The great tenure debate, again

The International Relations discipline has recently witnessed a wave of stocktakings and they surprisingly often follow the narrative that the discipline once revolved around all-encompassing great debates, which, either neatly or claustrophobically depending on the stocktaker, organized the discipline. Today, most stocktakers argue, International Relations has moved beyond great debate — the very symbol of the discipline — and is undergoing fragmentation. For some scholars, fragmentation is caused by the lack of any great structuring debate and a proliferation of less-than-great theories. To others, fragmentation is a result of the divisive great debates themselves. When stocktakers portray fragmentation as novelty, however, they neglect the prominent historical record of this fragmentation narrative. By rereading stocktaking exercises from the 1940s to today, this article argues that the stocktaking genre — past and present — is conducive to seeing the past as more simple, coherent and ordered while the present is marked by fragmentation and cacophony. Neat summaries of the academic scene in one’s own time are quite rare. Few stocktakers ever identified one conversation/debate driving the discipline, not during the first, second, third or fourth debates — and those who did disagreed on what the main trenches and its warriors were. The article concludes by arguing that International Relations’ recurrent anxieties about its fragmentation beg questions, not about whether it is real this time, but about the disciplinary politics of this stocktaking narrative. Stocktaking exercises are never only objective descriptions of a current state of disarray; they are political moves in the discipline. Dissatisfied scholars employ this narrative to lead the discipline in certain directions, often quite idiosyncratic ones that reflect and serve their own position in International Relations.

The controversy which has arisen on the occasion of Ambassador Kennan's and my recent publications differs from the great historical debates on American foreign policy in two significant respects. It raises an issue more fundamental to the understanding of American foreign policy and of all politics than those with which the previous “great debates” were concerned, and it deals with the issue largely in terms which are not conducive to understanding.The great debates of the past, such as the one over intervention vs. neutrality in 1793, expansion vs. the status quo before the Mexican and after the Spanish-American War, international cooperation vs. isolation in the 'twenties, intervention vs. abstention in the late 'thirties—all evolved around clear-cut issues of foreign policy. In 1793 you were in favor of going to war on the side of France or of remaining neutral. In the 1840's you approved of the annexation of Texas or you did not. At the turn of the century you supported overseas expansion or you were against it.

Despite the enormous development of medicine in general during the last several decades, each speciality is still struggling with patients for whom no evidence-based, guideline-supported and generally accepted treatment strategy exists. Our field of cardiothoracic surgery is no exception. Even though new surgical strategies for complex cardio-thoracic diseases are published in the form of original articles [1–5], reviews [6–9], case reports [10–12], surgical techniques [13, 14] etc., there is no format where different and even opposing treatment strategies for the same problem are presented. Therefore, the new format of a ‘Great Debate’ was created to: (i) allow description of the problem, (ii) invite world leaders in the field to present their approaches to the specific question addressed, (iii) talk about the specific advantages and disadvantages of each described approach and (iv) summarize the various treatment modalities without rating or grading the individual approaches proposed. The advantages of the Great Debate style of publication will be that: (i) the unsolved clinical scenario is presented, (ii) the reader may be helped by knowing that for this specific clinical problem, no accepted guideline-based solution exists, (iii) guidance and tips from world experts in specific fields that may be helpful to the reader will be given, (iv) summation of the different management options will clearly show the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy and (v) an individualized treatment strategy can be created for a given patient. In this issue of the European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, the first ‘Great Debate’ dealing with ‘Operative techniques for patients with type A dissections complicated by cerebral malperfusion’ is published [15]. All readers are invited to submit ‘Great Debate’ manuscripts dealing with as yet unsolved problems in all fields of cardio-thoracic surgery. World-recognized experts should be invited to present their views of the problem and the authors who initiated the paper should provide an ‘Introduction’ as well as a ‘Discussion’. The EJCTS ‘Instructions for Authors’ are expanded to include the rules for submitting ‘Great Debates’. Hopefully, this new approach to complex clinical presentations will be helpful for our readers. REFERENCES

The story of international relations (IR) is conventionally told in terms of a series of 'great debates'. The first 'great debate' was the so-called idealist- or utopian-realist debate which took place in the late 1930s and the early 1940s. It was triggered by a number of 'real-world' events — Manchuria, Abyssinia, the failure of the League, Munich, the slide into war — but most importantly by the publication of E. H. Carr's The Twenty Years' Crisis. This book, it is said, had a devastating impact on the discipline. Idealism, the predominant mode of thinking about international relations, was revealed as 'bankrupt', 'sterile', 'glib', 'gullible', a 'hollow and intolerable sham'. The rout, indeed, was so complete that some authors have contended that it led to a Kuhnian-style paradigm shift: idealism, the normal mode of enquiry, was thrown into a state of 'scientific crisis', particularly by the 'anomaly' of World War Two, the occurrence of which it was utterly unable to explain; realism, Carr's alternative scientific standpoint, offered not only a cogent explanation, but also the prospect of accurate prediction and effective policy prescription. It soon replaced idealism as the 'normal science' of the field.

