Saturday, April 08, 2006

life lessons

This whole feminism debate really gets at the point of this third section of our class. Is IR an analytical science meant to tell us how the world works, it is it a tool to critique the world. My own personal vote goes towards a science, but critical theory needs to remain around in some form or another. So I guess the question then becomes where? To answer this question I would like to give an analogy. It’s not a great analogy but it amuses me so I’m going to run with it anyways. When you were a little kid growing up you lived in the same house as your parents. They ran the house and you had to follow their rules. But eventually as you got older you didn’t want to follow all their rules so inevitably you moved out at one point or another. You had to leave the comfort of home to be able to live your own life. Critical IR theory needs to move out of its parents house in order to live its own lift. As long as it is a part of the IR household it will be held to the rules of IR by many scholars. These rules say that you should be trying to figure out how the world works and give advice on proper foreign policy moves. But that’s not what critical theory wants to do. Critical theory wants to try to change the world, not just describe it. So if critical theory goes out and gets its own apartment then it can do what it wants, when it wants.

So what does this mean in the real world? I feel that for Critical theory, to be able to do what it wants to do, needs to leave IR and form its own field. Name it what ever you want but it really ought to be separate. The two fields will always be close, as a family should be, just like physics and math, but they need to be separate. I feel that this way both can do what they want, and need, to do. If they remain living in the same house they will just argue and bicker and get angry. Just like people, different approaches, need their own space. So to critical theory I say, “I think it’s time that you take that big step. Go out into the real world and learn how to survive on your own. But you had better call once and week and come home for the holidays.”

Matt Bank

1 Comments:

Blogger Johnny B. said...

Maybe you should reconsider Matt.

On one hand, you have your regular IR scholars telling people what the proper course of action is. On the other, you say another group of IR scholars are trying to change things. Aren't they both in the end trying to get policymaker to do what they want?

The only difference I see is that vanilla IR scholars are making the moral claim that pragmatism is best while critical theorists say that the whole system is harmful and needs to be scrapped.

In the end, how you think of international relations shapes how you define a "proper foreign policy". If the system is immoral and can be changed then the proper policy is to change it. If it can't be changed then you are going to recommend dealing with the system as best you can.

Thus, I think critical IR scholars can remain in IR's house, they'll just have to pay more rent and maybe do the dishes a few times a week.

Tue Apr 11, 05:28:00 PM 2006

 

Post a Comment

<< Home