Perkembangan dan Permasalahan Teorisasi Hubungan Internasional Pasca Perdebatan

Dodi Mantra

Abstract


There are two contradictory narratives those enframe the contemporary development of International Relations (IR) theory. As the absence and discontinuity of the so-called “inter-paradigm debates”, the first narrative enframes the contemporary development of IR theory is moving toward its end. On the contrary, the other narrative celebrates the plurality of theoretical development in contemporary IR, and letting “a thousand theoretical flowers bloom”. This article seeks to reveal that both of these narratives are problematic. The main problem of the first narrative lies in the “debatism” approach as the basis of its historiography. This article shows how the “debatism” approach misrepresents the history of IR theorization. Meanwhile, the second narrative is problematic as well, since the celebration of theoretical plurality tends to neglect the philosophical foundations and concentrate on the technical side of theorization. Drawing on Fred Chernoff’s steps of IR theorization, this article proposes a new frame of IR theorization in order to leave behind the problematic “debatism” approach, while proliferate “a thousand of theoretical flowers bloom” without neglecting the importance of philosophical foundations in IR theorization.

Keywords


international relations debates; plularity; theorization; contruction

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bates, Robert H., A. Greif, J.L. Rosenthal, et.al. eds. Analytic Narratives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998)

Bennett, Andrew. “The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and

structured pluralism in International Relations Theory.” European

Journal of International Relations 19(3) (2013): 459-481.

Brown, Chris. “The Poverty of Grand Theory,” European Journal of

International Relations 19(3) (2013): 583-497.

Chernoff, Fred. “Science, Progress and Pluralism in the Study of

International Relations.” Millennium: Journal of International

Studies 41(2) (2013): 346-366.

Dunne, Tim, Michael Cox & Ken Booth, eds. The Eighty Years’ Crisis: International Relations, 1919-1999 (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 1998).

Dunne, Tim. Lene Hansen & Colin Wight, “The end of International

Relations theory?” European Journal of International Relations

(3) (2013): 405-425.

Fierke, Karin. “Multiple identities, interfacing games: The social

construction of Western action in Bosnia,” European Journal of

International Relations 2 (1996): 467–497.

Fierke, Karin. Political Self-sacrifice: Agency, Body and Emotion in

International Relations (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2013).

Guzzini, Stefano. “The ends of International Relations theory: Stages of reflexivity and modes of theorizing,” European Journal of

International Relations 19(3) (2013): 521-541.

Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus & Daniel H. Nexon. “Paradigmatic faults in International-Relations Theory,” International Studies Quarterly

(4) (2009): 907-940.

Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus. The Conduct of Inquiry in International

Relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study

of world politics. (London & New York: Routledge, 2011).

Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus & Daniel H. Nexon. “International theory in a post-paradigmatic era: From substantive wagers to scientific

ontologies.” European Journal of International Relations 19(3)

(2013): 543-565.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1962).

Lakatos, Imre. “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes,” dalam Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave, eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).

Lake, David A. “Theory is dead, long live theory: The end of the Great Debates and the rise of eclecticism in International Relations.”

European Journal of International Relations 19(3) (2013): 567-587.

Maliniak, Daniel, Oakes A., & Susan Peterson. TRIP Around the World: Teaching, Research, and Policy Views of International Relations Faculty in 20 Countries (Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, 2007).

March, J.G. & J.P. Olsen. “The institutional dynamics of international

political orders.” International Organization 52(3) (1998): 943-969.

Mearsheimer, John J. & Stephen M. Walt, “Leaving theory behind:

Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for International Relations,”

European Journal of International Relations 19(3) (2013): 427-457

Schmidt, B.C. “On the history and historiography of International

Relations,” dalam Walter E. Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, & Beth A.

Simmons, eds. Handbook of International Relations (Thousand

Oaks: Sage, 2013).

Sterling-Folker, Jennifer. Theories of International Cooperation and the Primacy of Anarchy: Explaining US International Monetary Policy-Making after Bretton Woods (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2002).

Waever, Ole. “Securitization and desecuritization,” dalam R.D.

Lipschutz, ed. On Security (New York: Colombia University Press,

.

Wight, Collin. “Incommensurability and cross-paradigm communication in International Relations Theory: ‘What’s the frequency of Kenneth?” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 25(2)(1996): 291-319.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.18196/hi.2015.0071.105-117

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 2 times
PDF - 2 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2016 Jurnal Hubungan Internasional

Creative Commons License   

Jurnal Hubungan Internasional by Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Based on a work at http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/jhi.

Print ISSN: 1829-5088 / Online ISSN: 2503-3883