International relations theory is the study of international relations (IR) from a theoretical perspective. It attempts to provide a conceptual framework upon which international relations can be analyzed. Ole Holsti
describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of
coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events
relevant to the theory; e.g., an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa. The three most prominent theories are realism, liberalism and constructivism. Sometimes, institutionalism proposed and developed by Keohane and Nye is discussed as an paradigm differed from liberalism.
International relations theories can be divided into "positivist/rationalist" theories which focus on a principally state-level analysis, and "post-positivist/reflectivist" ones which incorporate expanded meanings of security, ranging from class, to gender, to postcolonial security. Many often conflicting ways of thinking exist in IR theory, including constructivism, institutionalism, Marxism, neo-Gramscianism, and others. However, two positivist schools of thought are most prevalent: realism and liberalism.
The study of international relations, as theory, can be traced to E. H. Carr's The Twenty Years' Crisis, which was published in 1939, and to Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations published in 1948. International relations, as a discipline, is believed to have emerged after the First World War with the establishment of a Chair of International Relations at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Early international relations scholarship in the interwar years focused on the need for the balance of power system to be replaced with a system of collective security. These thinkers were later described as "Idealists". The leading critique of this school of thinking was the "realist" analysis offered by Carr.
However, a more recent study, by David Long and Brian Schmidt in 2005, offers a revisionist account of the origins of the field international relations. They claim that the history of the field can be traced back to late 19th Century imperialism and internationalism. The fact that the history of the field is presented by "great debates", such as the realist-idealist debate, does not correspond with the historic evidence found in earlier works: "We should once and for all dispense with the outdated anachronistic artifice of the debate between the idealists and realists as the dominant framework for and understanding the history of the field". Their revisionist account claims that, up until 1918, international relations already existed in the form of colonial administration, race science, and race development.
A clear distinction is made between explanatory and constitutive approaches when classifying international relations theories. Explanatory theories are ones which postulates the world is something external to theorize about. A constitutive theory is one which suggest that theories actually help construct the world.
Realism
Thucydides author of History of the Peloponnesian War is considered one of the earliest "realist" thinkers.
Realism or political realism has been the dominant theory of international relations since the conception of the discipline. The theory claims to rely upon an ancient tradition of thought which includes writers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. Early realism can be characterized as a reaction against interwar idealist thinking. The outbreak of World War II
was seen by realists as evidence of the deficiencies of idealist
thinking. There are various strands of modern-day realist thinking.
However, the main tenets of the theory have been identified as statism,
survival, and self-help.
- Statism: Realists believe that nation states are the main actors in international politics. As such it is a state-centric theory of international relations. This contrasts with liberal international relations theories which accommodate roles for non-state actors and international institutions. This difference is sometimes expressed by describing a realist world view as one which sees nation states as billiard balls, liberals would consider relationships between states to be more of a cobweb.
- Survival: Realists believe that the international system is governed by anarchy, meaning that there is no central authority. Therefore, international politics is a struggle for power between self-interested states.
- Self-help: Realists believe that no other states can be relied upon to help guarantee the state's survival.
Realism makes several key assumptions. It assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically based actors in an anarchic international system with no authority above capable of regulating interactions between states as no true authoritative world government exists. Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations,
are the primary actors in international affairs. Thus, states, as the
highest order, are in competition with one another. As such, a state
acts as a rational
autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary
goal to maintain and ensure its own security—and thus its sovereignty
and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states
will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's military, economic, and political capabilities.
Some realists, known as human nature realists or classical realists,
believe that states are inherently aggressive, that territorial
expansion is constrained only by opposing powers, while others, known as
offensive/defensive realists, believe that states are obsessed with the security and continuation of the state's existence. The defensive view can lead to a security dilemma,
where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability
as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms, making security a zero-sum
game where only relative gains can be made.
Neorealism
Neorealism or structural realism is a development of realism advanced by Kenneth Waltz in Theory of International Politics. It is, however, only one strand of neorealism. Joseph Grieco has combined neo-realist thinking with more traditional realists. This strand of theory is sometimes called "modern realism".
Waltz's neorealism contends that the effect of structure must be taken
into account in explaining state behavior. It shapes all foreign policy
choices of states in the international arena. For instance, any
disagreement between states derives from lack of a common power (central
authority) to enforce rules and maintain them constantly. Thus there is
constant anarchy in international system that makes it necessary for
states the obtainment of strong weapons in order to guarantee their
survival. Additionally, in an anarchic system, states with greater power
have tendency to increase its influence further.
