As if it was not bizarre enough that IR is described as having more than one birth, Carvalho et al. further complicate things in their article “The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths Your Teachers Still Tell You”. In this reading, the authors argue that the classic textbook explanation of IR’s emergence from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and the end of the First World War in 1919 as myths.  Drawing from a wide array of historical documents for reference, the authors argue that contrary to a well-accepted belief, the Peace of Westphalia constituted a “step back from an already established idea of state sovereignty” and reiterates an earlier and more feudal heteronomous order. They expand on this by arguing that a proliferation of international imperial-hierarchies can be observed in the post-1648 era, and the sovereign state did not become the generic political unit of the global system until the late 20th century.

As a political science major, I have encountered the Treaty of Westphalia in many textbooks, and it has repeatedly been regarded as the origin of the sovereign state. In fact, true to Carvalho et al.’s claim, the Westphalian axiom has been used in all discussions of state sovereignty with no references or need for scrutiny. The same phenomenon can be observed in the discipline of IR, and while the authors offer no alternative theories for the “true origins” of IR, they question why such myths continue to be held by IR scholars. In my opinion, the most interesting explanation offered by the authors is IR’s inherent tendency towards presentism and lack of interest in history. This posed two questions for me – if IR is only interested in present truths, why then is the discussion of its origins present in such a large number of textbooks, and is the study of historical events not important in the search for patterns, explanations, and solutions?

The authors also discuss the influence of Eurocentrism on these myths and the difficulty in revising the officially accepted origins of IR. They posit that disbanding the myths of 1648 and 1919 will require a confrontation of IR Eurocentrism. As we’ve discussed in the recent lectures,  the discipline of IR is dominated by American thought, similar to the prevailing theories of realism and liberalism. To this point, I question if it is possible to confront and disband Eurocentrism in IR.

Overall, the article posed some questions and some worries for me as a student of IR. As fascinating as it is, it is clearly a discipline with highly contested explanations of theories and its origins.

Four people have recommended that I drop this class. When I asked them why, they simply responded with “because it’s a theory class”. Several of my peers seem to avoid theory classes as they have the perception that they are either too difficult or too dull. While I agree that it may not sound as exciting as “Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control” or “The Politics of Terrorism”, I think that learning about theories that have shaped and continue to influence the way we perceive certain issues is fascinating in its own right. I took a theory course this summer which was labelled “Canadian Political Ideas”. In this course, we delved into and compared the existing theories on topics such as identity, multiculturalism, etc. These are topics that we Canadians talk about quite regularly, without understanding where or how our views have been developed. This course helped me understand the various interpretations of Canadian identity, how they emerged, and allowed me to choose which theory worked best for me. This is what I hope to take away from International Relations Theory.

In the first few classes, Dr. Crawford talked about the pluralism that now exists in the field of international relations, and how this is a drastic change from the claim to superiority that realism held several decades ago. While I did find it intimidating at first, I now think that it makes IR more interesting than ever. The truth is that there are numerous issues that we can focus on, and what may be more important to one person may not matter as much to another. Initially, I was inclined to think that I will likely end up adopting a mix of two or more of the different IR theories, as I think that structural realism, liberalism, and feminism all make some good points. However, Smith discusses that this is impossible, as “the various theories are not like parts of a jigsaw that can be neatly combined together with each explaining one part of international relations. Rather I think that the theories in this book are like different coloured lenses: if you put one of them in front of your eyes, you will see things differently” (p. 11). I am curious to see where I’ll stand at the end of the course.

We’re only two weeks into the course, and while I am still intimidated by the number of theories that we will be learning about, I think I made the right decision in keeping the course. (…for now?)