of separation between subject and object of knowledge is very important.
There are two very important positions: one that says that there can be a separation between the
two, and the other which says that the object and subject cannot be separated (because the object
does not exist except in the perspective of the subject).
In this debate, the rationalists believe in the separation, while the others (the ‘reflectivists’) try to
reflect on the very process of acquiring knowledge.
So this debate emerges in the 80s.
The main question of this debate: Is it possible to have scientific knowledge of IR?
Another way in which this debate can be named: pozitivism – post-pozitivism

Some theories that have been involved in this debate:

· Critical theory
· Post-modernism
· Feminism
· Historical sociology
· Normativism
All these exist in social sciences in general, but they have a special branch in IR.

What are the main assumptions of these reflectivist theories?

· They all believe that reality does not exist outside theory.
o We do not have a direct access to our object of study. What you read is already
the perspective of somebody. You are always linked to the place from where
you are looking at reality. So, even if there is a reality outside theory, you
cannot have access to it.
· There is no metatheoretical universal criterion which could allow us to judge whether
a scientific claim is true or false, because all discourses are relative truths.
· They refuse the separation between the subject (‘I’) and the object of knowledge.
 o In the process, it is the subject who tells/narrates the object. The object does
not show itself unless it is narrated by the subject. This is why all scientific
discourse is not only about the object, but also the subject. Because it is made
by the subject and it cannot be separated by the subject’s entire system of
values.
· They believe that social reality does not have an essence and therefore it does not
have a meaning in itself. It can only have a meaning that is constructed through the
words we use to describe this reality.
o Objects do not have a meaning in themselves. The subject of knowledge
attributes meaning to the objects of knowledge. When you describe an object
with a theory, you already give it a certain meaning, which is not objective.
It’s the meaning that the subject give sto the object.
o The words that you use to describe social reality they are already partisan (they
cannot be objective). The way you phrase something already establishes your
position. (Ex. Whether you say ‘anti-abortion’ or ‘pro-life’, ‘war in Israel’ or
‘war in Palestine’)

One of the representative authors of critical theory – Robert Cox. He wrote an article calles
“Social forces, states and world order” in which he makes 3 important distinctions:
1. Between problem-solving theory and critical theory, which asks questions about the
very process of knowledge production. The critical theory is aware of the link that
exists between theorizing and the position of the subject which is doing the
theorizing. Theory cannot exist independent of reality and reality does not exist
independent of the theory.
Heidegger: limits of the world are limits of language (you cannot think of an object except in
laguage)
2. Between
- Explanatory theories – verify hypotheses, propose causal explanations,
describe events and try to explain phenomena
- Constitutive theories – those in which the theorist is aware that he can only
see the world through lenses which are constituted by his/her values, beliefs,
culture, religion, education, class and ethnicity. These elements constitute the
identity of the subject and also the point of view from where the subject looks
at the world.
According to the reflectivists, even explanatory theories are in fact constitutive
theories, because the discourse constitutes the object.
3. Between: foundationist theories and anti-foundationist theories. This distinction refers
to the possibility of finding neutral or objective procedures that would allow us to test
the truth of the proposition that we express.
 According to foundationist theories, we can always say if a proposition is false, while for
the anti-foundationist theories, you can never establish the true value of a proposition
because you never have a neutral ground from which to do that.

Links/common directives of reflectivist/post-pozitivist theories:

1. Epistemology – they challenge the idea that an objective knowledge of the social
world is possible.
2. Methodology – they reject the hegemony of a single scientific method and they argue
in favor of using multiple methods while privileging the interpretive strategies.
3. Ontology – they believe that the identity of social actors is socially constructed
through intersubjectivity.
4. Normative – they are contesting the possibility of axiological neutrality.

Critical theory – Frankfurt School

In 1929, Felix Weil creates an institute called the Institute for Social Research, which becomes
the cradle for the Frankfurt School.
The first prominent philosopher in the Frankfurt school is Max Horkheimer, who invents the
critical theory in 1937. He said that, in general, existing theories tend to legitimate the status quo,
they tend to consolidate the domination of those actors who already are in power. We should
renounce the type of theorizing that has been made so far and try to produce critical theory (a
type of theory that should be aware that things are not given, that everything we see is the
product of a particular social and historical context).
Critical theory is profoundly enormative. They never pretend to describe reality as it is. They say
it is the purpose of theory to assume a moral and ethical standpoint, and to try to emancipate
people from domination. This perspective is based on Marx’s 11th Thesis on Feuerbach (that so
far people have only interpreted the world, while the true purpose should be to change the
world).

Theodor Adorno
Walter Benjamin
Herbert Marcuse (“The Uni-dimensional Man”)
J. Habermas

The critical theory mainly reflects upon the problem of domination because they try to
understand how power functions. They are also great critics of capitalism as they are dissecting
alienation (estrangement). People are caught up in the social system of the division of labor, they
start to serve machines, and they become estranged with respect to their own self (they are
separated from their to potential of creating things, ideas, art).
According to critical theory, theorizing must include a reflection on the relation between the
subject and object of knowledge (which is never objective or innocent).

Imminent critique – based on dialectical sequences. First, you criticize the object from your own
standpoint. Second, you try to look at the object in a historical perspective. The purpose of the
imminent critique is to identify the social contradictions which offer the most promising
possibilities for emancipatory social change.