According to neo-realists, structure is considered extremely important
element in IR and defined twofold as: a) the ordering principle of the
international system which is anarchy,
and b) the distribution of capabilities across units. Waltz also
challenges traditional realism's emphasis on traditional military power,
instead characterizing power in terms of the combined capabilities of
the state.
Liberalism
.jpg)
Kant's writings on perpetual peace were an early contribution to democratic peace theory.
The precursor to liberal international relations theory was "idealism". Idealism (or utopianism) was viewed critically by those who saw themselves as "realists", for instance E. H. Carr. In international relations, idealism (also called "Wilsonianism" because of its association with Woodrow Wilson
who personified it) is a school of thought that holds that a state
should make its internal political philosophy the goal of its foreign
policy. For example, an idealist might believe that ending poverty at
home should be coupled with tackling poverty abroad. Wilson's idealism
was a precursor to liberal international relations theory, which would
arise amongst the "institution-builders" after World War I.
Liberalism holds that state preferences, rather than state
capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike
realism, where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows
for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state
to state, depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security ("high politics"), but also economic/cultural ("low politics")
whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus,
instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of
opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of films
leading to the popularity of the country's culture and creating a
market for its exports worldwide). Another assumption is that absolute gains can be made through co-operation and interdependence—thus peace can be achieved.
The democratic peace
theory argues that liberal democracies have never (or almost never)
made war on one another and have fewer conflicts among themselves. This
is seen as contradicting especially the realist theories and this
empirical claim is now one of the great disputes in political science.
Numerous explanations have been proposed for the democratic peace. It
has also been argued, as in the book Never at War,
that democracies conduct diplomacy in general very differently from
non-democracies. (Neo)realists disagree with Liberals over the theory,
often citing structural reasons for the peace, as opposed to the state's
government. Sebastian Rosato,
a critic of democratic peace theory, points to America's behavior
towards left-leaning democracies in Latin America during the Cold War to challenge democratic peace. One argument is that economic interdependence makes war between trading partners less likely. In contrast realists claim that economic interdependence increases rather than decreases the likelihood of conflict.
Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism, liberal institutionalism or neo-liberal institutionalism
is an advancement of liberal thinking. It argues that international
institutions can allow nations to successfully cooperate in the
international system.
Complex interdependence
Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, in response to neorealism, develop an opposing theory they dub "complex interdependence."
Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye explain, "... complex interdependence
sometimes comes closer to reality than does realism." In explaining
this, Keohane and Nye cover the three assumptions in realist thought:
First, states are coherent units and are the dominant actors in
international relations; second, force is a usable and effective
instrument of policy; and finally, the assumption that there is a
hierarchy in international politics.
The heart of Keohane and Nye's argument is that in international
politics there are, in fact, multiple channels that connect societies
exceeding the conventional Westphalian system of states. This manifests
itself in many forms ranging from informal governmental ties to
multinational corporations and organizations. Here they define their
terminology; interstate relations are those channels assumed by
realists; transgovernmental relations occur when one relaxes the realist
assumption that states act coherently as units; transnational applies
when one removes the assumption that states are the only units. It is
through these channels that political exchange occurs, not through the
limited interstate channel as championed by realists.
Secondly, Keohane and Nye argue that there is not, in fact, a
hierarchy among issues, meaning that not only is the martial arm of
foreign policy not the supreme tool by which to carry out a state's
agenda, but that there are a multitude of different agendas that come to
the forefront. The line between domestic and foreign policy becomes
blurred in this case, as realistically there is no clear agenda in
interstate relations.
Finally, the use of military force is not exercised when complex
interdependence prevails. The idea is developed that between countries
in which a complex interdependence exists, the role of the military in
resolving disputes is negated. However, Keohane and Nye go on to state
that the role of the military is in fact important in that "alliance's
political and military relations with a rival bloc."
Post-liberalism
One
version of post-liberal theory argues that within the modern,
globalized world, states in fact are driven to cooperate in order to
ensure security and sovereign interests. The departure from classical
liberal theory is most notably felt in the re-interpretation of the
concepts of sovereignty and autonomy.
