POLI 367B has deconstructed my previous categorization of IR theory as a dichotomy between realism and idealism, and, in its place, created a complex structure based on theoretical pluralism. This theoretical pluralism can be disorienting and overwhelming. However, Holsti, in The Dividing Discipline, gave me some clarity to this theoretical pluralism, for, instead of focusing on the divisions and debates within international theory, Holsti argues for its continuity and similarity (Holsti 1985, 37).

Holsti begins his work by stating that “International theory is in a state of disarray” (Holsti 1985, 1). Holsti defines international theories as “descriptive and explanatory statements about the structure, units, and processes of international politics that transcend time, location, and personality” (Holsti 1985, 3). He then explains how some scholars have organized the theoretical field into such categories as pluralist (state-centric), functionalist (multiple actors), or structuralist (constructed horizontal hierarchies), among others (Holsti 1985, 5). Nevertheless, he argues that there is no single answer to the continuing debates within international theory (Holsti 1985, 7).

However, in the following pages, he proposes three key threads which hold international theories together, namely: 1). The causes of war and conditions for peace, including the concept of power, 2). The actors and units of analysis, and 3). The images of the world or system of states (Holsti 1985, 8). With these three criteria, Holsti examines the classical tradition, liberalism, and the behavioural revolution. His goal is not to create a winning paradigm, but to illustrate how all three criteria are present in all three approaches to the study of international theory from the classical tradition to liberalism (Holsti 1985, 27). Even the behavioural revolution did not alter these three threads, for it still examined these three fundamental characteristics. Indeed, Holsti explains that the behavioural revolution altered methodologies but not the essence of international politics and theory, for only normative priorities can create different paradigms (Holsti 1985, 39).

Holsti acknowledges that he is examining the discipline in broad strokes which can lead to generalizations and marginalization of certain theories. Furthermore, this narrow categorization may label some ways of thinking as non theoretical. Despite these potential shortcomings, this categorization of theory can help one to better understand the world of international theory. Holsti’s perspective or approach is different from other works and authors which choose to focus on the debates within the field concerning such concepts as positivism, realism, or quantitative research, for example. These divides and differences between paradigms and perspectives can create an understanding of the discipline that is chaotic. Holsti’s work, however, brought some uniformity to my understanding of international theories.

Kal Holsti. The Dividing Discipline. Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1985.