In my last blog post, I wrote about how the discipline of International Relations would always, oh-so-frustratingly, lack any sort of consensus (in terms of epistemology, ontology, theory, etc.), and I absolutely stand by that… with one exception. I think that, demonstrably, the one thing that will forever unite accounts of IR is an emphasis — no, obsession — with power. No matter what account you’re dealing with, what lies right beneath the surface is the power of whatever the discipline happens to hold as its central category of analysis. And this stays true with any account that you take. Marxism deals with the power of class, or the lack of power that comes about via class oppression. Feminism deals with the power of gender, and its influence on the way that people of different genders exercise power within society. Post-structuralism deals with the power of language, and Critical Theory deals with the power of theory itself. In other words, what, for you, makes the world go ‘round?

Why is that important to recognize? Or is that even a valuable observation to make at all? I’ve been thinking, all throughout the term, about how it might be possible to reconcile these disciplines that are so fundamentally incompatible. The closest thing resembling a solution that I have been able to come up with is defining them in terms of power, and then moving forward from there. Epistemology and ontology are two things that theorists are not going to agree on. But maybe if accounts can be boiled down at the very least to the central tenets of their analysis, some more meaningful dialogue can take place. In his International Institutions: Two Approaches, Robert Keohane says “we must understand that we can aspire only to formulate conditional, context-specific generalizations rather than to discover universal laws, and that our understanding of world politics will always be incomplete.” If this is true, then it will only be in starting to utilize the same lexicon (power) that any progress will be made. And at the end of the day, shouldn’t that be the goal?

One of the defining features of the discipline of International Relations, I think, is the inevitability of the lack of consensus. And initially, I found that somewhat disheartening. To be clear, I still do… but I’ve found ways to repress it.

It’s pretty clear to me that the reason for this lies in the fundamental disagreement about epistemology that has become a large focus in the so-called “fourth debate.” Generally, in areas of science, consistent epistemology is not a problem. Repeated observations of the same phenomena lead to empirical data that then forms the basis of inductive theories. Here, ‘theory’ is defined as something along the lines of “a system of propositions that serve to explain independent underlying principles.” In IR, ‘theorists’ do the same thing, but their version is much more in fitting with the definition “an idea used to account for a situation, or justify a course of action.” Technically, this difference is nothing more than semantics, but any good post-structuralist would tell you that it is an important one to make. Human behaviour can be reduced and quantified, and we can analyze the actions of states in retrospect ‘till the cows come home. But each approach of IR states that their conceptions of actor ontology and epistemological systems are superior, and none have ever produced any “nail in the coffin” evidence to prove themselves correct.

Personally, I think that Constructivism offers the most compelling account of International Relations on the whole. I think that rational actor models are demonstrably narrow-minded and insufficient, and the premise that (state) actors act only in utility-maximizing, self-serving capacities is unreasonably pessimistic. And maybe that’s entirely due to my perspective, in fact it’s very probable. But through all of the international crises that we see in South Asia, the Middle East, Central Africa… what I still see is that there are humanitarian groups on the ground whenever possible, new aid missions are underway every day, and International Organizations are built exclusively for the purpose of helping those who need it. International Relations is not a zero-sum game because life is not a zero-sum game.

We’re all familiar with Hobbes… Waltz and Morgenthau can quote him all day long (and they do) in support of their realist approaches. But I could just as easily, with just as much authority, quote Rousseau in saying that our only instinct equal to our own self-preservation is our aversion to seeing another man in pain. Furthermore, Constructivism (unlike all other rationalist approaches) includes room for normative judgements via what is called the “logic of appropriateness” as opposed to the traditional “logic of consequences.” Humanity is prescriptive. Humanity is normative. I don’t see why our IR shouldn’t reflect that. It isn’t called International Relations for nothing.