Autonomy becomes a problematic concept in shifting away from a notion
of freedom, self-determination, and agency to a heavily responsible and
duty laden concept. Importantly, autonomy is linked to a capacity for
good governance. Similarly, sovereignty also experiences a shift from a
right to a duty. In the global economy, International organizations
hold sovereign states to account, leading to a situation where
sovereignty is co-produced among "sovereign" states. The concept becomes
a variable capacity of good governance and can no longer be accepted as
an absolute right. One possible way to interpret this theory, is the
idea that in order to maintain global stability and security and solve
the problem of the anarchic world system in International Relations, no
overarching, global, sovereign authority is created. Instead, states
collectively abandon some rights for full autonomy and sovereignty.
Another version of post-liberalism, drawing on work in political
philosophy after the end of the Cold War, as well as on democratic
transitions in particular in Latin America, argues that social forces
from below are essential in understanding the nature of the state and
the international system. Without understanding their contribution to
political order and its progressive possibilities, particularly in the
area of peace in local and international frameworks, the weaknesses of
the state, the failings of the liberal peace, and challenges to global
governance cannot be realised or properly understood. Furthermore, the
impact of social forces on political and economic power, structures, and
institutions, provides some empirical evidence of the complex shifts
currently underway in IR.
Constructivism
The standing of constructivism as an international relations theory increased after the fall of the Berlin wall (pictured) and Communism in Eastern Europe as this was something not predicted by the existing mainstream theories.
Constructivism or social constructivism has been described as a challenge to the dominance of neo-liberal and neo-realist international relations theories.
Michael Barnett describes constructivist international relations
theories as being concerned with how ideas define international
structure, how this structure defines the interests and identities of
states and how states and non-state actors reproduce this structure.
The key element of constructivism is the belief that "International
politics is shaped by persuasive ideas, collective values, culture, and
social identities." Constructivism argues that international reality is
socially constructed by cognitive structures which give meaning to the
material world.
The theory emerged from debates concerning the scientific method of
international relations theories and theories role in the production of
international power. Emanuel Adler states that constructivism occupies a middle ground between rationalist and interpretative theories of international relations.
Constructivist theory criticises the static assumptions of
traditional international relations theory and emphasizes that
international relations is a social construction. Constructivism is a
theory critical of the ontological basis of rationalist theories of international relations.
Whereas realism deals mainly with security and material power, and
liberalism looks primarily at economic interdependence and
domestic-level factors, constructivism
most concerns itself with the role of ideas in shaping the
international system; indeed it is possible there is some overlap
between constructivism and realism or liberalism, but they remain
separate schools of thought. By "ideas" constructivists refer to the
goals, threats, fears, identities, and other elements of perceived
reality that influence states and non-state actors within the
international system. Constructivists believe that these ideational
factors can often have far-reaching effects, and that they can trump
materialistic power concerns.
For example, constructivists note that an increase in the size of
the U.S. military is likely to be viewed with much greater concern in
Cuba, a traditional antagonist of the United States, than in Canada, a
close U.S. ally. Therefore, there must be perceptions at work in shaping
international outcomes. As such, constructivists do not see anarchy as the invariable foundation of the international system, but rather argue, in the words of Alexander Wendt, that "anarchy is what states make of it". Constructivists also believe that social norms shape and change foreign policy over time rather than security which realists cite.
Marxism
Antonio Gramsci's writings on the hegemony of capitalism have inspired Marxist international relations scholarship
Marxist and Neo-Marxist international relations theories are structuralist paradigms which reject the realist/liberal
view of state conflict or cooperation; instead focusing on the economic
and material aspects. Marxist approaches argue the position of historical materialism and make the assumption that the economic concerns transcend others; allowing for the elevation of class as the focus of study. Marxists view the international system as an integrated capitalist system in pursuit of capital accumulation. A sub-discipline of Marxist IR is Critical Security Studies. Gramscian approaches rely on the ideas of Italian Antonio Gramsci whose writings concerned the hegemony that capitalism holds as an ideology. Marxist approaches have also inspired Critical Theorists such as Robert W. Cox who argues that "Theory is always for someone and for some purpose".
