Evolution of the Discipline -I

0:15 hello students in this lecture we'll be talking about the evolution of our discipline what we call international relations we will be basically talking how different traditions of thought and big international events contributed for the growth and evolution of our discipline we will be proceeding like this first we'll be talking of the ways of understanding the evolution of the discipline then we will be focusing on various tradition of thought that contributed for the growth of the discipline then we'll be talking about five great debates that originated in the interval period that is after the

1:02 first world war and before the beginning of the second world war and continued till today and then we will be ending our discussion with some concluding remarks now let us start our discussion on how to understand the evolution of our discipline but before that it would be of interest if we just discuss why to understand the evolution of our discipline this may be due to two important reasons the first is it helps to understand why we study our subject right so that will help you to have a better perspective on your discipline second it also helps the current scholarship inform by what has preceded

1:49 it so if you study the origin of the discipline then you have to know how it originated why it originated what are the factors that contributed for its Evolution for its growth so these are important issues which we cannot ignore there are two ways to understand the discipline for a better understanding of the evolution of our discipline we will combine both these approaches the first assumption focuses on the continuous tradition from ancient India China Egypt Rome Greece and many other civilizations that continue till to the present day so there is a continuous tradition of thought there's

2:35 a continuous tradition of writings that there is a continuous tradition of you know arguments that contributed for the present Evolution and growth of the discipline so they consider ancient Traditions as integral parts of the fields first and also relevant you can't understand the theories of international politics or the concepts in international politics or even the meth theologies in international politics without going to the past events the past ideas the past thoughts that actually influen and contributed for its betterment the second assumption covers an important world events responsible for rise and fall of different theories methodologies and focus of the field so

3:22 basically those who argue for the second kind of method they basically focus on important events and particular the past events that had a major role for the present transformation of the discipline starting maybe from the treaties of West Pia maybe the European colonialism and imperialism system maybe the first world war maybe the second world war the Cold War the end of the Cold War and so many other events so actually these events had a major role in The Evolution and the enrichment of the discipline however we will consider the first assumption in this lecture now let me focus on different traditions of thought that have contributed for the evolution and growth of the discipline

4:09 International politics or international relations may be considered as a very young discipline particularly as many believe that it originated as a separate discipline after the first world war but if you look at its history you will find that it has a history of almost 2 Millennium of recorded words thoughts and actions that you can find from The Works of sunu The Art of War Tes history of the pelian war you know C arastra which inspired a a different tradition in international relations that we identify as the realist Theory similarly plateau's class analysis and dialectical

4:55 reasoning may not have directly contributed for the growth of of international relations as a separate discipline but it had definitely influenced many Marxist thinkers particularly the critical theories similarly m talked about value free science of statecraft and foreign policy making which we consider as an important part of the realist Theory similarly hops rejected the concept of Anarchy in the state of nature and talked about a social contract which ultimately resulted in the establishment of a all powerful latan K's concept of Perpetual peace Theory contributed and influen a lot in

5:43 international relations which is evident in the Democratic peace Theory similarly law called for natural rights which it defined as right to life liberty and property he also gave the concept of limited government that also influence a lot of international relation Scholars particularly in the theory of liberalism Marx critic of economic power provided international relations with a springboard for its later development so basically you will find that these scholars in a way maybe directly maybe indirectly contributed and talked about something know which ultimately influenc the evolution and the growth of the

6:29 discipline of international relations but there are few problems associated with this you know various traditions of thought first they described and analyzed different actors in a very different perspective because our understanding of international relations is different our understanding of international actors are different but their concept was very different secondly they did not limit themselves to the external relations of States basically philosophers theorist they focused on domestic politics they talked about the citizens relationship with the state they talked about the citizens relationship with the government they talked about various kind of Rights they

7:15 talked about different kinds of Duties they talked about political obligation but they were not focusing exclusively on States interactions with other states that is the difference between the traditional political philosophers and what we understand in the present international relations however despite these rich contributions there was no systematic development occurred in international relations disciplinary growth before the first world war that we are going to discuss in the next slide now let us discuss about the great debates that had a major impact on the transformation of our discipline you know international relations is

8:02 recognized as a separate discipline during the inter War period that started from 1919 to the beginning of the second world war in 1939 successive gr debates on what to study and how to study what we call a enological and epistemological questions contributed to its major transformation so these kind of debates basically covered what are the areas we have to study in international relations you know what are the kind of knowledge we have to produce in international relations and how we have to contribute to those areas so these were the main issues that is covered under this debate the first great debate took place between the inter were idealist and the

8:48 post were realist the idealist hoped in reforming the international politics that they caused as the major reason for the first World War the kind of international politics that was prevailing at that time that basically contributed for the beginning of the first world war so that was the reason why the idealist basically focused in reforming the kind of state interaction that was going on at that time secondly they were concerned that the Future Works can be avoided through International institions because you know there was no higher authority at the international level so if you think of a establishing an international institution or international organization that can regulate the

9:34 selfish behavior of the states that can regulate The Sovereign behavior of the states and that is how International Peace and security can be maintained the realist dismiss such hopes as wishful thinking and even utopianism because the idealist did not focus on the realities of power politics among nations and that is the major emphasis of the real theory that if you want to understand the true nature of international politics you have to focus how the nation states operate in in an anarchical system and how power politics governs their state Behavior the failure of the League of Nations and the outbreak of the second World War caused a severe damage to the

10:22 idealist Paradigm of international relations so you know that also contributed for the popularity of realist theory in international relations you know how the League of Nations miserably failed and how the Imperial countries like Germany Japan and Italy contributed in a major way for the outbreak of the second world war but scholars believe that the kind of settlement or what we call the peace settlement was a major reason for the outbreak of the second world war the second debate started between the traditionalist and the behavioralist during the year 1960s and 1970s the main question before them was

11:09 what was the most appropriate way of pursuing and acquiring knowledge in international relations headle bu and important International relation scholars in the United States framed this debate a scientific versus classical methods the traditionalist or who are associated with the classical methods they have approach International politics from legal philosophical and historical perspective or what we call the interdisciplinary perspective the behaviorist on the other hand sought to emulate the methods of Natural Sciences because they wanted to make the discipline more scientific and more empirical thus the IR became more

11:56 scientific and realism lost its dominant position position and the field made at par with other social science disciplines like economics or political science the debate was mainly ConEd as a methodological debate that took place within a single theoretical orientation that what we call realism and was about how to conduct inquiry within that approach so it was not on substantial issues rather it was basically focused on methodological issues how to make international relations discipline more scientific more practical and more empirical now let me Focus about the third great debate now the third great debate called

12:43 interp Paradigm debate took place in 1970s and 1980s it was basically between the realist and liberals on the one hand and the Marxist and the other Robert Kohan and Joseph n theory of complex interdependence Emmanuel Weston's World systems theory John button's cwe Theory cardo and felo Dependency Theory directly challenged many tenants of political realism they basically attack the core claims of State centrism the notion that Independence rather than interdependence characterize the condition of international relations and a clearcut distinction could be made

13:29 between High politics and low Politics As I said you know High politics basically focuses on on international relations particularly the issues of peace and security and the low politics is associated with economic issues with trade and Commercial issues thus there was a growing focus on the issue of interdependence and interdependency that led to a distinct subfield in international relations what we call the international political economy approach the fourth debate started in late 1980s and it was between the positivist and the postp positivist over the relationship between Theory and reality it was reflected in the growing

14:16 influence of new critical perspectives in international relations such as feminism postmodernism critical theory and sometimes we can associate the debate with constructionism this start with the basic premise of Robert Cox who famously declared that theory is always for someone and for some purpose they basically question The Meta narratives of liberalism and realism that what they said about the functioning of international politics are final and equally applicable to all the states irrespective of their position in international politics let me explain how a theory can be used for vested interest there was a theory called White

15:04 Man's Burden Theory which is considered as a theory that justified imperialism and colonialism according to this Theory God has made some people as white and some people as blacks and it was the Whit's moral duty to civilize the blacks but we know how this theory was used as a justification for imperialism and colonialism it was D naroi who in his famous book The draining of resources highlighted the colonial and exploitative nature of British imperialism in India he explained how the British imperialism and colonialism ruined India's economy culture Agriculture and everything and how the

15:50 resources were looted and utiliz for the industrial revolution in Europe and how these looted resources were used by the britishers for their further Imperial expansion in different parts of the world many scholars and Economist believe that India was the largest economy in the ancient period contributing almost 25% of the world GDP India became the second largest economy in the medieval period but it became a third world country in the colonial period that explains how theories can be used and abused by someone for some vted interest the critical theorist also

16:37 question the distinction between the inside and outside dichotomy they believe that there are some issues in the domestic level that influence the international politics and there are some international issues that also influence the domestic politics so we cannot make a distinction between the domestic politics and international politics for a better understanding of international relations they also argued that the concept of inside and outside hierarchy are all socially and historically constructed device for organizing political life it empowers the sovereign states to pursue their self-interest through Power politics right so these are all Justified and highlighted by the

