Book Review: International Relation Theories, Discipline and Diversities

        Collecting the intellectual affluence of International scholars from around the globes, the third edition of “International Relation Theories, Discipline and Diversities “ offers an          au courant and inclusive version of all the major theories of international relations, backing them with relevant case studies illustrations. Though some theories incorporate multifaceted conceptual paradigm, the authors successfully breaks it down to an average academia’s cup of tea, with the use of elementary interpretation technique, also making it as best introductory textbook to international relations theories. Besides some new discourses, like post-colonialism and environmentalism has been integrated to allow broader analysis of international conditioning and also to foster certain alternative dimension to understand world politics. Every chapters have been upgraded accordingly with recent published work and the case studies have also been revised to adapt modern reflection of International societies. 

Arguing that theory is a fundamental tool to explain the dynamics of world politics, editors Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith embodies a wide selection of theoretical discourses – ranging from historically rooted dominant knowledge vis-à-vis with challenging ideologies emerged after 1980s. Each writers first clarify the theoretical context to their positions before showing how and why their theories matter. The book provide easy platform  for analysis and debate, allowing readers to choose which theories they find most relevant in examining  international relations. The book has been compiled in such a way that both instructor and students can separately  comprehend every articles in relation to other one. Many parallel themes are interlaced throughout several chapters—understanding constructivism in previous section will build base for readers to  catch the concept of feminist-constructivism in a later section. Each chapter share similar structure, and incorporates many organizational changes lacking in former editions.

This review primarily examines David Campbell’s article “Poststructuralism” published in “International Relation Theories, Discipline and Diversities”.  In this article Campbell argues that poststructuralism as pre-existing discourse in IR represents the world, maps the relationship between power and knowledge and interpret the politics of identity in international discourse. By highlighting ethos of Poststructuralism, the author endeavour to challenge the margins enforced in study of international relations, often backed by supremacy of conventional positivist doctrines, such as realism or liberalism. This article illustrates the way poststructuralism find adaptation in International relation after 1980s through work of Der Derian & Shapiro (1989),Ashely & Walker (1990). 

Campbell examines the integrative framework of social and political theory after which poststructuralism developed, and analyse the fallacies received from mainstream theorists. These focused mostly on articulating the meta-theoretical critique of realist and neorealist theories to demonstrate how the theoretical assumptions of the traditional perspectives shaped the established notion about world politics. He further cites the work of Michel Foucault to prove the relevance of discourse, subjectivity, power and identity in poststructuralism, and discusses the methodological features employed by poststructuralists in their readings of, and interventions in, world politics. The article concludes with a case study of images of humanitarian crises that illustrates the post structural approach.      

 According to the author, ‘International Relation as  discipline ‘maps’ the world’.      However, it’s only the analytical outlook-- and poststructuralism precisely—which mark the subjects of interpretation and representation, power and knowledge, and the politics of identity as central. Because of this post-structuralism is not just a model or theory of international relations. It implies that the theory does not adapt easily with the conventional view of IR as a  discipline defined by different conceptual dynamics opposing in ‘great debates’. Instead of being another school of thought with its own issues to highlight, poststructuralism advocates  a new sets of concerns. In this article the principal question observed on poststructuralism is that it is not a isolated discipline and function under large background of social thinking. Poststructuralism strive to dismantle the things established, and by its own specific methods it tries to restructure lot of things about the social life, state government, and international relations. In focusing on the conceptual and political practices that included some and excluded others, post structural approaches were concerned with how the relations of inside and outside were mutually constructed.

 Campbell claims that, as a functioning mechanism, post-structuralism never see distinction  between  theory and practice rather it views theory  as  practice. Such claim sustain in discourse because post structuralism carries a succession of meta-theoretical questions—questions about the theory of theory—in order to understand how particular ways of knowing, what counts as knowing, and who can know, have been established over time. While emphasizing on the theoretical practices that embrace some and excluded others, post structural methods deals with the way relations between inside and outside were reciprocally constructed. For realism, the state marked the border between inside/ outside, sovereign/anarchic, us/them. Accordingly, post-structuralism began by questioning how the state came to be regarded as the most important actor in world politics, and how the state came to be understood as a unitary, rational actor. 

Likewise the writer explain some interdisciplinary context under which post structuralism thrives with social science discourses. Firstly the section of ‘positivism and science in question’ include    epistemic realism: the view that there is an external world, the assumption of a  universal scientific language : the belief that this external world can be described in a language that does not presuppose anything and the correspondence theory of truth . Secondly he clarify the complex issue of ‘why poststructuralism is often misunderstood as postmodernism’ in these exact words “While ‘postmodernity’ is the cultural, economic, social, and political formation  within  modernity that results from changes in time–space relations, poststructuralism is one of the interpretative analytics that critically engages with the production and implication of these transformations”. Thirdly the author brings Foucault concept that subjectivity and identity are shaped by power structure and  also involve deconstruction to explicit the blended power relation between centre and margin. Derrida, mainly, purpose the comprehensive study on the method of deconstruction process through which the dichotomies that rule the International domain are ultimately revealed.

At the end Campbell gives final touch to prove the applicability of Poststructuralism in contemporary international context. He views that many prevailing approaches limit itself to study the possible solutions under certain pre-bordered circumstance but post structural methods allows to go beyond positivism and thus, grasp the relevant relations of power and knowledge, evident in the advocacy of certain discourses over others. As a concluding thought Indeed, no other approach offers such “engaged, rigorous, criticism-conscious exploration of events and activities” (Ashley, 1996: 246), which ultimately makes poststructuralism central to the study of international relations. However, my scorpion brain seek departure form writer’s conventional explanation after identifying some loopholes in this theory. Also, as mentioned in other scholars works and my academic research found that poststructuralism on one hand has failed to accept the existence of material reality questioning- idealism/materialism dualism and one other hand it challenge the realistic and liberalist assumption but couldn’t purpose any solution. Moreover, Poststructuralism as a theory is endangered by its own methodological and empirical problems as it rejects empiricist understanding of Knowledge and often uses archives, images, data content analysis for critical approach. 

Personally, I think this book deserves its own special spot on any academia’s bookshelf . The theories, terms, and notions covered are described in simple and comprehensible language, using grounded and intelligible examples. In this context, it seems very logical to conclude that this book will be of particular interest and utility to every reader.