Marxism as a Capitalist Tool

This article analyses the concept of “Great Debates” in the history of International Relations Theory. It pays special attention to the discussion in Russian academia, which focuses on the “factuality” and “criteria” of the concept, as well as the intellectual evolution of the discipline. The initial assumption of this article is that the “Great Debates” as a concept has two main dimensions. First, “Great Debates” themselves are historical events, and second, there can be a historiographical model formed out of the concept. Models serve as conceptual tools which help to simplify and generalise different cases by presenting them via clusters of traits or attributes. The concept is used for modelling the intellectual exchanges that redefine the mainstream of the discipline in parallel with the general trends in social sciences. Such a model is both a historiographical and a metatheoretical tool for evaluating traditions, schools, or theories of international relations (IR) as a discipline. The main goal of this article is to put forward the historiographical criteria in accordance with the previous metatheoretical findings and the history of the discipline. Two criteria for the “Great Debates” are proposed, which are “change in the dominant school of thought in the mainstream of the IR theory” and “parallelism between the ‘Great Debates’ and the three stages of social sciences, as “The Differentiation” from History, “The Dismissal of the Past”, and “The Convergence” with History. Based on this model, the author draws two conclusions about the course of the IR discipline. First, IR theory has been following intellectual developments in social sciences. Second, the current situation of world politics, which is the study object of the discipline, also affects how schools of thought replace each other in mainstream IR.

ROBERT JAY LIFTON'S NIGHTMARE IS PUZZLING. Since the end of World War II, Americans have engaged in a great debate concerning how best to manage and control nuclear science and technology in the public interest. This debate has become a very significant public policy debate of American history, rivaling the debates over slavery, prohibition, and even civil rights. For more than forty years, Americans have struggled with the dilemma of controlling a science and technology that not only threatens our civilization but also promises great progress. How odd it would be had the academic community missed out on the Great Nuclear Debate.

Reviewed by: America’s Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and the Compromise That Preserved the Union Erik J. Chaput (bio) Keywords Compromise of 1850, Stephen Douglas, Henry Clay, Texas, New Mexico, Origins of U.S. Civil War America’s Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and the Compromise That Preserved the Union. By Fergus M. Bordewich. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2012. Pp. 496. Cloth, $30.00) Journalist Fergus Bordewich, the author of five previous books, including Bound for Canaan: The Epic Story of the Underground Railroad, America’s First Civil Rights Movement (New York, 2006), an engaging [End Page 179] narrative history of the Underground Railroad, has produced a richly detailed and beautifully written account of a pivotal moment in American history that all too often simply receives a paragraph or two in broader accounts of the antebellum period. It is important to note at the outset that America’s Great Debate, though engaging, does not alter the traditional narrative of how the compromise measure worked its way through Congress, in terms of the Omnibus Bill that eventually emerged out of Clay’s proposals (against his wishes) to settle the sectional turmoil and Senator Stephen A. Douglas’s repackaging of the Omnibus into separate, more passable bills. America’s Great Debate is the second book to appear in recent years on the Compromise of 1850.1 Bordewich, however, casts his net wider than Robert Remini’s 2010 volume to incorporate a host of characters often glossed over. Indeed, the personalities of the major figures involved matter, and Bordewich sets up to capture this important episode in American history in all its complexity. Using a variety of sources, including the Santa Fe Papers at the Texas State Library; the Zachary Taylor Papers at the University of Kentucky; the published papers of Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun; and, of course, the Congressional Globe, Bordewich traces the crisis, detailing the legislative battles in which politicians resembled punch-drunk brawlers. The author paints brilliant vignettes of the proslavery stalwart David Yulee, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, Narciso López—a Venezuela-born solider who struck a deal with Mississippi Governor John Quitman to invade Cuba—Pierre Soulé of Louisiana, Mississippi’s Henry Foote, Texan frontiersman Robert Simpson Neighbors, Maryland Congressman James A. Pearce, Alexander Stevens and Robert Toombs of Georgia, and Millard Fillmore, who was thrust into the office of the presidency after President Taylor succumbed to a severe intestinal illness in July 1850. In addition, Bordewich provides first-rate discussions of California politics, the contentious speakership battle in the House as the Thirty-First Congress opened, and the Texas–New Mexico boundary dispute, which was “little more than naked empire building steeped in a mumbo jumbo of legalism” (61). Texas had previously claimed that its territory extended to the Rio Grande River, and President Polk’s defense of the [End Page 180] Mexican War rested in large part upon this very notion. However, this line of reasoning meant that the former Mexican province of New Mexico would be sliced in half, giving Texas a vast area that included Santa Fe, which it had never occupied. As Bordewich details, the debates show how “much slavery really had to do with the South’s aggressive posture.” Never “had slavery been defended so explicitly and with such sheer gusto in a national forum” (189). In line with Elizabeth Varon’s most recent book, America’s Great Debate shows how “disunion” was invoked both “as a process and a threat.”2 In terms of the final balance sheet, Bordewich sees many more gains for the slaveholding South, which “obtained the harsh new Fugitive Slave Law . . . as well as the North’s tacit abandonment of the hated Wilmot Proviso.” The bills “to organize New Mexico and Utah were also clear southern victories” because slavery was, at least on the surface, opened in an area that should have been geographically off limits based on the Missouri Compromise (392). Ironically, the compromise measure that was meant to calm sectional tensions “lit the fires of liberty far and wide across the states of the North, awakening Americans to the thing that Stephen Douglas never...

