Fragmentation In International Relations

1863 Words 8 Pages
The paradigms themselves are like fossils and the scholars who write within these paradigms are like dinosaurs. Fossils cannot be formed until long after the dinosaur has passed. The same is true of the paradigms, men like Waltz may be considered the father of structural realism, but it was not until after he was done writing that people could classify his theory. Furthermore, it will not be for a long time until the international relations scholars will be able to look back and see the effects of the different theories. This paper will discuss those different theories and there relation to each other beginning in 1939 and discussing the fragmentation of the discipline in the 1970’s all the way to the early 2000’s. The fragmentation of the discipline of international relations is considered in main stream international relations to begin in the 1970’s with the creation and subsequent challenges to structural realism. However, this paper will argue that the fragmentation begins with the writings of Carr and his attempted dialectic of utopian …show more content…
The paradigms in their current state are like the aliens in lilo and stich, they are come from the same general information but each is unique and twisted in its own way. Unfortunately the international relations scholars may have to wait a significant time to see the impact and outcome of the fragmentation of the discipline.

Writer’s note- All of these paradigms assume that states and humanity are rational actors with the intent of survival. However, if history has shown us anything it is that humanity is not always rational and furthermore often acts against the interest of survival. Therefore creating a plot hole in the entire idea of international relations. Just

Related Documents