Many of the Political Science classes that I have taken thus far have included several allusions to International Relations. Going back to POLI 100 (Introduction to Politics), the course introduced multiple schools of thought (including Green theory and Feminist theory) and vaguely glossed over each paradigm’s views when it came to the international realm. Then came POLI 260 (Introduction to Global Politics), a course that focused more on the practical aspect of International Relations, with scattered explanations of their theoretical foundations—in my experience with the course, at least. While these two courses covered a fair amount of material, there seemed to be a critical piece missing that I felt I needed in order to complete my foundational understanding of IR. I didn’t realize what it was until I took POLI 240 (Currents of Political Thought), which was fairly theory based, that I realized that it was not enough for me to just have an understanding of different political theories in general and then merely assume where they would stand in international terms. I wanted a class that would focus on exploring each theory in the specific context of International Relations. This is why I was drawn to this course.

Having attended a few classes of this course, I am confident in that I probably will come out of this class having gotten out of it what I came in searching for: an understanding of each school of thought in the specific context of IR. The class discussions concerning if IR is a “normal science” as well as the discussions about each theory being a different lens through which the world is viewed has somehow simplified my introduction to IR theory—only after taking the time to try and wrap my head around the idea that this is a discipline with little consensus and no “core paradigm” or set of foundational rules upon which all theories are constructed. While discussing the disagreements and uncertainties within the field IR at the beginning of the course made me feel hesitant about exploring this area of study, the more I let it simmer, the more sense it makes and the more I feel like the previous questions my mind had raised when IR was brought up in previous courses are being clarified. 

The discussions to do with pluralism and the lack of consensus within IR are what have intrigued me the most thus far—ironically, seeing as how this is what confused me about the field, from the start of my exposure to it. I couldn’t help but link the conversations from class with discussions had in POLI 240. My first connection was concerning Weber’s views on value-pluralism/proliferation of value spheres in modernity. The idea that world’s values were being initially shaped and controlled beneath the hands of the church/religion mirrors the grasp realism had on the world by claiming to be the only “real” school of thought. The church was an integrated/unifying institution that defined meaning (aka. thought of as a “core paradigm” – Kuhn), but having it gone meant a loss of “consensus” that puts the world in a condition of disarray—which is similar to what happened to the world after the great debates resulted in the loss of consensus in IR according to Holsti. 

Then, Weber’s idea that the world was disenchanted (given the rise of the enlightenment, science etc.) to the extent where values became fragmented to the point where the world was gaining multiple conflicting and competing value systems reflects the emerging schools of thought that have since challenged realism. 

As discussed, while this break down of consensus can be despairing for some, it is a positive thing for others. The following comparisons might be too much of a stretch but I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between our discussions and the ones had about Hobbes and Arendt in POLI 240. We discussed that Ferguson and Mansbach thought of this breakup of consensus as a way of freeing the field to other perspectives. To me, this mirrors the principle of Hannah Arendt’s perspective that separation and division of powers (ie. in government) is an intentional and good thing because it creates more centres for power and more places for debate and thus freedom. So the division of sovereignty for her creates MORE power and freedom instead of breaking it down. This is mirrored with the idea that when realism was the main school of thought, it concentrated power—or in this case, limited the view of the world to one lens without the freedom of allowing us to view the world through others. However for Hobbes, power needed to be centralized in the Leviathan, seeing as how when power is divided, civil war ensues and the Leviathan breaks down. This to me mirrors Kuhn’s thoughts on how the loss of a core paradigm—or debate without emerging with a new consensus on a new paradigm—breaks down a science, or disqualifies it from being a natural science. Following this perspective, since IR does not emerge with a new foundational and healthy core paradigm and instead, there are multiple cores belonging to each school of thought, IR breaks down, just as the Leviathan would.

After making this comparison, I feel as though I side with Arendt, Ferguson and Mansbach more than I would the others. To me, without trying on multiple lenses, it is difficult to claim that the first one tried is the correct one. Without the breakdown of the original consensus (ie. without having room to consider anything other than realism), the emergence of new lenses/paradigms would be stunted, and there would be lesser lenses to try on. In my opinion, stepping away from realism and the emergence of newer schools of thought are thus a necessary first step that is needed, in order to view the world as it is in as many perspectives as possible in order to create as complete of a picture as possible. Perhaps then, there may be potential to reach a genuine, complete and well-informed consensus (or not). 

Joanna El-Mikati