One notable Marxist approach to international relations theory is Immanuel Wallerstein's World-system theory
which can be traced back to the ideas expressed by Lenin in
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of capitalism. World-system theory argues
that globalized capitalism has created a core of modern industrialized
countries which exploit a periphery of exploited "Third World"
countries. These ideas were developed by the Latin American Dependency School. "Neo-Marxist" or "New Marxist" approaches have returned to the writings of Karl Marx for their inspiration. Key "New Marxists" include Justin Rosenberg and Benno Teschke. Marxist approaches have enjoyed a renaissance since the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.
Criticisms of Marxists approaches to international relations
theory include the narrow focus on material and economic aspects of
life.
Feminism
Feminist approaches to international relations became popular in the
early 1990s. Such approaches emphasize that women's experiences continue
to be excluded from the study of international relations.
International Relations Feminists who argue that gender relations are
integral to international relations focus on the role of diplomatic
wives and marital relationship that facilitate sex trafficking. Early
feminist IR approaches were part of the "Third Great Debate"
between positivists and post-positivists. They argued against what they
saw as the positivism and state-centrism of mainstream international
relations. J. Ann Tickner argues that these approaches did not describe what a feminist perspective on world politics would look like.
The feminist international relations scholar Jacqui True
differentiates between empirical feminism, analytical feminism and
normative feminism. Empirical feminism sees women and gender relations
as empirical aspects of international relations. It is argued that mainstream international relations emphasis on anarchy and statecraft mean that areas of study that make the reproduction of the state system possible are marginalized.
Analytical feminism claims that the theoretical framework of
international relations has a gender bias. Here gender refers not to the
"biological" differences between men and women but the social
constructs of masculine and feminine identity.
It is claimed that in mainstream international relations masculinity is
associated with objectivity. Analytical feminists would see
neo-realism's dislike of domestic explanations for explaining interstate
behaviour as an example of this bias. Normative feminist sees
theorizing as part of an agenda for change.
Criticisms of feminist international relations theory include its portrayal of women in developing countries.
Feminist International Relations is sometimes oversimplified into
a women's issue or simply a need to 'add women and stir'.
"Masculinities, IR and the 'gender variable': a cost-benefit analysis
for (sympathetic) gender sceptics", an article by Charlotte Hooper,
makes the case that looking at international relations through a
gendered lens is important for all genders. The article illustrates that
the hyper-masculinity used in international relations has a negative
impact on all genders. It privileges only a certain kind of man, forcing
all others to fit into the constraints of one vision of masculinity.
Hooper also argues that this gendered lens requires a complete overhaul
of traditional methods, rather than just adding women to the study. "In
order to investigate the intersections between gender identities and
international relations, one cannot rely on approaches which would take
gender identities as 'givens' or as independent, externally derived
variables".
Traditional methods do not meet the needs of men or women. They attempt
to reduce our needs to security, failing to take into account class,
education level, gender, or experience. Hooper argues that traditional
studies of international relations are causing us to miss many factors
for more than just women and children.
To appeal to sympathetic sceptics, Hooper explains that
international relations shapes masculinity in a way that affects us all.
To establish this she explains that masculinity and femininity are
social constructs that can be influenced by theories and discourse.
Hooper turns so called feminist international relations into gendered
international relations, which brings in all people and highlights the
importance of new methods to the field. Genders just like class,
ethnicity, age, etc. can help inform our understanding of how people and
nations act and if we ignore the range of masculinities and
femininities we are only working with half the puzzle. The system that
Feminist International Relations is trying to subvert affects us all and
influences many of our traditional theories. Hooper offers the example
of war which has shaped the male body; it has created men as takers of
life and women as givers of it.
We proceed to tell men they simply have more natural aggression. Hooper
also illustrates the ways masculinity, like femininity, has been
influenced by colonization. The hierarchy formed by colonization labels
Asians as effeminate, Africans as savage and white men as the proper
balance at the top the hierarchy. War and colonialism still influence
international relations to a large extent.
Green theory
Green theory in international relations is a sub-field of
international relations theory which concerns international
environmental cooperation.
Alternative approaches
Several alternative approaches have been developed based on foundationalism, anti-foundationalism, positivism, behaviouralism, structuralism and post-structuralism. These theories however are not widely known.
Behaviouralism in international relations theory is an approach
to international relations theory which believes in the unity of
science, the idea that the social sciences are not fundamentally
different from the natural sciences.
English School
The "English School"
of international relations theory, also known as International Society,
Liberal Realism, Rationalism or the British institutionalists,
maintains that there is a 'society of states' at the international
level, despite the condition of "anarchy", i.e., the lack of a ruler or
world state. Despite being called the English School many of the
academics from this school were neither English nor from the United
Kingdom.
