When I signed in for a course in International Relations (IR) Theory I did it because, although I have studied International Relations, I was very confused about what defined the discipline and the different schools of thought that exist. So far, the classes have maintained my confusion on these topics. But there is good news: this is not a confusion only I have. All those who identify themselves as internationalists have had some of the same questions that led me to sign in this course.
I have been thinking: Why so much confusion? and why does this provoke discomfort among scholars? Although there are many answers (as there are always in IR and in social sciences) I think I have found some answers in the first couple of classes and readings. An answer to the latter question is the gap between expectations and performance. IR and other social sciences have tried to be Sciences (yes, with a capital letter). They have adopted the concept of true that natural sciences have established. This is, a univocal one. If we take that ideal of truth, one must accept that there should be one approach that brings us closer to the reality. Now, sciences need to “cut a piece” of the reality in order to analyze it. The complexity of the world (even the natural one) forces us to focus on a part of it to explore it in depth.
The problems with this approach are, at least, two with IR. First, theorists and practitioners have not agreed on which part of the reality should we focus on. Second, the phenomena on which we are trying to agree is changing day by day and it has been changing forever. So, gravity has always been gravity and it has worked the same way forever (at least as far as we know). The discussion on physics was about what were the best methods that led us to a better understanding on why the object goes down every time we drop it. Now, to put it in terms of a metaphor; in IR we also have that discussion, but then we have the change in the phenomenon. This means that suddenly objects start not-falling down when we drop them. This metaphor is inaccurate (as they all are) because in IR we cannot even “hold” the object to drop it.
Thus, one of my first reflections is that IR cannot settle with the natural version of sciences. The processes and actor that we are trying to understand are complex, unpredictable and changing. This does not mean that we cannot have a better understanding of them; it just means that we have to get use to complexity, unpredictability and changes in order to do it. This also means being in good terms with disagreement and constant debate. I know this may be scary, especially for those of us who will have to search for a job without having a fix identity or a severe affirmation about what we really know. But I believe that the different approaches that have been developed can help us understand some parts of the changes that we are witnessing in our lives.
Regarding the discomfort among scholars caused by not having a founding agreement, I think we should stop building myths about the IR as a science or about the first thinkers who “were internationalist without knowing”. This is not necessary, at least for those of us who are ready to renounce certainty as a comfort zone.
Before the end of this blog entry I want to briefly reflect on something. If it is so complicated and difficult to define and study IR, why should we keep doing it? Well, I do not have a big answer for that one, but I think I can answer why should I keep doing it. In my opinion, once we have abandoned the goal (or even the possibility) of neutrality, one must assume that there is a point of view; a political stand on whatever we write. I am currently trying to write my thesis on a case of forced disappearance of 43 students in Mexico, and how does the Human Rights regime has played a role in the search of justice and memory. Now, I believe there are important elements of IR that can help me understand the relation of a state with other states, their commitments and how they act when human rights violations occur. Although I will try to approach this case looking for “what really has happened” this does not mean I’m neutral. I am really angry, I do not like when this happens around the world and I do think that IR has something to say about why these things happen and how can we prevent them from happening again.
These ideas and others come to my mind when I think about studying social sciences and specifically IR. But let us not be deterred by the complexity of the world. As Michel Foucault said once about another topic: “rather than founding a theory, my present concern is to establish a possibility.”
Claudio FL
September 2018