Pluralism and Engagement in the Discipline of International Relations

Yong-Soo Eun

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9789811011214
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Diplomazia e trattati

This book identifies and addresses subtle but important questions and issues associated with the configuration of International Relations as a discipline. Starting with a much-needed discussion of manifold implications and issues associated with pluralism, the book raises important questions, such as where does the field of IR stand in terms of epistemological, theoretical, and methodological diversity. The book also carries out a comparative analysis of the present status of post-positivist IR scholarship in the United States and China. Eun discusses these questions through a close reading of the key texts in the field and by undertaking a critical survey of publishing and teaching practices in IR communities. IR scholars will gravitate to this text that fills many gaps in international political theory.

© The Author(s) 2016

Yong-Soo EunPluralism and Engagement in the Discipline of International Relations10.1007/978-981-10-1121-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. A “Pluralist Turn” in International Relations?

Yong-Soo Eun¹

(1)

Department of Political Science, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

Abstract

Pluralism—which maintains that there are many legitimate “ways of knowing” and thus endorses a wide range of epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and empirical perspectives—has recently become one of the major topics discussed and debated in the field of International Relations (IR). Furthermore, there is a voluminous literature arguing for pluralism. In fact, Tim Dunne, Lene Hansen, and Colin Wight observe that “everyone” in IR agrees that pluralism is a “desirable position” (Dunne et al. 2013: 415). Taken far enough, one could even claim that IR is currently experiencing a pluralist turn. However, several critical questions still remain underexplored. This chapter identifies what is missing or unclear in the ongoing debate over pluralism in IR. In doing so, the chapter shows where the principal concerns of the book are placed and what contributions the book makes in terms of deepening and broadening the debate.

Keywords

International relations (IR)PluralismA pluralist turnPleas for pluralism in IR

End Abstract

Pluralism—which maintains that there are many legitimate “ways of knowing” and thus endorses a wide range of epistemological, theoretical, methodological, and empirical/spatial perspectives—has recently become one of the major topics discussed and debated in the field of International Relations (IR).¹ As there are manifold issues and implications associated with pluralism, the ongoing discussion, too, appraises pluralism from diverse angles in different forms with varying emphases. For example, whether IR ought to be a pluralistic discipline is one of the several questions that concern many scholars (for recent works, see, e.g., Lebow 2011; van der Ree 2013; Rengger 2015; Ferguson 2015). The extent to which IR needs to become pluralistic (see, e.g., Jackson 2011, 2015; Sil and Katzenstein 2010, 2011; Lake 2011; Reus-Smit 2013) is another question; and “what kinds” of pluralism the discipline should pursue is also another important dimension of the pluralism question (see, e.g., Tickner 2011; Dunne et al. 2013; Wight 2013; Acharya 2014, 2016). Given such a remarkable interest in pluralism, one might describe the ongoing discussion as a pluralist turn in IR, although (as will be discussed in detail in the next chapter) it is unclear whether the field has archived what an academic “turn” is expected to achieve. Let me further clarify the terrain of the developing discussion about pluralism.

Persistent Pleas for a Pluralistic IR

Obviously there is a place for both the pros and cons of pluralism in the study of world politics, and there is also disagreement about the extent to which pluralism is useful in solving theoretical and empirical puzzles connected to world political processes and phenomena (see, e.g., Smith 2003: 141–142; Mearsheimer and Walt 2013: 427–457; van der Ree 2014: 219–230; Rengger 2015: 1–8). It is, however, clear that in recent years there has been a growing number of pleas for pluralism in IR. Going a step further, Thierry Balzacq and Stéphane J. Baele (2010: 2–4) have described the “third debate” in IR, which began “in the mid-1980s,” as a discussion that follows “a composite claim for a more diverse … and more critical IR.” Relatedly, they observe that “diversity” has consistently remained the “strongest statement” of post-positivists. Further, pluralism and diversity are endorsed not only by post-positivists, who consider the vision of IR as a critical enterprise (George 1989; Ashley and Walker 1990; Campbell 2013), but also by scholars, who often invoke a strict rationalist ontology and follow a deductive-nomological modeling based on positivist epistemology. For example, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt readily “acknowledge” the utility of pluralism in the study of world politics, saying that IR will be “much better off a diverse array of competing ideas rather than single theoretical orthodoxy” (Walt 1998: 30), and that “a diverse theoretical ecosystem is preferable to an intellectual monoculture … We therefore favor a diverse intellectual community where different theories and research traditions co-exist” (Mearsheimer and Walt 2013: 430).²

Such a plea for endorsement of pluralism comes from different perspectives across varying realms of inquiry. For example, in his 2011 book, The Conduct of Inquiry—which provides an introduction to the philosophy of science issues and their implications for IR—Patrick Jackson argues for “a pluralist science of IR.” According to Jackson, IR should realize that there is a variety of claims about our “hook-up” to the world, and thus “a variety of philosophical ontologies” (Jackson 2011: 32, 193). Since IR ought to embrace a wide range of ontology, how we should go about producing factual knowledge about world politics, namely methodology, should accordingly accept greater pluralism. Although his observation and suggestions are not without controversy—in effect, they have generated many acclaimed comments and critical reviews—both critics and advocates agree on the utility of pluralism in the study of international relations. Hidemi Suganami, for instance, takes issue with Jackson’s treatment of philosophical foundations as “a matter of faith,” yet attempts to reinforce and complement “a pluralist science of IR” by pointing to a need to add “the political underpinnings of the various scientific methodologies” to Jackson’s pluralist consideration of IR inquiry (Suganami 2013: 248, 267–269). Likewise, although Colin Wight is overall critical regarding Jackson’s accounts of science and methodology, he nevertheless foregrounds “a deep commitment to pluralism” in IR, suggesting that pluralism should “generate debate across and between approaches” (Wight 2013: 329, 342–343).