A great deal of the work of the English School concerns the
examination of traditions of past international theory, casting it, as Martin Wight did in his 1950s-era lectures at the London School of Economics, into three divisions:
- Realist or Hobbesian (after Thomas Hobbes)
- Rationalist (or Grotian, after Hugo Grotius)
- Revolutionist (or Kantian, after Immanuel Kant)
In broad terms, the English School itself has supported the
rationalist or Grotian tradition, seeking a middle way (or via media)
between the power politics of realism and the "utopianism" of
revolutionism. The English School reject behavioralist
approaches to international relations theory. The international
relations theories have become a typical learning of the fundamental
insight and origin of international relations.
Functionalism
Functionalism is a theory of international relations that arose principally from the experience of European integration.
Rather than the self-interest that realists see as a motivating
factor, functionalists focus on common interests shared by states.
Integration develops its own internal dynamic: as states integrate in
limited functional or technical areas, they increasingly find that
momentum for further rounds of integration in related areas. This "invisible hand"
of integration phenomenon is termed "spillover". Although integration
can be resisted, it becomes harder to stop integration's reach as it
progresses. This usage, and the usage in functionalism in international relations, is the less common meaning of functionalism.
More commonly, however, functionalism is an argument that
explains phenomena as functions of a system rather than an actor or
actors. Immanuel Wallerstein employed a functionalist theory when he argued that the Westphalian
international political system arose to secure and protect the
developing international capitalist system. His theory is called
"functionalist" because it says that an event was a function of the
preferences of a system and not the preferences of an agent.
Functionalism is different from structural or realist arguments in that
while both look to broader, structural causes, realists (and
structuralists more broadly) say that the structure gives incentives to
agents, while functionalists attribute causal power to the system
itself, bypassing agents entirely.
Post-structuralism
Post-structuralism
differs from most other approaches to international politics because it
does not see itself as a theory, school or paradigm which produces a
single account of the subject matter. Instead, post-structuralism is an
approach, attitude, or ethos that pursues critique in particular way.
Post-structuralism sees critique as an inherently positive exercise that
establishes the conditions of possibility for pursuing alternatives. It
states that "Every understanding of international politics depends upon
abstraction, representation and interpretation". Scholars associated
with post-structuralism in international relations include Richard K. Ashley, James Der Derian, Michael J. Shapiro, R. B. J. Walker, and Lene Hansen.
Post-modernism
Post-modernist approaches to international relations are critical of metanarratives and denounces traditional IR's claims to truth and neutrality.
Postcolonialism
Postcolonial International relations scholarship posits a critical theory approach to International relations (IR), and is a non-mainstream area of international relations scholarship. Post-colonialism focuses on the persistence of colonial forms of power and the continuing existence of racism in world politics.
Evolutionary perspectives
Evolutionary perspectives, such as from evolutionary psychology, have been argued to help explain many features of international relations.
Humans in the ancestral environment did not live in states and likely
rarely had interactions with groups outside of a very local area.
However, a variety of evolved psychological mechanisms, in particular
those for dealing with inter group interactions, are argued to influence
current international relations. These include evolved mechanisms for
social exchange, cheating and detecting cheating, status conflicts,
leadership, ingroup and outgroup distinction and biases, coalitions, and violence. Evolutionary concepts such as inclusive fitness may help explain seeming limitations of a concept such as egotism which is of fundamental importance to realist and rational choice international relations theories.
Neuroscience and IR
In
recent years, with significant advances in neuroscience and
neuroimaging tools, IR Theory has benefited from further
multidisciplinary contributions. Prof. Nayef Al-Rodhan from Oxford University has argued that neuroscience
can significantly advance the IR debate as it brings forward new
insights about human nature, which is at the centre of political theory.
New tools to scan the human brain, and studies in neurochemistry allow
us to grasp what drives divisiveness,
conflict, and human nature in general. The theory of human nature in
Classical Realism, developed long before the advent of neuroscience,
stressed that egoism and competition were central to human behaviour, to
politics and social relations. Evidence from neuroscience, however,
provides a more nuanced understanding of human nature, which Prof.