Due to the political and economic crises in the Western world and the emergence of new global powers in the international arena, there are growing uncertainties in the international system, resulting in a questioning of the existing liberal world order. This scrutiny on the universality of Western political values and economic norms has not only been conducted within the policymaker circles but also generated a new Great Debate on Global IR. It is noteworthy that the previous four Great Debates in IR have coincided with periods of crisis in the hegemonic order or doubts about the decline of the hegemon. This article concentrates on the nexus between the non-hegemonic orders and the “Great Debates in IR” aiming to reveal that the ongoing crisis in the liberal international order has triggered a new Great Debate. This debate formed around the scrutinization of universalistic IR theories by the theoretical studies pushing for a Global IR from the Global South.

From one textbook to another wanders the story about three (sometimes - four) Great debates, which formed the canonical history of the theory of international relations. In reality everything was much more complicated, and the theoretical richness much wider than many times repeated antinomic pairs - realism vs. idealism, traditionalism vs. modernism, rationalism vs. reflectivism The author regards the discussions between different trends of the political thought in the interwar period, which were later called the First "Great Debates", which, according to the author's view were pre-paradigmal.

Myocardial infarction (MI) is defined pathologically as myocardial cell death resulting from prolonged ischaemia. The clinical definition of this pathological process relies on clinical evidence of myocardial ischaemia and biomarker evidence of myocardial cell death. Cardiac troponins are the standard clinical biomarker for assessing cardiac cell death. Within the framework of the universal definition of myocardial infarction (UDMI), the definition of acute MI aims to guide clinicians to accurately diagnose and classify acute MI, and distinguish acute MI from other forms of myocardial injury in daily practice. In the latest (Fourth) UDMI, a major effort has been made to providing: (i) a stratified pathophysiology-informed framework for the classification of different MI types and (ii) an overview of the factors that should be considered for distinguishing MI from non-ischaemic myocardial injury. The development and implementation of the UDMI in its various iterations has intended to comprehensively define MI and not to provide an MI management guideline. It has resulted in major achievements. However, significant reservations have emerged among different stakeholders (Graphical Abstract) which form the basis of this 'Great Debate' manuscript.

Abstract. Henry George, the 19th century American economist and social philosopher, abandoned protectionism and became a free trader when he engaged in the great tariff debate of the last quarter of his century. In the controversy, a true follower of Adam Smith, he anticipated neoclassical positions on the tariff question, particularly the Stolper‐Samuelson theory which predicts that free trade will increase the prices of the abundant factors of production relative to the prices of the scarce factors. George's concern in the great debate was labor; he was convinced that only certain interests representing capital or resource ownership would benefit from protection at the cost of labor and the enterprises in fields with more abundant resources. But the free trade effort failed and in 1894 the Wilson‐Gorman tariff increased the exactions to the highest level yet. The protectionist tide, only slowed by the Woodrow Wilson Administration, was not reversed until after World War II.

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have emerged as a promising alternative to drug-eluting stents (DES) in percutaneous coronary interventions, particularly due to their 'leave nothing behind' approach. The present 'great debate' focuses on a comprehensive evaluation of the role of DCBs vs DES in the treatment of both in-stent restenosis (ISR) and de novocoronary artery disease. The PRO section emphasizes recent evidence supporting the efficacy of DCBs in small vessel disease and bifurcation lesions, the phenomenon of late lumen enlargement, and the importance of optimal lesion preparation. The CONTRA section outlines limitations of DCBs, especially in more complex lesion subsets, and highlights comparative long-term outcome data that currently favour DES in certain settings. The importance of adequate vessel preparation and novel technologies such as sirolimus-coated balloons and bioadaptor implants are also discussed. This great debate aims to inform future clinical decision-making and guide appropriate patient selection by presenting both the strengths and limitations of DCB-based strategies.

