International Relations and Postmodernism - Essay Example

International relations and Postmodernism al affiliation International relations and Postmodernism1.0. Introduction With the advent of the postmodernism, a new aura of thinking was felt in the field of International Relations. The major proponents of the Postmodernism era held the perception that the concept of International Relations cannot be alienated from thoughtfulness, illustrations and understanding of the concepts that underlie the functioning of the same concept. This is an interpretation of the fact that, International Relations cannot be understood on a theoretical point of view, and also, it cannot be based on assumptions on the existence of the same concept (Reus-Smit & Snidal, 2010). Post modernists believe that the previous theorists in this field are traditional and that a new conception of ideas in the field has to be embraced, if the theme has to achieve a form of reality. In the research conducted by Edkins (1999), he indicates that the field cannot be based on theoretical factors that do not have tangible evidence and explanations of aspects that lead to making mere assumptions. In practical view points, assumptions must be intertwined by evidence, a vital aspect by of post modernists. Of essence, it is vindicated to argue that, post modernists endeavour to merge the ideas of the previous liberalists and realists and come up with a workable solution on the basics of International Relations. This essay shall aim at highlighting the opinions and suggestions of the post modernists and the aspects that have created a lot of antagonism between them and the conventional theorists who have dominated the IR field for decades. 2.0. Body In the research conducted by Jarvis (2000), the concept of postmodernism in the field of International Relations will indeed cause a lot of hostility from the fact that this era of analysts and researchers are not bound by the theories, but will be quick to critique all forms of concepts and assumptions that have been previously made by theorists. On the other hand, Jones (2001) indicates that, in the quest to bring out their view points, the post modernists have constantly evaded the aspects of realism by the rationalists and positivists to a discussion of merely a political aspect of the entire theme. This is to mean that, the whole concept of International Relations cannot be discussed under the political umbrella, and that the concept of philosophy has in one way or another been related on the entire concept. Of essence, the political representation of reality can in one way or another not be possible; thus, creation a lot of hostility in the field. In the philosophical point of view, International Relations (IR) has a lot to do with ethics among its major players. Morality in this case, cannot be infused with politics in totality. In this case, therefore, post modernists will indeed instil a lot of aggression in the field. Post modernists have also been constantly questioned on their quest to challenge the sovereignty of the subject of International Relations. Jones (2001) visualizes questioning the concept of International Relations (IR), and sovereignty is undermining the concept of ethics in the entire field. This is an interpretation of the fact that the entire concept of IR cannot be alienated from subjectivity either on an individual level or even the state. International Relations is much more inclined to a universal understanding of morals that does not hold much importance on the post modernists. The fact that the post modernists relentlessly demoralize the sociality of the subject has caused a lot of hostility among the historians of both schools. The concept of International Relations in itself relates to an all inclusive theme that cannot be discussed on a solitarily, but alongside other concepts, which the post modernists do not credit. Yet another factor that leads to hostility among the post modernists is the fact that the entire theory brings out a decisive stance as compared to the previous schools that visualize the entire concept as an archetype. Weber (2009) defines the concept of post structuralism as dominated by the concept of practicality, which draws the difference between autonomy and anarchism. This explains how the entire concept does not only represent happenings in the theme, but presents a practical understanding of the happenings. The previous schools in IR were much more concerned with how the real world functions, but a mere explanation of the concepts. In light to this argument, it is almost obvious that the ‘new school’ came in to destabilize the entire concept of IR. From an uninterested group of scholars, it indeed became extremely tasking to shift their attention to the new world of presentation of thoughts through facts as compared to their previous comfort zone of assumptions, and concepts. Evaluations must be applied, in all fields of study. Researchers in the concerned field are able to authenticate the postulations made hold reliability and what has to be transformed for the progress of IR through critics. Whilst the previous schools ignored the contribution of all the state actors in the totality of IR, the post modernists ventured into the International Relations, with the aim of developing an understanding of how the various structures in the field are produced and correlate. In this case, analysts like Jarvis (2000), a major proponent of postmodernism indicates that, ‘other factors’ will always be incorporated in International politics; thus, disqualification of the previous scholars in International Relations. The battle between post modernists and the conservatists’ schools of International Relations (IR) to displace reality by the previous schools and the postmodernist to modernize IR has caused a lot of hostility between the two schools. On layman point of view, it is evident that International Relations is endowed with a lot of events and occurrences that can only be understood on a multi-dimensional point of view. It is the responsibility of the researchers and analyst of the concerned theme to be involved in an understanding of the theme by incorporating all the factors that will minimize the variances between the major players in the IR arena. With the post modernists in an n attempt to minimize the differences between these players, is visualized as a form of destabilization by the previous players in the IR field; thus, a lot of hostility. According to Linklater (2000), post modernists believe in the fact that all kinds of meanings in the IR must have an explanation. All the key players in IR need not be assumed, but given an explanation. Conflict emanates from the fact that, the