International Relations - what is it good for?
On the Helicopterview mailing list, one of the writers spoke of how he works in actual international relations. He talked of how he finds the work produced by International Relations academia to be next to useless in his work, and that he prefers to rely on the analyses of his colleagues and others from the "think-tank community". This has got me thinking about what the IR discipline is for. Should it be about producing knowledge and modes of understanding that would be useful to practitioners, or should it be doing something else? I lean towards the idea that the discipline's job is to produce knowledge for knowledge's sake, without any consideration of whether this knowledge would be of use to anyone working in the field. However, that would make the IR discipline some kind of self-referential game of little or no use to anyone outside it.
There is of course that famous quote by Karl Marx about other philosophers wanted to understand the world while he proposed to change it. That would push Marx away from the pure knowledge position and in favour of orienting the discipline towards the needs of practitioners. In his case, of course, the practitioners are not those from the think-tank or diplomatic communities, but revolutionary movements dedicated to the overthrow of the existing order.
What do you think International Relations is for?
There is of course that famous quote by Karl Marx about other philosophers wanted to understand the world while he proposed to change it. That would push Marx away from the pure knowledge position and in favour of orienting the discipline towards the needs of practitioners. In his case, of course, the practitioners are not those from the think-tank or diplomatic communities, but revolutionary movements dedicated to the overthrow of the existing order.
What do you think International Relations is for?
posted by ian at 2:43 PM
4 Comments:
"What do you think International Relations is for?"
It's for lots of different things, depending on who you are. For me, it's all about emancipation.
I'm interested in analysing what's unfair about the world system. Once an understanding of these unfair structures is exposed, this knowledge can be used to delegitimise them.
I've a more detailed take on it than this, but that's really it in a nutshell.
For me, Critical Theory is the way to go about it.
OK, but to whom do you think academic critical theory will delegitimise the unfair structures of the world, and how will that lead to structural change? I remember last term reading a quote about some critical theorist saying that it was the job of academia or critical theory to "speak truth to power"; the writer rejoinded that that power already knows the truth, and does not care.
I mentioned this in class ages ago, but I am always struck by the disconnection between critical theory and academic Marxism on the one hand, and the actual praxis of those trying to effect change on the other. Marx wrote books which changed the way we view the world, but he also was heavily involved in organising movements that aimed to transform the world. I do not really see radical academics doing that now.
"I do not really see radical academics doing that now".
Neither do I that much, but they should be. There are a couple - when Chomsky was in Dublin, he met up with the WSM - also there are people like Michael Alpert, of Zmag.
Did you know the seminal IR theorist Robert W. Cox used to work in the ILO (International Labour Organisation)?
I think there probably are a certain amount of links between academia and various movements, but they probably aren't all that visible.
I re-read this post just now, and found Ian's analysis very interesting about what the point is of international relations. I'm kind of writing in my thesis (hopefully, if the damn thing ever gets written!) about the importance of coming up with an academic analysis that has real policy implications. As Ian intimates, otherwise, what's the point?
This probably makes it more important to be aware of to what extent academic institutions, think-tanks etc. are receiving money from particular sources. They may be producing particular research project, with a particular set of interests in mind. There's nothing wrong with this, of course - in fact, it's what the whole purpose of what academic study should be for, which is the point. But it will allow the information they present to be assessed with these links - between the policy establishment and academic institutions - in mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home