The United States and Theorization in International Relations: A Critical Perception of Components Including Normative System, Power Politics and Science Production

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD candidate of International Relations at Allameh Tabataba'i University

2 Department of International Relations, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences , Allameh Tabataba'i ,University

Abstract

Theorization is considered an inseparable part of the International Relations field, which includes a major framework of the IR scholars” scientific and epistemic actions and the process of its evolution and progress. On the other hand, the process of theorizing has always been affected by various exogenous/endogenous developments, each of which has brought a range of consequences and results. Among the exogenous developments, the United States” role refers to a specific analytical perspective. In this regard, the main question is “How can the role-playing framework of the United States be explained and described in relation to the process of formation and evolution of international relations theory?” In response, the main hypothesis is that: “To examine and explain how the United States influences the process of formation and transformation of International Relations theorization, it is possible to use the variables such as “the normative and value framework”, “policy needs directed at national interests” and “the ability to produce science”.” To test the hypothesis, the “explanatory/analytical” research method was used, and the theoretical framework is the Sociology of knowledge which is used in the form of a type of interconnection with Foucault”s views. In the conclusion, it is also revealed that any type of reflection and content evaluation regarding the theories of International Relations, especially in the domain of rationalist theories, requires attention to how these theories are linked or influenced by the US hardware and software elements, which refers to the existence of a kind of “contextuality and culture cultivation”.

Keywords

References

اشمیت، برایان‌سی (1390). «آنارشی، دنیای سیاست و تولد یک دیسیپلین، روابط بین‌الملل آمریکایی»، در کتاب نظریۀ روابط بین‌الملل: پیشینه و چشم انداز، ترجمۀ سیدعبدالعلی قوام و دیگران، چاپ اول، تهران: نشر قومس.
بای، عبدالرضا (۱۳۹۰). «قدرت دانش و هژمونی در فرایند جهانی شدن»، دانشنامۀ حقوق و سیاست، شماره ۱۵، صص 43-74.
برچیل، اسکات؛ لینکلیتر، اندرو (1391). نظریه‌های روابط بین‌الملل، مترجمین دکتر حمیرا مشیرزاده و دکتر روح اله طالبی آرانی، تهران: نشر میزان.
بوث، کن (1385). «قدرت و حقیقت: پاسخی به ویلیام والاس»، در کتاب ماهیت و هدف نظریه روابط بین‌الملل، تدوین و گردآوری اندرو لینکلیتر، ترجمۀ لی لا سازگار، چاپ‌اول، تهران: انتشارات وزارت خارجه.
بوزان، باری؛ آکاریا، آمیتاو (1390). نظریه‌های غیرغربی روابط بین‌الملل: دیدگاه‌هایی درباره آسیا و فراسوی آن، ترجمۀ علیرضا طیب، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات موسسه ابرار معاصر تهران.
چرنوف، فرد (1388). نظریه و زبرنظریه در روابط بین‌الملل، ترجمۀ علیرضاطیب، چاپ اول، تهران: نشر نی.
مسعودی، حیدرعلی (1392). گفتمان‌های سیاست خارجی آمریکا و دانش روابط بین‌الملل، چاپ اول، تهران: نشر پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی.
مشیرزاده، حمیرا (1384). تحول در نظریه‌های روابط بین‌الملل، تهران: سمت.
مشیرزاده، حمیرا؛ ابراهیمی نبی‌اله (1389) تحول مفاهیم در روابط بین‌الملل (مجموعه مقالات)، چاپ اول، تهران: پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی.
مولکی، مایکل (۱۳۷۶). علم و جامعه‌شناسی معرفت، ترجمۀ حسین‌کچوئیان، تهران: نشر نی.
نوذری، حسینعلی (1379). صورتبندی مدرنیته و پست مدرنیته: بسترهای تکوین تاریخی و زمینه‌های تکامل اجتماعی، چاپ اول، انتشارات نقش‌جهان.
وکیلی، عارف (۱۳۹۰). «آسیب‌شناسی اندیشمندان ایران: با در نظر گرفتن آرای رندال‌کالینز»، ماهنامۀ گزارش، شماره ۲۲۶، صص 32-36.
هافمن، استنلی (1385). «یک علم اجتماعی آمریکایی: روابط بین‌الملل»، در کتاب ماهیت و هدف نظریه روابط بین‌الملل، تدوین و گردآوری اندرو لینکلیتر، ترجمۀ لی لا سازگار، چاپ اول، تهران: انتشارات وزارت خارجه.
 
