“The Great Debates”:
The Means of Structuring or Periodization of International Relations Theory?


Konyshev V.N.,

Dr. Sci. (Pol. Sci.), Professor, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, Saint Petersburg State University, konyshev06@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 202300 |

Sergunin A.A.,

Dr. Sci. (Pol. Sci.), Professor, Department of Theory and History of International Relations, Saint Petersburg State University., sergunin60@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 251684 |


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.04.11
Rubric: Feedback

For citation:

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



Abstract

The article is a reflection on the paper of T.A. Alexeyeva (The Debates about “Great Debates.” How to Structure the Theory of International Relations – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No. 6. P. 9-21 (In Russ)). The questions raised by T.A. Alekseeva help to understand the origins of ideological and methodological crisis in international relations theory (IRT), which began 25-30 years ago, and has not been overcome until now. The authors emphasize that T.A. Alekseeva, standing on the position of social constructivism, shifts the discussion of the “Great Debates” to the sphere of discourse analysis in the framework of the IRT. Authors agreed with T.A. Alexeyeva in some conclusions: there are different points of view on the periodization and the content of the debate; the debate was sometimes held with some generalized set of ideas, rather than with specific scientists; the use of the “Great Debates” for the periodization of the evolution of IRT does not fully cover the diversity observed in its evolution. At the same time, the authors objected to the statement of T.A. Alekseeva, that the “Great Debates” are just a myth or some kind of half-truth, which reflects some aspects of corresponding discourse. The authors suggest a counter-statement by elaborating their own position in the questions of the IRT history and its evolution as a discipline, according to which the utility of constructivist approach is put into question. 

Keywords
international relations theory; “the Great Debates”; social constructivism; evolution of international relations theory; discourse.


   Buy a digital version in Polismag
References

Alekseyeva T.A. Naskol’ko teoretichna teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii? Sovremennoe sostoyanie distsipliny [How Theoretic is the Theory of International Relations? The Modern State of the Discipline]. – Tezisy VII Konventa RAMI: Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [The RAMI Convention Proceedings: Theory of International Relations]. 2012. 8 p. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.rami.ru/images/7theses/tmo_alexeeva.doc (accessed 22.03.2017).

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

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

Alexeyeva T.A. The Creation of Myth: Starting the First “Great Debate” in International Relations Theory. – Vestnik MGIMO-University. 2015. No. 6 (45). P. 30-39. (In Russ.)

Alexeyeva T.A. Think Like Constructivist: Discovering a Polyphonic World. – Comparative Politics Russia. 2014. Vol. 5. No. 1 (14). P. 4-21. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.18611/2221-3279-2014-5-1(14)-4-21

Carr E. Conditions of Peace. L.: Macmillan & Co. 1942. xxiv + 279 p.

Carr E. The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939: an Introduction to the Study of International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 2001. 233 p.

Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. International Relations Theory: on the Threshold of New “Great Debates”? – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No. 2. P. 66-78. (In Russ.) URL: http://www.politstudies.ru/article/4687 (accessed 27.03.2017).

Kozinets А.M., Kuznetsov A.I. Non-Western International Relations Theories – from Marginality to Recognition. – Ojkumena. Regionovedcheskie issledovaniya. 2016. No. 4 (39). P. 8-23. (In Russ.)

Wilson P. Carr and His Early Critics: Responses to “The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1946”. – E.H. Carr: A Critical Appraisal. Ed. by M. Cox. Basingstoke: Palgrave. 2000. P. 165-197. 

Content No. 4, 2017

See also:


Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A.,
International relations theory: on the threshold of new «Great Debates»?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No2

Alekseyeva T.A.,
The Debates about “Great Debates”: How to Structure the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No6

Alekseyeva T.A., Lebedeva M.M.,
What Is Happening to the Theory of International Relations. – Polis. Political Studies. 2016. No1

Safronova O.V., Korshunov D.S.,
«New» or «Old» great debates?. – Polis. Political Studies. 2013. No4

Pavlova E.B., Romanova T.A.,
Debates in International Relations Theory: Rethinking Interdisciplinarity. – Polis. Political Studies. 2019. No2

 
 

Archive

   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991