Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:21:44.321Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation and disciplinary orthodoxy in international relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Richard Price
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Discussion
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 201 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1994

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

1 Neufeld, Mark, ‘Interpretation and the Science of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), pp. 39–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 As evidenced by the series of papers presented at the ‘Norms and National Security’ Conference held at Cornell University, 5–7 February 1993.

3 The regimes literature was conceived in part as a way to explain realist problems; see Krasner, Stephen (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca, 1983)Google Scholar. It has, however, evolved into one of the most powerful platforms for the critique of the underlying epistemological assumptions that characterize both realism and neo-liberal institutionalism. On the fundamental epistemological compatibility of liberalism and realism, see Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph, ‘Power and Interdependence Revisited’, International Organization, 41 (1987), pp. 725–53Google Scholar; and Wendt, Alexander, ‘Anarchy is at States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Polities’, International Organization, 46 (1992), pp. 391–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Ruggie, John Gerard and Kratochwil, Friedrich, ‘International Organization: A State of the Art on the Art of the State’, International Organization, 40 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 753–75Google Scholar.

5 Neufeld, ‘Interpretation’, p. 49.

6 Neufeld, ‘Interpretation’, p. 53.

7 See Hoffmann, Stanley, ‘An American Social Science: International Relations’, Daedalus, 106 (1977), pp. 41–60Google Scholar; and Smith, Steve, ‘Paradigm Dominance in International Relations: The Development of International Relations as a Social Science’, Millennium, 16, no. 2 (1988), pp. 89–206Google Scholar.

8 On different styles of interpretive analysis, see Hiley, David, Bohman, James, and Shusterman, Richard (eds.), The Interpretive Turn (Ithaca, 1991)Google Scholar; Rabinow, Paul and Sullivan, William (eds.), Interpretive Social Science: A Second Look (Berkeley, 1987)Google Scholar; and Dallmayr, Fred and McCarthy, Thomas (eds.), Understanding and Social Inquiry (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

9 Taylor, Charles, Sources of the Self (Cambridge, 1989), p. 202Google Scholar.

10 Taylor, Sources of the Self, p. 203.

11 Nietzsche, Friedrich, On the Genealogy of Morals (New York, 1989), III, p. 23Google Scholar.

12 Richard Price, ‘A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo’, unpublished paper presented at American Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., September 4, 1993.

13 Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar.

14 Cross, Charles, ‘Explanation and the Theory of Questions’, Erkenntnis, 34 (1991), pp. 237–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am grateful to Alexander Wendt for pushing my own thoughts more explicitly in this direction.

15 Taylor, Sources of the Self p. 203.

16 Cross, ‘Explanation’, p. 257.

17 Neufeld, ‘Interpretation’, p. 55.

18 As argued by Wendt, ‘Anarchy’, p. 423.