Errata pasted onto front end-paper. / Bibliography: leaves 271-298. / x, 298 leaves ; 30 cm. / Title page, contents and abstract only. The complete thesis in print form is available from the University Library. / This thesis argues that, instead of being regarded as a threat to the study of international relations, theoretical pluralism should be taken seriously and fostered as the only possible basis upon which the study of international politics can be undertaken. The relationship between the idea of consensus and international relations is examined, and the conclusion made that international relations is a "dubious discipline". / Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Adelaide, Dept. of Politics, 1998

This thesis aims to critique three leading advocates of a particular strand of post-positivism, which has become influential in contemporary international theory, and which is characterized by three defining features: the idea that a proper understanding of the world requires taking into account the intrinsically contingent character of that world, which is developed in opposition to the positivist philosophy of science; the attempt to conceptualize the contingent coming about of identities and practices as an ongoing and open process of intersubjective (re-) constitution; and the aim to understand this ongoing intersubjective constitution in a way that excludes normative judgements. The main purpose of the thesis is to point out a tension between these three features. What it argues is that the conceptualization of practices as intersubjectively constituted stands in tension with both the aim to account for the contingent character of these practices and the aim to understand these practices in a way that excludes normative judgements. In particular, the thesis attempts to point out three problems that arise from the combination of these three aims: first, it argues that the notion of intersubjective constitution entails a particular kind of determinism, which undermines the post-positivists' aim to account for the contingent character of practices; second, the thesis argues that this notion inevitably entails a normative stance by the theorist, which undermines the post-positivists' aim to understand intersubjective process of in a way that excludes normative judgements; third, it argues that, in the post-positivist empirical analyses, this normative stance is never defended and, as a result, entails the arbitrary privileging of particular moral attitudes over others. The main implication of this critique suggest the need for a fundamentally different notion of social scientific understanding, which explicitly recognizes and grounds the role of moral judgements. A minor implication is that contemporary cosmopolitan agendas in world politics seem inherently flawed.

While much has been written in recent times on the concept of civil society, the idea that it is part of an Orientalist construct of West and non-West has not been explored. This dissertation addresses this lacuna in the literature by examining Western concepts of civil society and establishing the ways in which these concepts are constructed through the deployment of a mirroring construction of non-Western Others. I examine the work of three theorists (Montesquieu, Ferguson and Hegel) who wrote on civil society during the Enlightenment or in its aftermath. These theorists are emblematic of a discursive formation which differed from prior discursive formations in two related respects: their concept of civil society and their construction of non-Western Others. During the eighteenth century both constructions of the concept of civil society and of non-Western Others were undergoing significant changes leading eventually to a concept of civil society as distinct from the state and to what might be termed a "post-Enlightenment geographical imagination". To demonstrate the disjuncture between discursive formations, the work of two seventeenth-century theorists (Hobbes and Locke) is compared and contrasted with that of these writers. The work of three late twentieth-century social scientists (Shils, Gellner and Fukuyama) is examined and their concept of civil society and use of non-Western Others is contrasted with those of the prior discursive formation. I show how their concept of civil society is informed both by the concept of civil society developed in the Enlightenment and its aftermath and by the mirroring constructions of non-Western Others of the post-Enlightenment geographical imagination. Underscoring the work of all these theorists are methods of comparison and the representational practices they authorize. These are explored through two conceptions of alterity which have operated in Western thought and their connections to questions of comparison. An analysis is made of the relationship of the ideas of comparison and comparative method to questions of translation in Western philosophy and social science. The implications of this discussion of comparison and representation for theories of civil society and their constructions of non-Western Others is analyzed.

