“We believe that most American general theory courses do not do justice to the world-wide variety of substantively and politically significant approaches to international relations.”
Though I'm not arguing that a more worldly view would benefit American students, I’m not sure that its necessary. It has to be taken into account when taking courses at an American University that American viewpoints will be most predominant, especially when professors tend to use their own literature as study materials. Professors must take the effort to find material from reliable sources written in English, instead of using previous assignments. As most professors in the United States are American, it can be inferred that they also have only studied the behavioral viewpoint. With limited time and resources to teach, it is not surprising that they tend to lean towards the neo-realist behavioral study, which is to “develop and test general theories of war and conflict” (130).
Though the other studies are important for a student to learn, neo-realism is currently the most relevant to a student trying to prepare for a career in International Relations. The 21st century has thus far been focused on warfare, therefore studying war and conflict is more important than, for example, Classical Marxism. Since this article was published in 1984, it gives too much credit to learning dialectical approches, and implies that it should be given equal time with behavorial and traditional approaches. Traditional approaches are important from a historical viewpoint, as well as looking towards international cooperation, and American professors are correct in giving it 20% of their attention. Dialectical, however, has phased out significantly since this article was written. Marxism doesn't influence the world the way it did in 1984. Globalization has made behavorial approaches the most important of the three studies. The 21st century has shown more and more interdependence among countries, while warfare becomes more and more common, therefore American professors are correct in focusing most of their resources on teaching behavioral studies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think you gave a very good analysis of why you believe Behavioral Science approaches are important in the study of IR theory. It is important though to take a non-American approach at times, for example, when studying IPE. The views of Americans, as members of the hegemon in the global system are important, but so are the views of scholars living in less developed areas (Global South or Third World, whatever you may call it). Taking a solely American perspective does not provide the whole picture of the experience of non-industrialized countries and even of the interactions between the DCs and LDCs.
I agree with what you said about Marxist theories. What do you think about the notion of question-driven research that I mentioned briefly in class?
Post a Comment