The Fragmentation Of The Discipline Of International Relations

1863 Words Dec 9th, 2016 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 liberalism and realism. While Carr might have failed in his dialectic he created the notion of a great debate which led the discipline down a path of science and explanation which laid the ground work for future fragmentation. Whereas, Carr had little care for the theory of international relations he opened the door to challenge the foundations of idealist liberalism. As Malchow states it “In fact, Carr himself subsequently had little…

Related Documents