Debates in International Relations Theory: Rethinking Interdisciplinarity

Pavlova E.B.,

Associate Professor, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg; Senior Researcher, University of Tartu, Tartu, e.pavlova@spbu.ru

elibrary_id: 402845 |

Romanova T.A.,

Associate Professor, Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, t.romanova@spbu.ru

elibrary_id: 200093 |

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2019.02.12

Rubric: Feedback

For citation:

Pavlova E.B., Romanova T.A. Debates in International Relations Theory: Rethinking Interdisciplinarity. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No. 2. P. 161-172. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.02.12

Abstract

This piece is a reaction to the series of articles on the state of IR discipline published in the previous issues of this journal. The authors emphasise the problems of IR theory in Russia (insufficient attention to the current IR trends, ideologization of theories and methods, which leads to numerous difficulties of integration of the Russian academic community into the world academic discussion). Particular attention is paid to the specificity of the formation of new theoretical approaches where interdisciplinary character is the key underlying principle. Ignoring it would seriously limit the capabilities and depth of Russian analytics. To illustrate these points, the article addresses the analysis of the EU Global Strategy – 2016 with ‘resilience’ as the key category. The article demonstrates inevitability of addressing theory for the sake of analysis of this document as well as for the study of EU-Russian relations at large. The first part of the article examines the specificity of how IR theory is addressed by the Russian academic community. The second part is devoted to the main problems of the contemporary discussion on the essence of IR. The third part gives an illustration of how theoretical approaches can be used to analyse one specific document, which is important for EU-Russian relations.

Keywords

IR theory, empirics, multiplicity, interdisciplinary character, constructivism, resilience.

Full Text

References

Brubaker R., Cooper F. 2000. Beyond “Identity”. – Theory and Society. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 1-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007068714468

Dunne Т., Hansen L., Wight C. 2013. The End of International Relations Theory? – European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 405-425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113495485

Gelman V. 2015. Political Science in Russia: Scholarship without Research? – European Political Science. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 28‑36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/eps.2014.33

Guzzini S. 2013. The Ends of International Relations Theory: Stages of Ref lexivity and Modes of Theorizing. – European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 521-541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494327

Holling C.S. 1973. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. – Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 4. No.1. P. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245

Lebow R. N. 2008. Identity and International Relations. – International Relations. Vol. 22. No. 4. P. 473-492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117808097312

Neumann I.B. 2017. Russia and the Idea of Europe: a Study in identity and International Relations. London, New York: Routledge.

Non-Western International Relations Theory. Perspectives on and beyond Asia. 2013. Ed. by A. Acharya, B. Buzan. New York: Routledge.

Rosenberg J. 2016. International Relations in the Prison of Political Science. – International Relations. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 127-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117816644662

Rumelili B. 2012. Liminal Identities and Processes of Domestication and Subversion in International Relations. – Review of International Studies. Vol. 38. No. 2. P. 495-508. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210511000830

The Routledge Handbook of International Resilience. 2016. Ed. by D. Chandler, J. Coaffee. London: Routledge. 420 p.

Waever O. 2017. ‘Still a Discipline After All These Debates?’ – International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Ed. by T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 306-328.

Wendt A. 2015. Quantum Mind and Social Science. Unifying Physical and Social Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 354 p.

Alekseyeva T.A. 2016. The Debates about “Great Debates”: How to Structure the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 6. P. 9-21. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.06.02

Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M. 2016. What Is Happening to the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 1. P. 29-43. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.01.03

Alekseyeva T.A., Mineev A.P., Loshkariov I.D. 2017. “Quantum-like” Theory of Decision Making in Political Science. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 22-32. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.04.03

Badiou A. 2005. Metapolitics. (Russ. ed.: Badiou A. Meta/politika: mozhno li myslit’ politiku. Moscow: Logos).

Karyagin M.E., Sungurov A.Yu. 2016. Contemporary Russian Political Science Community – the First Steps to the Analysis. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 2. P. 8‑20. (In Russ.)

Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. 2013. International Relations Theory: on the Threshold of New “Great Debates”? – Polis. Political Studies. No. 2. P. 66-78. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.politstudies.ru/article/4687 (accessed 10.01.2019).

Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. 2017. “The Great Debates”: The Means of Structuring or Periodization of International Relations Theory? – Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 156-164. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.04.11

Pavlova E. 2017. Resilience of Neoliberalism: Indigenous Bourgeois in Bolivia. – Latynskaya Amerika. No.11. P. 39-48. (In Russ.)

Patrushev S.V. 2016. On the Addressees of Political Knowledge. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 5. P. 152-159. (In Russ.)

Pushkaryova G.V. 2017. Ideas and Values as a Method of Constructing Symbolic Space of the National

Identity. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 5. P. 156-173. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.05.11

Romanova T. 2017. Resilience Category in the European Union. – Contemporary Europe. No. 4. P. 17-28. (In Russ.)

Said E. 2006. Orientalism. (Russ. ed.: Said E. Orientalizm. Zapadnye kontseptsii Vostoka. Moscow: Russkii Mir).

Shvyrkov A.I. 2016. Theory, Discourse and Political Reality. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 5. P. 66-79. (In Russ.)

Smorgunov L.V. 2012. Political Between: the Phenomenon of Liminality in Contemporary Politics. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 5. P. 159-169. (In Russ.)

Sokolov M.M. 2012. Studying Local Academic Communities. – Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya. No. 6. P. 76-82. (In Russ.)

Strezhneva M.V. 2017. Methodological Aspects in the Study of Foreign Policy and Global Role of the European Union. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 6. P. 25-42. (In Russ.)

Tkhagapsoyev Kh.G. 2013. In Search of a New Methodological Paradigm in Political Science: the Identity Approach. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 4. P. 173-181. (In Russ.)

Treshchenkov Ye.Yu. 2019. Resilience in discourses of the European Union and International Organizations. – International Organisations Research Journal. No. 1. (In print)

Turchenko M.S., Zavadskaya M.A. 2017. Casual Mechanism vs Pile of Facts: How to Evaluate Casual Links in Case Study Research. – Polis. Political Studies. No. 2. P. 134-146. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2017.02.09

Content No. 2, 2019