Al-Rodhan describes as emotional amoral egoistic. These three features
can be summarized as follows: 1. emotionality is more pervasive than
rationality and central to decision-making, 2. we are born neither
moral, nor immoral but amoral, and circumstances decide how our
moral compass will develop, and finally, 3. we are egoistic insofar as
we seek to ensure our survival, which is a basic form of egoism. This
neurophilosophy of human nature can also be applied to states
- similarly to the Realist analogy between the character (and flaws) of
man and the state in international politics. Prof Al-Rodhan argues
there are significant examples in history and contemporary politics that
demonstrate states behave less rationality than IR dogma would have us
believe: different strategic cultures, habits, identity politics influence state conduct, geopolitics and diplomacy in profound ways.
Queer and transgender perspectives
Queer
international relations scholarship aims to broaden the scope and
method of traditional international relations theory to include sexed
and gendered approaches that are often excluded in the discipline at
large. While affiliated with feminist theory and gender studies, as well as post-structuralism,
queer IR theory is not reducible to any other field of international
relations scholarship. Queer international relations theory works to
expose the many ways in which sexualities and gender affect
international politics. This includes the ways in which queer
subjects and practices are disciplined, normalized, or capitalized on
by traditional sites of power; how queer identities have often been the
focus of domestic and foreign policy in heteronormative
states; and how the order-versus-anarchy dichotomy in traditional
international relations theory socially manifests itself in
normal-versus-perverse and hetero/homo-normative versus queer
dichotomies. Queer IR theory takes sites of traditional international
relations scholarship (war and peace, international political economy,
and state and nation building) as its subjects of study. It also
expands its scope and methods beyond those traditionally utilized in
Realist IR scholarship. Ontologically,
queer IR utilizes a different scope from traditional IR, as it aims to
non-monolithically address the needs of various queer groups, including trans-, inter-, cross-, and pan- gendered, sexed, and sexualized bodies. Epistemologically,
queer IR explores alternative methodologies to those traditionally used
in IR, as it emphasizes the sexual dimension of knowledge within
international relations.
Criticism for queer theory in general, and queer international
relations in particular, addresses worries of the minimization or
exclusion of certain groups. While queer IR incorporates transgender individuals in its expanded scope, some argue its emphasis on sexuality fails to adequately capture transgender experiences. Susan Stryker
contests that queer theory’s approach merely treats the ‘T’ in LGBT as
another, detached genre of sexual identity, “rather than perceived, like
race or class, as something that cuts across existing sexualities,
revealing in often unexpected ways the means through which all
identities achieve their specificities.” While queer theoretical spaces
remain friendly to transgender work, Stryker argues that ‘queer’ often
acts as code for ‘gays’ or ‘lesbians,’ implicitly excluding transgender
issues by privileging sexual orientations and identities. This leads
Stryker to advocate that transgender studies follows its own trajectory.
Laura Sjoberg
advocates for allying trans-theorizing and feminist theorizing in IR.
She suggests some possible improvements that trans-theorizing may offer
for feminist IR theory, which include a more nuanced understanding of
gender hierarchy through a pluralist approach to sex, a holistic view of
gender that resists viewing gender entirely either as a social
construction or as biologically essential,
and an increased awareness of gender as involving power relations among
different sexes and genders. Additionally, Sjoberg argues,
trans-theorizing makes important contributions to traditional IR’s
understanding of global politics. Discussions of ‘outness,’
visibility, invisibility, and hypervisibility in transgender theorizing
are applicable to questions of identity, relations between individuals
and groups, and the enforcement of norms in IR. Additionally, transgender understandings of transition
and liminality can fill the gap in traditional IR’s need for an account
of change and unrest in the international system. Moreover, talk of
“crossing” and “passing”
in trans-theorizing may assist in explaining the process, logic, and
consequences of states shifting identities. Finally, transgender
disidentification, either from exclusionary movements or from their
assigned sex, can help in unpacking “the problem of difference” in
international relations. As such, Sjoberg advocates for the inclusion of
trans-theorizing in feminist IR theory in the interests of improving
explanations and understandings of global politics.
Theory in international relations scholarship
Several IR scholars bemoan what they see as a trend away from IR theory in IR scholarship. The September 2013 issue of European Journal of International Relations and the June 2015 issue of Perspectives on Politics debated the state of IR theory.
A 2016 study showed that while theoretical innovations and qualitative
analyses are a large part of graduate training, journals favor
middle-range theory, quantitative hypothesis testing and methodology for
publishing.