Andrew Linklater posed the question -

Do we have stronger moral obligations towards our compatriots than towards the rest of
humanity?
He says that the state is not a natural form of political community. He says this happens because
the sovereign state has been fetishized as the normal mode of organizing political life. The state
actually generates social exclusion. His book “Man and Citizens”. A legal transposition of this
idea – the foreigners never have the same statute as the citizens.
Critical national theorists tried to problematize this fetishization and draw attention to the moral
deficits that have been created by the state’s interaction with the capitalist global economy.
This idea that the state is an exclusionary form of political community is not new – previously
explored by Kant, Rousseau and Marx.
According to Linklater, sovereign states and market capitalism and the result in this combination
is a form of exclusion in which particular class interests are presented as being universal. Free
market is in the interest of the owners of capital.
The conclusion of Linklater is that he puts under question the nation state as a normative
desirable mode of political organization.

Robert Cox (who is part of this wave of critical theory) addresses the problem of realism and
neorealism and he examines the philosophical positions of realism. He says that realism pretends
to be objective but in reality it is normative because it has prejudices about the way in which
states behave. (Ex. The assumption of rationality) Realism is legitimating the existing order and
makes the distribution of power in the system to appear as normal, including the hegemony of
the developed countries. (It serves the status quo of power because it makes you believe that it is
natural).
In this context, Cox says that “Theory is always for someone and for some purpose” (it always
serves the interest of someone).
You should not take the given order as granted, but try to understand how this particular
distribution of power has come to be. Critical theory puts into question the origin and legitimacy
of the power of our political institutions.

David Graeber (anthropologist) – “The Dawn of Everything”, “The Debt” (about the appearance
of money), “The Bullshit Jobs” (the uselessness of most contemporary occupations
 Week 8
Course
Post-modernism

- Theoretical direction which appeared in cultural and literary studies

- Linked to a certain feeling that the modernity (think about it as the period of
reason-progress is possible through reason/ reason helps mankind to overcome obstacles)
ended, due to the irrational forces
- It is an effort to deconstruct modernity in order to better understand it
- After WWI and WWII, you couldn’t talk so much about reason→ they show that
irrational forces which contradict the idea that man is guided by reason
- Post-modernism→ challenging the conviction according to which moral and
epistemological propositions are stable/ beyond doubt

One of the most important stakes is the relationship btw power and knowledge
For them, the production of knowledge is not a simple cognitive issue that would be linked to an
abstract rationality, but the production of knowledge is normative and a political issue
There is a continuity btw knowledge and power and we shouldn’t understand this by the
assertion that knowledge is power
The meaning is a little bit more complex→ historically, the practices of power are evolving in a
very close relation with the evolution of science and with the governance operations (the way
which people are governed)
The master mind of this kind of argument (power and knowledge) is Michelle Foucoult→
Surveiller et Punir (“Discipline and punish”), “History of Madness”
There is a coherence btw the way in which people interpret the world at specific times and the
operation of power
Power of knowledge are neutrally supportive
In IR, Richard Ashley (representative of Post modernism)→ sovereignty is the fundamental
principle of modern political life and the state sovereignty is an idea that has been modeled upon
the sovereignty of the individual
Man’s sovereignty rational, autonomous, powerful, absolute in a way and that it has an
essence→ analogy btw man and state (state takes over the characteristics of men)
→analogy:science of the state and the human sciences→ modern statecraft is modern mencraft→
operations of governance are also directly impacting on how we conceive the place of men/ of
people in society
- The paradigm of sovereignty, which is the mental framework in which the state is
conceived, produces epistemological disposition and a certain narrative on modern
political life
- Their thinking developed methods which are specific to this approach
Methods of post modernism:
1. Genealogy → type of historical thinking which has the purpose to unveil the relationship
btw power and knowledge (F. Nietzsche)- “Genealogy of Morals” or “Genealogy of
Morality” 1887
- Analyzing how the origins of different concepts (good, evil, sovereignty) appear
and how we use these notions in the present days and the fact that we use them is
being permanent effects of the understanding of the past
- Governance is based on normalizing certain practices
- It tries to write a counter-history that would reveal how by manipulating the
relationship btw knowledge and power state, have instituted different modes of
domination
In order to better understand how history can be written→ D. Campbell “National
Deconstruction” Violence, Identity and state in Bosnia 1998

It is the pov and the words used to describe which constitutes the objects, the object does not
show to us in essence

Study different things:

- Not why or what (sends us to the idea that we describe in an objective manner)
- How and things have arrived to look as they are looking today
- Ask what is been eliminated from the historical narrative in order to legitimize the
present
- Ask how the concept of anarchy, state interest, self help are constituted
- Pov of post-modernism→knowledge is alway for someone and for some purpose
- Types of qs ………asked are the result of struggles for particular interpretations on IR
and the winning interpretations are those of the ………

2. Textual strategies
- Deconstruction → approach that tries to destabilize concepts that are considered stable,
by identifying conceptual oppositions (ex: liberty vs. security; anarchy vs. hierarchy)

***Designed to address in which we perceive this disarticulation

“We need to interpret interpretations rather than interpret things”- J. Derrida (entire work is
based on the idea that the world is a text→ “Grammatology” 1974

Intertextuality→ the network of meaning that is created by adding together all of the different
interpretations of the world
In order to disentangle them we can use the 2 strategies: deconstruction and double reading
***Conceptual oppositions are never neutral→ we always give positive value to one side and
negative to the other
- Double reading→ read a text or a situation twice (first reading: repetition or requirement
of dominant interpretation with the purpose to clarify the way in which it has been
constituted. It is a reconstruction of the dominant narrative but in a way in which you try
to identify its origin. also apply genealogical method; second reading: destabilize the
dominant interpretation to discover its weak points, deconstruction of the narrative)→
Richard Ashley “The Double Reading of the Anarchy problematique” 1988

According to postmodern theory in IR→ the state can’t exist in the absence of violence
Violence is a fundamental principal of the ontological…….

- Post-structuralism
- Deconstructionism