Statesmanship and the Problem of Theoretical Generalization

Abstract

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. Polity (2010) 42, 156 -184.

Advancing Comparative Climate Change Politics: Theory and Method

“…35. Bernstein et al 2000Daniel and Smith 2010;Grynaviski 2013;Jackson 2011;Pouliot 2007;Wendt 1998;Cohen and Wartofsky 2010;Lichbach 2009;Yanow 2014. 36.…”

Introduction: Comparative Insights from the ASSA Project

“…Our work in developing theory builds upon traditions in material-culture studies (Miller 2010) and digital anthropology (Geismar and Knox 2021). These differ in various respects from approaches such as Science and Technology Studies (STS), Internet studies, and other disciplinary studies.…”

“…A third distinct element of the ASSA project is that none of the researchers involved had previously studied ageing. Thus, our theoretical foundation lay not in ageing studies but in the tradition of digital anthropology (e.g., Miller and Horst 2021) and studies of material culture (e.g., Miller 2010).…”

Burke and Clausewitz on the limitation of war

“…While few contemporary theorists deny the ability of individuals to exert disproportionate and disruptive influence on world affairs, they typically exclude leadership variables from their analysis (Byman and Pollack, 2001; Daniel and Smith, 2010; Samuels, 2003). The notion that “evil” leaders cause conflict does not fit with the modern realist and liberal institutionalist view of nations rationally calculating their own interests and working within the limits of theories that attempt to explain the international system.…”