objects and key players in IR are totally out of context in the entire theme of relations. However, Smith, Dunne & Kurki (2007) indicate that all IR players are real and no form of reality can be escaped from the IR themes. Worse still, conservatists cannot stand the fact that the post modernists create the meaning by discourse, in that, they construct meaning from symbols and representations, creation of identities in the International arena. A case in point is the case of the functionality of the states in the International arena that always includes interactions with other states in terms of culture, economy, political, amongst others. In this case, for that reason, all these interactions have to have a particular meaning that has to be studied in the quest to understand these interactions. On a practical point of view, the players in the International arena may need aid from a well off country. The factors underlying the need for this particular country to access aid can be referred as a symbol, and can always be revisited in terms of conflicts or need. Post modernists visualize these representations as vital aspects in the understanding of the players in the International arena. On the other hand, the previous schools of International Relations would visualize these aspects as aspects of reality and would not go beyond deriving meanings from the same. In the case of post modernism and hostility from the traditional theorists in IR, this is from the fact that this school does not eliminate the present cultural attributes from the present changes that are taking place in today’s globalized phase. A lot of hostility comes from the argument that this phase is more concerned with the modern world, and in most ways outweighs the historical background of states. Modernity, according to the liberals in IR indicates that historical epochs cannot be discussed outside the context of the IR (Linklater, 2000). With the concern of time and space by the post modernists and post structuralists in IR, the liberals insist on their being too modern, not embracing the roots of transformations of the systems that shape IR over the years. According to Edkins (1999), the aspect of the post structuralists being apolitical will always instil hostility as far as IR is concerned. Rengger (2000) adds on to indicate that there is no way that the past can be applied in the context of the traditional context. All states in the International phase have a traditional way of doing things; variations of power in this case must be studied over the years to analyze how they have been applied in the context of the political front. With the aspect of ‘neo’ and ‘post’ the post structuralists are seen to alienate the factors that have shaped International Relations in the past decades and what continues to shape the existing relations. In as much, Smith (1997), and Osterud (1996) indicate that post modernists have invaded International Relations, and is not scholarly, I hold the opinion that IR entails some forms of practicality that cannot be evaded in IR. With the modern theories been challenged to trace their roots in the traditional thoughts and points of view, the post modernists are disqualified on this account. All in all, quote indicates that the modern theorists do not aim at challenging the existing norms, but questions how well the then applied rules can still be relevant in today’s context. In the case of sovereignty for example, the states must embark on an understanding of the aspects that underlie the sovereignty of the state in the post modern era. The post modernists endeavour to bring out the thought that the state cannot b e bound by boundaries, and that the boundaries have to be open if the concept of ‘International’ has to be of essence to the study. In totality in IR means reduction of differences among the players in the International arena, an aspect that has caused a myriad of feelings among the concerned stakeholders. The subject of relations can indeed not be separated from an all inclusive study. The post modernists’ arguments, therefore, hold much evidence as far as International Relations and modern discussion is concerned. The issue o f boundaries and differences in the state have to be reconstructed to have a workable discussion on the theme. 3.0. Conclusion Conclusively, it is justified to argue that post modernists and post structuralists in IR theory are way beyond the worldly perception of facts that are existent in the theme. Their argument on the inability of theoretical explanations as all inclusive is the major cause of hostility among the other theorists. All accounts, according to them, can be described, well accounted for and given meanings (Griffiths, 2007).This is an elucidation of the fact that post structuralists do not hold the notion that the states in the International arena cannot be part of International politics yet not being part of the same politics. This is to say that no assumptions have a place in a world full of social activities, like the International scene, but minimal assumptions. The entire concept of post modernism can simply be discussed to bring out a new feeling of study of international concepts. The traditional theorists need to embrace the new thinking of the new international world; devoid of differences both of identity and any other than may confine a state as a loner in the arena. References Edkins, J., 1999. Poststructuralism & international relations Bringing the Political Back In. London: Lynne Rienner. Griffiths, M., 2007. International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Jarvis, D., 2000. International relations and the challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline. South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press. Jones, W., 2001. Critical Theory and World Politics. London: Lynne Rienner. Linklater, A., 2000. International Relations: Critical Concepts in Political Science, Volume 4. London: Routledge. Osterud, O., 1996. Antinomies of Postmodernism in International Studies, Journal of Peace Research, 33(4): 385-390.  Rengger, N., 2000. International Relations, Political Theory, and the Problem of Order: Beyond International Relations Theory? London: Routledge. Reus-Smit, C., & Snidal, D., 2010. Oxford handbook of International Relations. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks Online. Smith, S., 1997. ‘Epistemology, Postmodernism and International Relations Theory: A Reply to Osterud’, Journal of Peace Research, 34(3): 330-336.  Smith, S., Dunne, M., & Kurki, M., 2007. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weber, C., 2009. International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. New York: Taylor & Francis. Read More