Lecture 16: The End of IR Theory?
2015/1/27 16:26:02
Lecture 16: The End of IR Theory? Jan . 27 . 2015
A Comment on the Special Issue of the European Journal of International Relations
主讲嘉宾 (Guest Speaker): Colin Wight, Ph.D., Professor of International Relations and Incoming Head of Government & International Relations, School of Social and Political Sciences,
主持人 (Moderator): Prof. Zhang Junhua
时间 (time)：2014年10月10日（Friday/周五)下午13点00分至14点30分钟
地点 (location)：新建楼1015室 R1015, Xinjian BLD
主讲人简介 (Bio): Prior to moving to Sydney in 2011, Dr. Wight worked at the University of Exeter, the University of Sheffield and the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University. He was Editor-in-Chief of European Journal of International Relations from 2008-2013. His books include Terrorism, Violence and the State (forthcoming 2015), Scientific Realism in International Relations (edited with Jonathan Joseph, 2010), Realism, Philosophy and Social Science (with Dean, K., Joseph, J., Roberts, 2007), and Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology (Cambridge University Press, 2006). He published in many major international journals, such as International Studies Quarterly, the European Journal of International Relations, Millennium, Political Studies and the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. His research area is international relations theory and the Philosophy of social science
讲座内容简介 (Abstract): With a view to providing contextual background for the Special Issue of the European Journal of International Relations on the End of IR Theory this talk analyses several dimensions of what the ‘The end of International Relations theory?’ entails. I begin by setting the issue in context and discuss the contemporary state of international relations theory. Thereafter, I examine the factors that help explain the proliferation of theories that has taken place in the Discipline since the mid-1980s. The coexistence and competition between an ever-greater number of theories begs the question: what are the relationships between these theories what kind of theoretical pluralism should IR scholars embrace? I offer a particular account of theoretical engagement that is preferable to the alternatives currently being practised: integrative pluralism. The article ends on a cautiously optimistic note: given the disciplinary competition that now exists in relation to explaining and understanding global social forces, International Relations may find resilience because it has become theory-led, theory-literate and theory-concerned. International Relations Theory has not ended it has only begun. In this context, I also tentatively explore the prospects, and desirability, of a specific Chinese approach to IR theory.