Acharya, Amitva (2011). “Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations Theories beyond the West”, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 619-637.
Acharya, Amitva (2017). “Toward a Global International Relations?” E-International Relations.
Barnett, E & Casper, M (2001). “A definition of Social Environment”, AM J Public Health, Vol.91, No.3, pp. 465-470.
Buger, Christian & Villusmen, trine (2007). “Byond the gap: Relevance, Fields of Practice and the Securitizing Consequences of (democratics peace) Research”, Journal of International Relations and Development, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 417-448.
Cohen, Benjamin J. (2008). International Political Economy: An Intellectual History. Princeton University Press.
Collins, Randall (1988). Theoretical Sociology, Harcourt College Pub.
Collins, Randall (1998). The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Crawford, Robert M.A & Jarvis, Darryl SL (2001). International relations still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought, Sunny Press.
Farr, James & Seideman, Raymond & Drzek, John S. (1995). Political Science in History: Researsh and Political Traditons, Cambridge University Press.
Farr, James & Seideman, Raymond (1993). Discipline and History: Political Science, Michigan University Press.
Friedrichs, Jorg (2004). European Approaches to International relations Theory: a House with many Mansions, Routledge.
Ginsberg, Morris (1945). “The Persistence of Individualism in the Theory of International Relations”, International Affair, Vol.21, No.2, pp. 155-167.
Gofas, Andres&Hamati, Ataya& Onuf, Nicholas (2018). History, Philosophy and Sociology of International Relations, SAGE.
Grosser, Alfred. (1956). “Letude des relations internationals, Specialite americaine?” Revue francaise de science politique, Vol.6, No.3, pp. 634-651.
Gunnell, John G (2010). Imagining the American polity: Political science and the discourse of democracy, Penn State University Press.
Harding, Sandra (1998). Is Science Multicultural? Post colonialism, Feminism and Epistemologies, Bloomington Indiana University Press.
Herberg, William (1983). Protestant, Catholic, and Jew: An Essay in American Religious Sociology, University of Chicago Press.
Hoffmann, Stanley (1977). “An American social science: international relations”, Daedalus: Discoveries and Interpretations Studies in Contemporary Scholarship, Vol.106, No.3, pp 212-241.
Holsti, KJ (1985). The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory, Routledge.
Huntington, S. P. (2004). Who are we? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, Simon &Schuster.
Ikenberry, G. John (Winter 1998–1999). “Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Persistence of American Postwar Order”. International Security. Vol.23, No.3, pp 43-78.
Ish-Shalom, Piki (2009). “Theorizing Politics, Politicizing Theory and the Responsibility that Runs Between, in Perspectives on Politics”, Cambridge Universuty press, Vol.7, No.2, pp. 303-316.
Katzenstein, Peter& Sil, Rudra (2008). “Eclectic Theorizing in the Study and Practice of international Relations”, In the Oxford HandBook of International Relations, Edited by Christian Reus-smitand Duncan.
Keohane, Robert O. (2020). “Understanding Multilateral Institutions in Easy and Hard Times”. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.23, No.1, pp. 1-18.
Keohane, Robert O. (1984). After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy, Princeton University Press.
Keohane, Robert.O (2004). “Theory and International Institutions”, Conversation with Robert O Keohane, Institute of International Studies, University of Californial; Berkeley.
Krippendorf, Ekkehart (1987). “The Dominnce of American Approaches in International Relations”, Millennium, Vol16, No.2, pp. 207-214.
Kuru, Deniz (2018). “Homegrown Theorizing: Knowledge, Scholar, Theory?” All Azimuth: Widening the World of International Relations, pp. 59-80
Levine, Daniel J (2012). Individualist IR Theory: Disharmonious Cooperation, Oxford University Press.
Linklater, Andrew (1990). Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Little, Richard (1991). “International Relations and the Methodological turn”, Political Studies, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 463-478.
McCourt, David M. (2020). American Power and International Theory at the Council on Foreign Relations, 1953-54, University of Michigan Press.
McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy: 1965-2005, University of Kansas Press.
Mendes, Pedro Emanuel (2019). “The Birth Of International Relations As a Social Science: A Compared Analysis of The ANGLO American World And Continental Europe”, Austral Brazilian Journal of Strategy& International Relations, Vol.8, No.16, pp. 21-53.
Miliniak, Daniel& Long, James D& Peterson, Susan& Tierney, Micheal J. (2018). “The Global Study of International Relations: Hegemony, Diversity or Insularity”, Security Studies, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 450-496.
Milliken, Jennifer (1999). “The study of discourse in international relations: A critique of research and methods”, European journal of international relations, Vol.5, No.2, pp. 225-254.
Nau, Henry R. (2008). “Scholarship and Policy-Making: Who Speaks Truth to Whom?”, in The Oxford Handbook of International Relations by Christian Reus-smit & Duncan Snidal, Part VI, Oxford University Press.
Oatley, Thomas (2019). International Political Economy: Sixth Edition, Routledge.
Pandikttu, Kuruvilla (2001). A Critical, Contextual and Creative Approach to Gandhi, in Gandhi: The Meaning of Mahatma for Millennium, Washington DC: Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.
Poeter, Tony (2001). “Can there be National Perspectives on IR?” In Robert Crawford& Darryl Jarvis. Eds: International Relations: Still an American Social Science? Towards Diversity in international Thought, Suny Press.
Ross, Dorothy (1993). ” Development of Social Science in U.S”, in: Farr, james and Raymond Seidelman(ed), Discipline and History: Political Science in the United.
Sageman, Marc (2014). “The stagnation of Research on Terrorism”, Terrorism and Political Research, Vol.26, No.4, pp. 565-580.
Saxenian, Annalee & HSU, Jinn-Yuh (2001). “The Silicon Valley-Hsinchu Connection: Technical Communities and Industrial Upgrading”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 893-920.
Selby, Jan (2007). “Engaging Foucault: Discourse, liberal governance and the limits of Foucauldian IR”, International Relations, Vol.21, No.3, pp. 324-345.
Smart, Barry (1994). “Rationality, Power, and Subjectivity”, in Michel Foucault. Vol. 4, London, Routledge.
Smith, Steve (2002). “The United States and Discipline of IR”, International Studies Review, Vol4. No.2, pp. 67-85.
Smith, Steve. (1985). International Relations: British and American Perspectives, Oxford University Press.
Smith, Tony (2007). A Pact with the Devil: Washington’s Bid for World Supremacy and the Betrayal of the American Promise, Routlege.
Snidal, Duncan (1985). “The Limits of Hegemonic Stability Theory.” International Organization, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 579-614.
Taylor, Paul (2005). International Organization in the Age of Globalization, Continuum.
Tickner, Judith Ann (2013). “Dealing with difference: Problems and possibilities for dialogue in international relations”, London: Millennium, Vol 39, No.3, pp. 607-618.
Turton, Helen Louise (2016). International Relations and American Dominance: A Diverse Discipline, Routledge.
Waever, Ole (1998). “The Sociology of Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in IR”, International Organization, Vo.52, No.4, pp. 687-727.
Walker, R.B.J (1993). Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory, Cambridge University Press.
Wall, Wendy L. (2008). Inventing the American Way: The Politics if Consensus from the New Deal to the Civil Rights Movement, Oxford University Press.
Wang, Zhong& Fan, Weiwei (2013). ” American Values Reflected in Names of US Supermarkets, the Top Five Values an American Dream”, Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, Vol.3, No.4, pp. 348-355.
Weiss, Richard (1969). The American Myth of Success: From Horatio Alger to Norman Vincent Peal, University of Illinois Press.
Whrite, Quincy (1960). “International Law and The United Nations”, Asia Publishing House, Vol.37, No.1, pp. 121-158.
Wulf, William A. (2006). “Foreign-born researchers are key to US prosperity and security”. The National Academies in Focus. No. Winter-Spring.
Wuthnow, Robert (1989). Communities of Discourse: Ideology and Social Structure in the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and European Socialism, Harvard University Press.
World Politics
Volume 11, Issue 3 - Serial Number 41
November 2022
Pages 213-239

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics