Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:08:21.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Teaching International Relations to American Students

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2020

George H. Quester*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland

Extract

The teaching of international politics within the United States has been buffeted about a great deal in the past decade, reflecting shifting trends in social science analysis, reflecting also some major rethinkings and “moments of truth” about America's role in the world.

The end of World War II had seen a widespread acceptance of Realpolitik analysis, as exemplified in the writings of Hans Morgenthau, generally responding to the unprecedented degree of United States participation in world affairs in the resistance to Hitler's Germany. This new realistic interpretation contrasted itself with an original, more idealistic, liberal position attributed to Americans in general for the earlier and more naive times before 1939, an idealism attributed in an extreme form to Woodrow Wilson in his approach to the outcome of World War I.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Still one of the best examples is Morgenthau's, Hans basic textbook, Politics Among Nations,(Fifth revised edition)(New York: Knopf, 1978).Google Scholar

2 A clear statement of this position, as presented before events of the 1960's brought the ideological issue, and contending interpretations, more into the open, can be found in Cook, Thomas and Moos, Malcolm, Power Through Purpose: The Realism of Idealism(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1954).Google Scholar

3 For a good example of such a radical interpretation, see Gabriel, and Kolko, Joyce, The Limits of Power (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).Google Scholar

4 A collection opening up a great deal of the transnational perspective is that by Robert Keohane, O. and Nye, Joseph S. (eds.), Transnational Relations and World Politics(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also, by the same authors, Powers and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition(Boston: Little, Brown and Co , 1977).

5 Perhaps the most often cited single work in the bureaucratic politics interpretation is Allison, Graham T., Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missle Crisis(Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971).Google Scholar

6 Two very interesting works that could be loosely grouped into this area are Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976)Google Scholar and Steinbruner, John, The Cybernetic Theory of Decision(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

7 For a good clear introductory discussion of the applications of game theory, see Anatol Rapoport, , Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential Ideas(Ann Arbor: Universtiy of Michigan Press, 1973).Google Scholar

8 Still one of the better sortings out of definitions here is Haas, Ernst B.The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept, or Propaganda,” World Politics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (July, 1953), pp. 442477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 0n the role of international law in international politics, see Boxeman, Adda B., The Future of Law in a Multicultural World(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971).Google Scholar On the role of international organization, Goodrich, Leland Μ and Kay, David A. (eds.) International Organization: Politics and Process(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1973).Google Scholar

10 One book that this instructor has found very useful on these issues in Spero, Joan E., The Politics of International Economic Relations(second ed.) (New York: St. Martin's, 1981).Google Scholar

11 For a discussion of some of the issues raised in the category of “cultural imperialism,” see Schiller, Herbert I., Mass Communications and American Empire(Boston: Beacon Press, 1971).Google Scholar

12 For an interesting attempt in this direction, see Hinsley, F.W., “The Development of the European States System Since the Eighteenth Century,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. Vol. 11 (1961), pp. 6980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar