Perkembangan dan Permasalahan Teorisasi Hubungan Internasional Pasca Perdebatan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18196/hi.2015.0071.105-117Keywords:
international relations debates, plularity, theorization, contructionAbstract
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.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.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
License
This journal is based on the work at journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/jhi under license from Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to:
- Share – copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
- Adapt – remix, transform, and build upon the material.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms, which include the following:
- Attribution. You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- Non-Commercial. You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
- No additional restrictions. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Copyright
The author should be aware that by submitting an article to this journal, the article's copyright will be fully transferred to Jurnal Hubungan Internasional. Authors are allowed to resend their manuscript to other journals or intentionally withdraw the manuscript only if both parties (Jurnal Hubungan Internasional and Authors) have agreed on the issue. Once the manuscript has been published, authors are allowed to use their published article under Jurnal Hubungan Internasional copyrights.
All authors are required to deliver the agreement of license transfer once they submit the manuscript to Jurnal Hubungan Internasional. By signing the agreement, the copyright is attributed to this journal to protect the intellectual material for the authors. Authors are allowed to share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium and in any circumstances to give appropriate credit and wide readership to the work.