Besides the acceptance of pluralism from the aforementioned metatheoretical and philosophical perspectives, pluralism is also highlighted and appreciated—with a different rationale and angle, of course—with regard to theory application and empirical analysis in IR. “Analytical eclecticism” might be a good case in point. Although, strictly speaking, the “analytical eclecticism” discussed and practiced in the field is not a genuine form of pluralism, especially in terms of its relationship with epistemology,³ it advocates a more nuanced and pluralistic analytical position while denouncing monocausal explanations. More specifically, Rudra Sil and Peter J. Katzenstein, who have long argued for “analytical eclecticism” note that it is possible and necessary to explore empirical issues and problems of world politics through eclectic recombinant modes of inquiry (see Sil 2000; Sil and Katzenstein 2010, 2011). “Analytical eclecticism,” they explain, requires “expansive, open-ended formulations of problems” that do not privilege a priori mechanisms or processes normally favored by any one paradigm; in this regard, the complementarity or intersection across contending paradigms is emphasized (Sil and Katzenstein 2011: 3–4). Put simply, it is against univariate explanations—explanations on which there is a single clear and dominating theory of and reason for the problem in question—and instead prefers a “combinatorial logic” that draws insights from multiple theoretical perspectives. In this sense, “analytical eclecticism” can be characterized as a pluralistic approach of some kind; and this analytically pluralistic and eclectic position “has quite rapidly become part of mainstream debates about the kind of knowledge the field [of IR] ought to pursue and how such knowledge is best attained” (Reus-Smit 2013: 591, 599). For example, such established IR scholars as David Lake welcome “the rise of eclecticism.” In his keynote address delivered at the 2010 International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Conference, as well as in his more recent articles, Lake suggests that we focus on the development of “mid-level” theories tailored to the specific problems of world politics with “analytic eclecticism” (Lake 2011: 1–14, Lake 2013: 567).

In addition to the philosophical and analytical perspectives discussed above, a demand for pluralism has also been made in a more concrete study and subfield of IR, such as Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). In their study of the patterns and processes of American foreign policy Eugene Wittkopf, Christopher Jones, and Charles Kegley foreground the importance of a multivariate model, noting that “we are well advised to think in multicausal terms if our goal is to move beyond rhetoric toward an understanding of the complex reality underlying the nation’s foreign policy” (Wittkopf et al. 2008: 19, original emphasis); and a large number of FPA scholars echo this point. Valarie Hudson (2007: 184), one of the leading FPA scholars, writes that “as the field of FPA was first being formed, the goal of theoretical integration was put forward as an essential task.” Similarly, Yong-Soo Eun (2012) notes that although FPA research is actor-specific and agent-centered in its orientation, variables from all levels of analysis, from the most micro to the most macro, may be of interest to FPA analysts to the extent that they affect the leader’s definition (perception) of the situation at hand. In this respect, IR researchers concerned with why-questions about the state’s external behavior have attempted to develop multifactorial explanations of foreign policy, with the desideratum of examining diverse variables from more than one level of analysis (see, e.g., Jensen 1982; Hill 2003; Mintz 2004; Neack 2008; Oppermann 2014).

Furthermore, in discussions of visions of a better future for IR scholarship, pluralism is also regarded as what we must pursue and achieve. Friedrich Kratochwil (2003: 126), for example, holds that pluralism is “not as the second best alternative but actually the most promising strategy for furthering research and the production of knowledge” in the Forum that the ISA put together in the hope of identifying “new directions for the field” at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Going a step further, in the same Forum, Yosef Lapid calls attention to an “engaged” form of pluralism, pointing to the importance of “dialogue,” as well as to the diversity of approaches, in the study of international relations. In his words: if “engaged pluralism … is the most feasible and deserving destination for the international relations theory enterprise in the foreseeable future, then dialogue must figure prominently on our agenda at the dawn of the twenty-first century” (Lapid 2003: 129). In effect, the underlying assumption of the Forum, as the Editor has made clear, was that IR is badly in need of “dialogue, pluralism, and synthesis” if it is to have a better future (Hellmann 2003: 123, 147–150). And this view continues to resonate in today’s IR. Yale Ferguson, for example, writes that IR analysts “need to be conversant with a wide range of theories … [because] viewing some subjects simultaneously from more than one theoretical perspective often enhances understanding of global politics” (Ferguson 2015: 3). Additionally, Richard Ned Lebow claims that “[p]luralism must be valued as an end in its own right but also as an effective means of encouraging dialogue across approaches, something from which we all have something to learn” (Lebow 2011: 1225–1226).

The discussion of pluralism in IR involves not only conceptual (i.e., theoretical or epistemological) issues, but geopolitical concerns as well...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Frontmatter
• 1. A “Pluralist Turn” in International Relations?
• 2. Where Does IR Stand in Terms of Diversity?
• 3. What Is at Stake With Moving IR Toward a Pluralistic Discipline?
• 4. “What Kind” of Pluralism Should We Pursue and How Can It Be Achieved?
• 5. Conclusion
• Backmatter