'American' IR theory and its 'European' critics

Abstract

‘The true corruption of the American academia is not primarily financial, (…) but conceptual’. Slavoj Zizek, Repeating Lenin International Relations (IR) has long been ‘an American social science’. Hence, IR theory has developed as essentially and problematically an American product. The problem with ‘American’ IR Theory is not only that it has been built on some fragile Humean and Kantian assumptions (Patomäki 2002: ch.1; see also Anderson 2002). These assumptions are, simply put, arbitrary and unrealistic, therefore not much helpful for understanding the complexities of world politics. Consequently, there emerged a widening gap between academics and practitioners in international relations in recent years (Buzan and Little 2001; Chernoff 2005; Lepgold and Nincic 2001). IR Theory has also included a tendency for anachronistic and ethnocentric hegemony and cruel marginalization of its non-scientific (read non-positivist) ‘others’ (Ferguson and Mansbach 1988; Schmidt 2002; Teschke 2003; Waever 1998). A significant body of knowledge from critical theory to classical approach, from neo-Marxist thought to gender studies, therefore, has already expressed its feeling of being sidelined and neutralized (Smith, Booth, and Zalewski 1996). European students of international relations are no exception in their reaction to ‘American’ IR theory. Yet, their aim is, for the time being, only limited to show that there exist distintively European approaches to international relations (Friedrichs 2004; Jorgensen 2000; Kennedy-Pipe 2000). Therefore, critical deconstruction of IR theory for its reconstruction is still overdue (see also Cox 1986; Rosenberg 1996; Underhill 2006). Only critically thought, realistically framed and dynamic ‘European’ IR theory can help us in our never-ending quest for understanding and explaining world politics. In other words, ‘European’ critics of IR theory in the long run should, too, target at no less than ‘more complex theories [of international relations] needed in order to make those complex decisions rationally’ (Chernoff 2005: 7). In fact, what we observe recently in European integration studies with a growing interest are the first steps being taken in this direction (Verdun 2003; Warleigh 2006). This panel aims to continue these first steps towards a ‘European’ IR Theory. As a modest contribution, it will recollect a number of critical papers from different perspectives. The two central questions in each paper will be 1) What is wrong with ‘American’ IR Theory and 2) What to do about it? In other words, the paper givers are expected, firstly, to identify a specific aspect of ‘American’ IR Theory, and secondly, to suggest ways of ‘fixing’ it. For the first objective, the paper giver may employ an IR scholar (or a group of IR scholars) as his/her springboard for criticism. For the second objective, the paper giver is supposed to make a reconstruction of ‘American’ IR Theory on the specific topic which he/she criticizes instead of a mere literature review of previous critics. After the conference (a selection of) panel papers will be compiled and edited as chapters of a single volume for publication purposes. References Anderson, Perry. 2002. Internationalism: A Breviary. New Left Review 14:5-25. Buzan, Barry, and Richard Little. 2001. Why International Relations has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to do About it. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 30 (1):19-39. Chernoff, Fred. 2005. The Power of International Theory: Reforging the Link to Foreign Policy-making Through Scientific Enquiry. London: Routledge. Cox, Robert W. 1986. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. In Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by R. O. Keohane. New York: Columbia University Press. Ferguson, Yale H., and Richard W. Mansbach. 1988. The Elusive Quest: Theory and International Politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Friedrichs, Jörg. 2004. European Approaches to International Relations Theory: A House with Many Mansions. London: Routledge. Jorgensen, Kund Erik. 2000. Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret. European Journal of International Relations 6 (1):9-42. Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline. 2000. International History and International Relations theory: a dialogue beyond the Cold War. International Affairs 76 (4):741-754. Lepgold, Joseph, and Miroslav Nincic. 2001. Beyond the Ivory Tower: International Relations Theory and the Issue of Policy Relevance. New York: Columbia University Press. Patomäki, Heikki. 2002. After international relations: critical realism and the (re)construction of world politics. London: Routledge. Rosenberg, Justin. 1996. Isaac Deutscher and the Lost History of International Relations. New Left Review I/215:3–15. Schmidt, Brian C. 2002. On History and Historiography of International Relations. In Handbook of International Relations, edited by W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse and B. A. Simmons. London: Sage. Smith, Steve, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds. 1996. International Theory: Positivism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Teschke, Benno. 2003. The Myth of 1648: Class, Geopolitics and the Making of Modern International Relations. London: Verso. Underhill, Geoffrey. 2006. Conceptualising the Changing Global Order. In Political Economy and the Changing Global Order, edited by R. Stubbs and G. Underhill. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Verdun, Amy. 2003. An American/European Divide in European Integration Studies - Bridging the Gap with International Political Economy. Journal of European Public Policy 10 (1):84-101. Waever, Ole. 1998. The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations. International Organization 52 (4):687-729. Warleigh, Alex. 2006. Learning from Europe? EU Studies and the Re-thinking of ‘International Relations’. European Journal of International Relations 12 (1):31-51.

Title	Details
'American' IR theory: A complex adaptive systems critique	View Paper Details
(American) IR Theory and the Hermeneutical Turn - What After the Third Debate?	View Paper Details
Beyond foundationalist and anti-foundationalist normative IR theory?: Critical Realist ethics and state action	View Paper Details
Enemy at the gates: American constructivism – where it all Wendt wrong	View Paper Details