A Critical Assessment of Martin Wights Why Is There No International Theory - Essay Example

Why Is There So Much International Theory A Critical Assessment of Martin Wight’s “Why Is There No International Theory?” Martin Wight’s seminal article in 1960 professed to show the (perceived) paucity of international theory as a guide to the international system, unlike the rich heritage of political theory explicating the complex processes of domestic, i.e. national, politics. Wight claims that this paucity is compounded by “intellectual and moral poverty…[due to] the intellectual prejudice imposed by the sovereign State, and the belief in progress” (1960/2000, p. 30). He argues that there is no body of knowledge in international theory, understood as “speculation about the society of states, or the family of nations, or the international community” (Wight, 2000, 28), to match the successes of political theory, understood as “speculation about the state” (Wight, 2000, p. 27). The “theory of the good life” (Wight, 2000, p. 39), political theory’s central concern, was deemed incompatible with the study of international relations (IR), since the latter is understood to be primarily engaged with survival. In this essay, we shall evaluate Wight’s criticism of international theory and shall attempt to show his damaging claim failed to take into account the changes in the international which were already evident at the time. For conceptual clarity, we henceforth use international theory and IR theory interchangeably. The sources of international theory which Wight identifies form an eclectic mix of international law (Grotius and Prufendorf), writings of “irenists” such as Erasmus and Sully, Machiavellian elements, the “parerga” of political theorists, philosophers and historians (Hume, Rousseau, and Burke), and the speeches, despatches and other documents of statesmen of old, like Gentz and Bismarck (Wight, 2000, pp. 28-30). To reiterate the paucity of IR theory, he maintains that most of these works remain penetrable only by the scholar, making the international somewhat of an ivory tower. But, contrary to his belief, Wight falls prey to his own device: he traces the germ of the international in such locales which were gradually becoming obscure. By the time his article was republished in an edited volume in 1966, some of the ‘classics’ of IR theory had already been penned, discussing the causal analysis of war (Waltz, 1959; more on this later) and decision-making and deterrence theory (Schelling, 1960). The central challenges to IR theory posed by Wight are tow-fold: sparse theorization of the international and its incompatibility with progress. However, it must be understood that international theory and political theory are inextricably intertwined in the political discourse of our times. To the first challenge, there are three distinct responses which are not purported to be interconnected. Firstly, the study of IR as a serious academic discipline (or sub-discipline) emerged out of the scourge of the First World War. Thus, no matter what its influences and scattered linkages with the past, IR theories’ tenure of less than one half century would obviously compare unfavorably with the vast theoretical tradition of political theory. Secondly, the “intellectual prejudice imposed by the sovereign state” did not necessarily impede theoretical endeavors in IR. Kenneth Waltz provided a systemic understanding of the international by arguing that the structure of the international system was anarchic, meaning not chaotic but devoid of a central organizing agency (1979). This theory, known as neo-realism, offered a structural explanation for the behavior of nation-states. Though Waltz’s ideas were published in 1979 – a singularly salient year with regard to this assessment – the formative ideas were all present in the earlier work. Thirdly, the decade of the 1970s steadily saw the rise a variety of theories, responding to the current of world events. The Cold War détente increased interest in theories of interdependence, while the oil-supply shocks invigorated the curiosity in the international political economy. Soon after, Charles Beitz published his groundbreaking treatise on international distributive justice, cementing the place of international political theory within the broader spectrum of international theory (1979). International political theory now consists of the study of three distinct binaries – inside/outside, universal/particular, and system/society – while also raising normative questions about the ethical foundations of international life (Brown, 2006, pp. 34-51). Since the 1970s, there has been an explosion in IR theories; realism, liberalism, and social constructivism remain the most dominant traditions today amid other persuasions such as critical theory, Marxism, rational choice, postmodernism, ‘green’ theory, communitarianism and cosmopolitanism, to name a few (Walt, 1998; Snyder, 2004). In fact, the poverty of international theory has now turned to an overwhelming opulence, with rich methodological debates between empiricism and normative theory, and ontology and epistemology (Jackson & Sorensen, p. 301). Wight’s other charge against IR theory is that it is not progressive; however, it has been argued that international theory implicitly employs philosophical issues in its claims and assumptions (Kurki & Wight, 2006, 15-17). Moreover, the purpose of IR theory is clarification and explanation which its many variants provide regardless of the priority the nation-state imposes on them. Theoretical progress does not always follow a normative goal. Wight’s rejection of IR theory as a circular, repetitive and sometimes tautological process (2000, pp. 35-36) fails to perceive the changes which the international system experienced since the start of the Cold War. He speaks of the superpower arms race but fails to take into account that that particular conflict was without historical precedent. Yet, an almost innumerable number of IR theories have forwarded propositions based on observed data to explain the same. The use of evidence to adjudicate between truth claims indeed makes international theories progressive, while making sure that the evidence does not follow the conviction. A reappraisal of Wight’s argument, thus, finds that IR theory has blossomed into a vigorous field of research, sometimes more dynamic and radiant than contemporary political theory. Either Wight’s article served as the call for theorists to respond, or he did not expect to see such a rich outpouring of theoretical energy so soon after his pessimistic statement. As we have found, international theory and political theory are contiguous, if not cognate, academic pursuits, each complementing and reinforcing the other. The autonomous creation of a theory of IR was never necessary, and Wight’s essay, in the end, fades in the light of the history of ideas in international theory. Reference Beitz, C. R. (1979). Political Theory and International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Brown, C. (2006). International Relations as Political Theory. In T. Dunne, T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.) Theories of International Relations: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 34-51). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jackson, R., & Sorensen, G. (2007). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches [3rd Edition]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kurki, M. & Wight, C. (2006). International Relations and Social Science. In T. Dunne, T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.) Theories of International Relations: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 13-33). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Snyder, J. (2004). One World, Rival Theories. Foreign Policy, November/December 2004, 53-62. Walt, S. M. (1998). International Relations: On World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, Spring 1998, 29-46. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the State and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press. ______ (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wight, M. (2000). Why Is There No International Theory? In A. Linklater (Ed.), Critical Concepts in Political Science: International Relations (pp. 27-42). London: Routledge. [Original published in 1960.] Read More