International Relations' Last Synthesis?

Abstract

Abstract Many scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, have entangled constructivisms and critical theories in problematic ways, either by assigning a critical-theoretical politics to constructivisms or by assuming the appropriateness of constructivist epistemology and methods for critical theorizing. This book makes the argument that these connections mirror the grand theoretical syntheses of International Relations (IR) in the 1980s and 1990s, and have similar constraining effects on the possibilities of International Relations theory. These connections have been made without adequate reflection, in contradiction to the base assumptions of each theoretical perspective, and to the detriment of both knowledge accumulation about global politics and theoretical rigor in disciplinary International Relations. It is not that constructivisms and critical theories have no common ground but instead that the overstatement of their common ground that has become routine among International Relations scholars is counterproductive to the discovery and utilization of their potential dialogues. To that end, this book argues that scholars using the two in conjunction should be cognizant of, rather than gloss over, the tensions between them as approaches and the different tools they have to offer. Along these lines, the book uses the concept of affordances to look at what each has to offer the other, and to argue for a modest, reflective, specified return to (constructivist and critical) International Relations theorizing that has the potential to revive International Relations theorizing by rejecting its oversimple syntheses.