tdaxp

International Politics 1

How is International Relations an American discipline?
- rational choice emphasis ('rationalism")
- calcuated cost/benefits (outcomes and ratios)
- also likely responses of others
- implies realism

instrumental science: suggests science is a tool to further human domination
critical theorists: Western social science extends that domination to other humans

(but not Eastern philosophy -- tdaxp?)

(state premption, localization, lack of professionalism as roadbloacks to practical instrument social science
- compare to development of "useless" general aesthetics as developed field i n Europe)

Western/Newtonian/Cartestian/American/Anglo-Saxon worldview
- destruction, creationism, mechanics, individual
- blogospheric: tdaxp link?

Many prominent "American" IR Realists are European
- Hertz, Kissinger, Brezinski, Morganthau
- some non-realist ones two (Hoffman)

"The Great Debatein International Relations"
Idealists (emphasis on ability to reform humanity) v. Realists (emphasis on unchanging state of main)
(idealism as similar to dadaism?)
(idealism after WWI, realism before and after)
(realism as "default" position")
(what about non-state realism?)

also: Science (focus on quantitative method) v. Tradition (focus on law and history)

Dependency Theory - from Latin America in the 1970s
- blunted by East Asian (ROK, ROC, SING, HK) growth

Ways / Causes of growth of IR
- Professionalization (verticalization)
- Interdisciplinary Borrowing (horizontalization)
(but isn't verticalization a horizontalization an effect, not a cause?)
- Events (but what did similar events not inspire growth elsewhere)
- Demands (but why demands?)

Is social science more politics driven than hard sciences?
More "progress" in hard sciencess