The Obstacles of Emancipation in the Analysis of International Relations

Document Type : Research Paper

Abstract

A neutral view of science is one of the main features of scientific theory and one of the fundamental claims of the main stream in the theorizing of international relations. On the other hand, the critical theories in international politics, believing that the analytical shortcomings in this field are rooted in narrow-mindedness of the mainstream, have criticized the positivist, rationalist, materialist, and hegemonic attitudes of this current. The main question is whether it is possible to bridge between the critical approaches and the characteristic of scientific neutrality, and in this way to eradicate the barriers to free thought in the dominant approach and its origin. This paper argues that the four factors mentioned have formed the most important major obstacles to free thought and emancipation in the field of international relations theories through the imposition of meta theoretical foundations, Purposefulness in understanding issues, preventing the global distribution of issues and finally the commitment to secularization of science. The last factor however plays a pivotal role. One of the achievements of this paper is that it uses an analytical method to establish a connection between secularist roots in international politics and barriers to free thinking and an unbiased view. An issue from which the critical approach is not immune.

Keywords


آکاریا، آمیتاو و بری بوزان (1389)، نظریه غیرغربی روابط بین‌الملل، دیدگاه‌هائی درباره آسیا و فراسوی آن، مترجم علیرضا طیب، تهران: انتشارات موسسه فرهنگی مطالعات و تحقیقات بین‌المللی ابرار معاصر تهران.
پالمر، ریچارد (1377)، علم هرمنوتیک، مترجم محمد سعید حنایی کاشانی، تهران: هرمس.
عبدخدائی، مجتبی (1392)، «تئوری‌های روابط بین‌الملل و خلأ نظریۀ اسلامی"، پژوهش‌های سیاست اسلامی، سال اول، شماره4، صص 104-77.
عبدخدائی، مجتبی (1398)، «سکولارسازی و سکولارزدائی در نظریه روابط بین‌الملل»، فصلنامه مطالعات روابط بینالملل، مقاله 5، دوره 12، شماره 45، صص 140-111.
گریفیتس، مارتین (1391)، نظریه روابط بین‌الملل برای سده بیست و یکم ، مترجم علیرضا طیب، تهران: نشر نی.
لیتل، ریچارد (1389)، تحول در نظریه‌‌‌های موازنه قوا ، مترجم و مقدمه غلامعلی چگنی‌‌زاده، تهران: موسسه فرهنگی مطالعات و تحقیقات بین‌المللی ابرار معاصر تهران.
لینکلیتر، اندرو (1385)، چالش علم و سنت، مترجم بهرام مستقیمی، تهران: دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی. 
ونت، الکساندر (1384)، نظریه اجتماعی سیاست بین‌الملل، مترجم: حمیرا مشیرزاده، تهران: دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی.
Acharya, Amitav & Barry Buzan (ed) (2010), Non-Western International Relations Theory: Perspectives on and beyond Asia. New York. Rutledge.
Armstrong, H. F. (1956), “Neutrality: Varying Tunes”. Foreign Affairs. (1956–7). 35.
Barbour, Ian (2000), When Science Meets Religion. London. SPCk.
Berger, Peter L (1996), “Secularism in Retreat”, The National Interest, No. 46 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 3-12 
Berger, Peter L. (1967), The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, Garden City, NY: Doubleday
Buzan, Barry & Little, Richard (2000), International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Carr, Edward Hallett (1946), The Twenty Years' Crisis. London. Macmillan.
Collins, Anthony (1713), A Discourse of Free-thinking, Occasion'd by the Rise and Growth of a Sect Call’d Free-thinkers. London, Printed in the Year M.DDC.XIII
Cox, Robert (1986), “Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory”. in Robert Keohane (ed.). Neorealism and its Critics. New York. Columbia University Press.
Cox, Robert W. (1997), The New Realism: Perspectives on Multilateralism and World Order. New York. United Nations University.
Dilthey, Wilhelm (1961), Pattern and Meaning in History. New York. Harper and Brothers.
Elman, Colin and Miriam Fendius Elman, ed. Progress in international relations theory: Appraising the field, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.2003)
Lapid, Yosef (1989), “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era”. International Studies Quarterly. 33. September.
Pettman, R (2004), Reason, Culture, Religion: The Metaphysics of World Politics. New York. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rush, Fred (2005), Critical Theory. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Schweller. R. L. and W. C. Wohlforth 2000. "Power Test: Evaluating Realism in Response to the End of the Cold War. " security Studies 9 (3): 60-107.
Scott, Len (2012), “Should We Stop Studying the Cuban Missile Crisis?”. International Relations. 2012. 26.
Smith, Steve (2000), “The discipline of international relations: still an American social science?”. British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Vol. 2. No. 3. October.
Snyder, Jack L.(ed) (2011), Religion and International Relations Theory, New York, Columbia University Press.
Viotti Paul R. Mark V. Kauppi (2010), International Relations Theory, (Longman, Pearson. fourth Edition.
Wæver, Ole (1998), “The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations”. International Organization. vol. 52. no. 4.
Waterhouse, Eric, “Secularism,” in James Hastings (1921), The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, vol. 11, p. 348.