Search

In this article we argue that in their quest for parsimony and through their denial of human agency, international relations scholars often endorse deterministic theories. The field of international relations suffers greatly for its devotion to excessive theoretical generalization. In rejecting the more pluralistic methodology of early international relations work, scholars may produce superficially valid predictive theories. Yet these theories rarely grant deep insight into why actual states behave as they do. Because of this, they provide little guidance for statesmen. While we do not advocate the complete rejection of any of the major approaches in the field, we argue that international relations scholars should reorient their work to account for the way leadership can overcome the constraints of structure. We suggest the field strive actively to embrace complexity and foster a greater epistemological modesty than it currently demonstrates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we argue that in their quest for parsimony and through their denial of human agency, international relations scholars often endorse deterministic theories. The field of international relations suffers greatly for its devotion to excessive theoretical generalization. In rejecting the more pluralistic methodology of early international relations work, scholars may produce superficially valid predictive theories. Yet these theories rarely grant deep insight into why actual states behave as they do. Because of this, they provide little guidance for statesmen. While we do not advocate the complete rejection of any of the major approaches in the field, we argue that international relations scholars should reorient their work to account for the way leadership can overcome the constraints of structure. We suggest the field strive actively to embrace complexity and foster a greater epistemological modesty than it currently demonstrates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]