本論文之問題意識，乃圍繞於下列二項而展開：第一，「漢、宋之爭」於研究上所產生困境之反省。第二，學術史著作於研究上所存在缺憾之重新檢討。 以第一項之反省而言，此類型之相關研究，有以下三大困境：第一，「漢學」、「宋學」兩詞彙，起始即無明確之定義。因此，學者使用兩詞彙進行學術討論時，往往以自身所預設之內涵，進行學術對話，於是彼此之論述，既缺乏共同之平台，而所展開之討論，亦將缺乏交集。第二，相關研究多集中於漢、宋之爭形成以後，然作為討論漢、宋之爭最為基礎之「漢學」、「宋學」詞彙，起始即無明確之定義，而學者又使用定義不明之詞彙，進行學術對話，遂將導致漢、宋之爭相關研究，將陷入各是其所是，非其所非之困境。第三，研究取材既不能「辨章學術，考鏡源流」，而使用之文獻，亦不外於《漢學師承記》、《宋學淵源記》、《漢學商兌》、《擬國史儒林傳稿》等書。然此類相關文獻，皆為漢、宋之爭形成後，所編纂而成之學術史著作，若藉由作此類相關文獻進行研究，則所獲得之學術成果，亦將侷限於漢、宋之爭形成以後，種種既定之觀念。 基於上述三大困境，本論文嘗試立足於乾嘉之際，漢、宋之爭形成此一關鍵階段，並嘗試轉移現今學界以下探方式，研究漢、宋之爭既有之視野，改以上溯方式，聚焦於南宋以降至清乾嘉時期之學術史著作。藉由學術史著作流變之考察，觀察其所建構之宋學概念，並與漢、宋之爭形成後，於漢學視野下所重構而成之宋學概念，進行分析與比較，以獲得學界所未曾提出之學術成果。 以第二項之檢討而言，此類型之相關研究，有以下四大缺憾：第一，學術史著可反映理學社群之輪廓、師承授受之史料，以及理學與地域上之關係等等，然由於缺乏關注，遂導致此類重要學術議題，未能展開深入之研究。第二，學術史著作是以理學社群作為收錄之對象，而於編纂過程中，亦直接反映編纂者之宋學概念。然由於學術史著作之研究過於匱乏，遂導致此一具有源遠流長特質之宋學概念，不僅不為學界所知，同時亦未能為學界所善加利用。第三，學術史著作編纂之目的，最重要者在於藉由學脈之編纂，用以承載其道統觀。然由於學術史著作研究之匱乏，遂導致研究道統之學者，極少能利用此一類型之資料，於是所獲得之學術成果，亦將有其侷限。第四，學術史著作代表之典範，為黃宗羲之《明儒學案》，同時亦為學案體體裁之代表。然而，由於研究之不足，遂導致學術史著作體例本身之形成、發展與變化，未能有一系統性之研究成果出現。至於「學案體」與學術史著作之具體關係為何，以及學術史著作如何往學案體發展等相關議題，亦皆處於曖昧不明之狀態。 漢、宋之爭既然有上述三大研究困境，而學術史著作於研究上，亦有上述之四大缺憾，因此本論文嘗試綰合兩者作為問題意識，並奠基於乾嘉之際「漢、宋之爭」形成之重要階段，扭下探而為上溯，並藉由學術史著作流變之考察，進而解決兩者於研究上之困境與遺憾。 解決本論文問題意識之研究步驟與方法，則以下列三條主軸進行： 第一條主軸：宋學概念建構與流變之考察。 第二條主軸：學術史著作體例源流與變革之考察。 第三條主軸：道統論述與建構之考察。 藉由上述三條主軸之考察，及其所獲得之學術成果，將能跳脫以往漢、宋之爭於研究上之種種侷限。

In the history of international relations, no single idea has been more influential than the notion that there was a `great debate' in the 1920s and 1930s between the advocates of idealism and the champions of realism. In reality, there was never a single `great debate' but rather a multiplicity of discussions which revolved around at least three big questions: does capitalism lead to war; what are the most effective ways of dealing with totalitarian state aggression; and (in the US), is retreat from entangling alliances a reasonable response to a world turned upside down by war and economic depression? Throughout this, the academic study of IR remained strongly liberal and internationalist in orientation. However, liberalism was never seriously challenged by an apolitical realism, but instead by socialist critics - at least in Britain - and isolationists in the United States. Ultimately, the persistence of the notion that there was a real debate between idealism and realism, which the latter apparently won, says less about the actual discussions of the time, and more about the marginalisation of liberal and normative thinking in the IR mainstream in the post-war period.