There’s nothing we can do about the incompatibility between perspectives. Conflicting viewpoints are inevitable and unavoidable. There can’t be a “right” and “wrong” with respect to IR theories because every theory has its strengths and every theory has its weaknesses. Realism focuses on the defense of a nation backed by pessimistic reasoning. Is it an accurate statement then that no one is trustworthy, or that self-interest is always at the heart of every state’s actions? While there may certainly be times to be particularly cautious of other states’ intentions, this does not apply for every situation. Also, where do human rights fit in to the realist perspective? They seem to be left out…Does this make realism wrong or just ill-equipped to deal with issues regarding human rights? There are always exceptions to ways of addressing issues and to ways of thinking about issues. There can never be a set way to deal with everything because the variables of any given situation are never constant. So, we can’t choose one theory to live by and deem it “the best.” All theories focus on different aspects of the international system – security and power, global cooperation, and social change and intersubjectivity – all of which need to be applied at the appropriate times.
Often states do not act in a “pure” liberal/realist/constructivist fashion but rather adapt their theories to meet the needs of the situation at hand. For example, many argue that the United States acted outside liberal fashion in their quick decision to send troops overseas after 9/11. It doesn’t mean that liberalism suddenly became the wrong way to address a problem. Instead it demonstrates how certain conditions call for certain actions and in said circumstance, the United States had reason to act in a manner some may call "uncharacteristic."
I very much agree with your claim that "it demonstrates how certain conditions call for certain actions". While each international relations theory has its flaws, and proponents of each theory are often at odds with one another, there are always going to be certain situations where each is appropriate and useful. I would go so far as to claim that the international system is better off because of the contrasting views - I also believe that states (such as the United States in your example) will act in uncharacteristic ways when faced with substantially serious situations. Your post does centrally focus on liberalism and realism as having flaws/being applicable to world politics - how do you think that constructivism ties into all of this?
ReplyDelete