International relations theory, like many political theory disciplines, is very multidimensional. There is no dominant theory that is so secure in its hegemony in the theory that it reigns over all theories. However, international relations theory is unique in the way that is so easily influenced and changed by world events. International relations is arguably the most sensitive academic discipline. I’ve read somewhere once that economists spend all their time explaining why something will happen and then when it doesn’t, they spend all their time explaining why it didn’t happen. I feel that IR theory is the same, to an even more extensive degree. For example, realists, especially neorealist, will say that war is inevitable consequence of the archaic state of the world. If war does not break out, they will say it doesn’t matter because it eventually will break out. While when work does break out, they will claim that it is what they predicted all along. That being said, I often wonder if it is ever possible to create a concrete, feasible theory based on something that could change in an instant. It seems to be a general dilemma in IR as many theorist cannot agree and it is particularly difficult because there is no way to prove the truth without waiting to see the future. As I said earlier, by that time it may be an obsolete theory based on the world events that occurred.
I find this to be a major contrast to political theory in general. With political theory, many of the theories have real life applications and it is possible to see the empirical evidence based on the history. For example, we are able to see how Marxism and communism worked in Russia. We are able to see the current quality of life that socialism has provided in Sweden. We can see how democracy works in Canada and the United States. With these examples, we can form concrete theories (at least to some degree) based on historical evidence about what has happened. With IR theory, many of the theories are impossible to see the result as it would require a universal agreement. This seems to be only getting farther from the truth. I believe as the world is becoming more open to new ideas, IR theory will never gain a central paradigm. It is impossible for political theorist to unanimously agree on a central paradigm as the discipline itself is simply far too subjective, IR more than any other.
Interesting thoughts for sure. Its seeming remoteness from real life events is a paradoxical and often remarked aspect of IR, and one that seems only to intensify with post-structuralists. Then again, they would question what we mean by “real life.” Hope you enjoyed the course.
R