I am a 4th year student. I took this course because, as a Poli Major who who enjoys theory, there was a glaring gap in my education regarding international theory. Better yet, it fit well within my schedule. I did take some sort of introduction to International Relations in second year, however that course was not very comprehensive, and I thought that this course could provide a much needed deeper look.

Thus far, I am thoroughly intrigued by the contentious nature of the study. There are so many competing schools, with vastly different ways of approaching International Politics. I first believed the lack of consensus in the field could prevent scholars from making any progress. I agreed with Kuhn, that although scientific revolution is not inherently negative, a period of perpetual disagreement is not conducive to new knowledge. In a social science, however, competing value judgements could make consensus impossible because researchers make competing basic assumptions.  It’s strange to study a science in which value judgements seem to even influence the methods that researchers use. If we can’t even agree on how to form new knowledge, can the theory we do produce even be compared to others? Theory A and B could come to completely opposing conclusions regarding a policy, but perhaps that is only because they were produced with different basic methods and assumptions.

Now I don’t feel that this is as strong a problem as I did. The world of politics is incredibly complex, and world politics are even more so. It would be disappointing if we found one straightforward set of rules that perfectly explained our behaviour. To be able to reduce the study of international relations to the tenets of one theorist would require it be such a simple science that it would be almost not worth studying! Instead of worrying about the efficacy of International Relations to describe the world amidst its great debates, I think I will instead buckle up and enjoy the bumpy ride.

As such I feel fortunate to be taught a variety of theories, instead of focusing on Realism, for example, as the one true theory. In my humble opinion, it seems that no single theory accurately describes the world, and that each has a degree of truth to it. Therefore, understanding and respecting  the tenets of each theory could be more valuable to a scholar of international relations than following one.