Throughout my undergraduate studies, I have known that theory is important for both political science and international relations. Nevertheless, while I have taken courses related to political theory and ideologies and heard the terms “realist” and “idealist” in many of my course, before POLI 367B I had never taken a course that examined the various IR theories and the roll they play in both understanding and interacting with global politics past and present. So, being in my final year of my undergraduate degree, I thought it was better late than never to learn about IR theory and these terms.
By the second week into POLI 367B, I realized how little I knew about IR theory; previous to POLI 367B, I only had a surface knowledge of IR theory. I had thought that IR theory was a dichotomy between realism and idealism, and other theories such as feminism and Marxism were mainly relegated to the field of political ideology. Now, I understand that IR theory is complex.
By the first class, I learned that IR theory has two birthdays, one after World War One and another after World War Two. By the second class, I learned that IR theory has been deconstructed in multiple ways through meta-theoretical analysis. For instance, the classical realist explanation by Thucydides that the growth of Athenian power and the fear it created in Sparta were the reasons for war was no longer satisfactory. Now IR was asking questions related methodology, epistemology, and ontology; some IR theorist also wanted to question, describe, and analyze that fear rather than assume a common understanding of the fear of growth and power. In other words, IR theory became amorphous and began to expand beyond traditional boundaries.
One question asked in this course is if the lack of consensus and theoretical pluralism within IR theory is healthy. My answer is that it is healthy. If IR were bound to consensus, then it would be a forced consensus. I really appreciate the analogy in the textbook of how theories are like lenses through which one sees the world, for multiple lenses also imply a lack of consensus. However, I am beginning to think of IR theory as a plant, and its struggles with pluralism and consensus as growing pains. A plant can be discovered, named, rediscovered, and then renamed. A plant continues to grow new branches, and some plants that were previously separate from it can be grafted in. So, maybe the foundation of IR theory is shaking and shattering, but, for the roots of IR theory to grow deeper, cracks need to form for roots to grow. Smith explains, “…the social location of the observer will influence which theory they see as most useful…,” and assumption can play a role in determining was is right or even applicable (Dunne et. al. 2016, 11-12). Thus, each observer will view and use each branch differently and give more importance to some branches over others.
Finally, there may be debates regarding consensus within IR theory, but, for me, this course in IR theory is unifying my undergraduate degree. The many debates and theories discussed within POLI 367B have clarified other ideas, concepts, and events that I have learned within political science. Even concepts outside of political science are reflected within IR theory. For example, the tension between structure and agency that I learned about in a history class where causal factors can be attributed to institutions (structure) or the main actors involved (agency) is similar to some theories within IR. Structure is like critical theory’s “unjust state of affairs” or feminist theory’s discussion of “social arrangements,” and agency is like the social theorists’ examination of the social actors and their understanding of the world discussed in the course text (Kurki and Wight 2016, 26-27). Thus, POLI 367B is connecting the dots of many aspects of my undergraduate degree, amalgamating them into a massive, intricate, and interconnected web.
Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith, eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.