17:25 realist tradition in international relations but the problem with this approach is that it disempowers and renders invisible social classes like women and marginalized so when you talk of power politics you talk of you know International Politics as a struggle for power you talk of national interest you talk of arms rest you talk of diplomacy and many other issues so in a way you don't give equal importance to the marginalized to the voice of the voiceless so that is the reason why the critical theorist were highly critical of the mainstream theories such as realism and liberalism the critical theorist contributed to the Field's pluralistic

18:10 character generated an expansive body of interesting literature and forced the field to confront new meta theoretical questions but it is still debatable to what extent they you know were successful in their attempt but we cannot deny that the debates and discussions and the issues raised by the critical theorist played a significant role in expanding the scope and nature of international relations now let us focus on the fifth debate the fifth debate is about the polarization of the discipline around the core that is the west and the periphery that is the non-west about the

18:55 disciplines International character thus there are was a debate on both the ontological focus and epistemological focus of the discipline there is a lot of literature on this issue and the conclusion is that the academic study of ir is marked by the British and especially the American parochialism what we call the eurocentricism in international relations the debate began since Stanley Hopman an American political scientist declared international relations as an American social science amitab aara an indo-american international relation scholar at his 2013 Presidential address to the

19:41 international studies association called for a global international relations using and interpreting narratives history Concepts theories and paradigms from nonwestern discourses as I said there is always a perception that although we call our discipline as International it is actually not International because it CS to the needs of Europe and America it originated in those countries it is based on their history it it is based on their culture it is based on their civilization it is based on their language it is also based on their idioms in view of these regions there is a debate and call to make international relations a truly Global

20:28 now let me end the discussion with certain important concluding points the traditions of thought approach provides the premises the tenants and the concept to discuss and analyze international relations systematically there is no doubt about it because as we discussed that the international relation theories the concepts the methodologies we used in our discipline are in a way influenced by the past writings of the Great political philosophers however there are many problems and difficulties with this epic tradition beginning with the Classical Greece India or China so it's not that you know we don't have any problem we have so many problems and we

21:13 will discuss them one by one first the multitude summary accounts of history of the field commits the error of confusing and analytical with a historical Traditions you know there's a difference between a tradition and a research tool and and if you confuse the analytical methods with a historical tradition so that will be a blunder so that is the first criticism second it diverts our attention from actual academic practices and individuals who contributed to the current identity of the field what about the contribution of arabindo what about the contribution of VI Anand what about the contribution of amn Roy what about the contribution of Gandhi or jaal n for

21:59 that matter so javala Neu contributed a lot for the nonalignment movement but you know how many people how many scholars actually discuss his contribution to international relations so when you focus on the fast Traditions you in a way compromise the present for the sake of the past so that was another criticis third the idealized version of the past often SS to confer legitimacy to a contemporary search program you know many scholars believe that International politics or international relations originated after the first world war and when you think about its tradition right from the ancient period till today you know in a way you

22:44 compromise and and in some way you give importance to the Past Tradition at the cost of the present similarly there is no evidence that the five debates actually occurred in international politics that in a way contributed for its growth and transformation we can say that particularly for the fast debate that we Trace during the inter War period and immediately after the second world war period second the stylized versions do not do justice to the nature of the controversy taking place there are so many issues which we have ignored in the process of the genealogy of international relations and the history of international relations so when you are thinking of a kind of debate you

23:31 know this debate first debate second debate third debate so that in a way undermines and sometimes it it doesn't explain the kind of real issues the kind of real controversies that may have you know contributed actually for the development of the discipline third by focusing only on five grade debates we Overlook the additional and extremely important disciplinary controversy so there are many issues you know that that we can think of like gender like the role of marginalized like the role of many sections of the society that may have contributed or their experience may have contributed for the growth of the discipline but in a way we have ignored it or we have not covered them their voices of the voice of the voiceless in the growth of the discipline so that is

24:18 again another criticism this analytical framework gave international relations greater sense of coherence but at the cost of actual history of the field warranted so you may think of the anent political Traditions you can think of different traditions of thought you can think of five great debates so that may help you to better understand the history of international relations in a systematic way but to some extent it is not focusing on the issues or the history of the field that was actually needed so that is another criticism finally it is also criticized from Global Southern perspective because locates the international relations disciplinary growth from the Western

25:04 history writings and cultures as we will see in our future discussion you know there is a strong criticism that international relations is highly eurocentric it is parochial and it serves the needs of America and Europe it has nothing for the global south or it is not based on their culture their experience their history their literature or their civilization so because of these reasons you know this kind of understanding of of the history of international relations is highly criticized thank you for your patience we will cover the next lecture particularly highlighting on how international relations can be understood through events driven wisdom

25:52 thank you very much for your patience [Music]