Sunday, September 03, 2006

Deconstructing International Relations

I found this very interesting article on International Relations. Which at least one blogger has an interest in, and bemoans the lack of political blogs dealing with IR.

So to make up for it a teensy weensy bit read this:

An Immanent Critique of International Relations “It’s the end of the world as we knew it”

International Relations (IR) is a discipline that was originally created to investigate the
scourge of war in terms of its causes, and also possible cures of what was then seen –
and indeed still is – as the malady of the body politic. (Lord Davies, 1919) More
recently, IR has been charged with the investigation of who gets what and under which
conditions. (Ken Booth, 1995) The normative aims are still the same in that the
corollary of the ‘who gets what argument’ is to suggest that iniquitous distribution may
cause conflict, the purpose of the discipline being to suggest ways to avoid it.2
The materialist/utilitarian emphasis present in both normative goals outlined above are
inherently conflictual and this point has been hammered home by realists and
neorealists ad infinatum. More progressive theories in IR, interdependency theory,
world systems, Marxist, neoliberal and so forth are also wedded to the materialist
commitment, and whilst the ‘difference’ of the arguments usually revolves around the
explanatory, the progressive remedial aspect of the theories become bogged down by
an implicit or explicit commitment to the ethic of progress, the state and the market.

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , ,

1 comment:

kurichina said...

Interesting article (although I'm only half way through right now). While I'm definately not philosophically on the same page (I have no beef with the state really), it's always useful to see underpinning constructions examined.