This thesis accepts the premise that something is amiss in international political theory but, in contrast to numerous recent works, aims to provide more than a eulogy, lament, or nostalgic retrospective on the field. Instead, it seeks to get at the root cause of the problem. I argue that the perennial malaise of international theory is a problem of discipline, in both the ordinary and scientific sense. First, the field is in the grip of unprecedented theoretical tumult, its practitioners in danger of drifting out of familiar currents into a boundless sea of relativism. Second, the scientific status of the discourse remains an issue of concern to many scholars. But the first group of "theorists" promise us little more than diversity, while the second look for theoretical shelter in the false haven of empirical science. The crisis of international theory is thus inflamed by a misrepresented debate in which either too much emphasis is placed on consensus, or too great a virtue made of difference. Returning to the insights of E. H. Carr, I reconceptualize the problem of theoretical consensus in international relations as an issue that is inherently irresolvable and, at the same time, workable. The thesis argues against the view that international relations cannot achieve secure status as a discipline without attaining, or at least aspiring to construct, a global empirical theory. Following Carr, I argue that there are deep and enduring differences in international theory, differences that can always be counted on to undermine the "panacea of a global explanatory theory" (Hoffmann, 1960). These differences are traced, via Carr, to a basic antithesis deriving from the contrasting requirements and standards of normative and empirical theory. By the same token, however, I argue that differences that are irreconcilable on their own theoretical terms can be reconciled within the broader ambit of discipline, provided that the latter is understood as a community of scholars united by basic human interests — the avoidance of war for example — and not as a field of study amenable to the canons of science. To demonstrate the argument, I undertake a study of neoliberalism, focusing in particular on international regimes. I focus on neoliberalism because it is the heir apparent to realism, and on regime theorists because of their explicit attempt to reconcile idealist and realist perspectives. My critique of these approaches concentrates on their open agenda to synthesize realist and liberal international theory. I conclude that regime theory, as it is conceived by neoliberals, disguises, but ultimately founders, on the irreconcilable theoretical differences identified by Carr.

While much has been written in recent times on the concept of civil society, the idea that it is part of an Orientalist construct of West and non-West has not been explored. This dissertation addresses this lacuna in the literature by examining Western concepts of civil society and establishing the ways in which these concepts are constructed through the deployment of a mirroring construction of non-Western Others. I examine the work of three theorists (Montesquieu, Ferguson and Hegel) who wrote on civil society during the Enlightenment or in its aftermath. These theorists are emblematic of a discursive formation which differed from prior discursive formations in two related respects: their concept of civil society and their construction of non-Western Others. During the eighteenth century both constructions of the concept of civil society and of non-Western Others were undergoing significant changes leading eventually to a concept of civil society as distinct from the state and to what might be termed a "post-Enlightenment geographical imagination". To demonstrate the disjuncture between discursive formations, the work of two seventeenth-century theorists (Hobbes and Locke) is compared and contrasted with that of these writers. The work of three late twentieth-century social scientists (Shils, Gellner and Fukuyama) is examined and their concept of civil society and use of non-Western Others is contrasted with those of the prior discursive formation. I show how their concept of civil society is informed both by the concept of civil society developed in the Enlightenment and its aftermath and by the mirroring constructions of non-Western Others of the post-Enlightenment geographical imagination. Underscoring the work of all these theorists are methods of comparison and the representational practices they authorize. These are explored through two conceptions of alterity which have operated in Western thought and their connections to questions of comparison. An analysis is made of the relationship of the ideas of comparison and comparative method to questions of translation in Western philosophy and social science. The implications of this discussion of comparison and representation for theories of civil society and their constructions of non-Western Others is analyzed. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

This thesis accepts the premise that something is amiss in international political theory but, in contrast to numerous recent works, aims to provide more than a eulogy, lament, or nostalgic retrospective on the field. Instead, it seeks to get at the root cause of the problem. I argue that the perennial malaise of international theory is a problem of discipline, in both the ordinary and scientific sense. First, the field is in the grip of unprecedented theoretical tumult, its practitioners in danger of drifting out of familiar currents into a boundless sea of relativism. Second, the scientific status of the discourse remains an issue of concern to many scholars. But the first group of "theorists" promise us little more than diversity, while the second look for theoretical shelter in the false haven of empirical science. The crisis of international theory is thus inflamed by a misrepresented debate in which either too much emphasis is placed on consensus, or too great a virtue made of difference. Returning to the insights of E. H. Carr, I reconceptualize the problem of theoretical consensus in international relations as an issue that is inherently irresolvable and, at the same time, workable. The thesis argues against the view that international relations cannot achieve secure status as a discipline without attaining, or at least aspiring to construct, a global empirical theory. Following Carr, I argue that there are deep and enduring differences in international theory, differences that can always be counted on to undermine the "panacea of a global explanatory theory" (Hoffmann, 1960). These differences are traced, via Carr, to a basic antithesis deriving from the contrasting requirements and standards of normative and empirical theory. By the same token, however, I argue that differences that are irreconcilable on their own theoretical terms can be reconciled within the broader ambit of discipline, provided that the latter is understood as a community of scholars united by basic human interests — the avoidance of war for example — and not as a field of study amenable to the canons of science. To demonstrate the argument, I undertake a study of neoliberalism, focusing in particular on international regimes. I focus on neoliberalism because it is the heir apparent to realism, and on regime theorists because of their explicit attempt to reconcile idealist and realist perspectives. My critique of these approaches concentrates on their open agenda to synthesize realist and liberal international theory. I conclude that regime theory, as it is conceived by neoliberals, disguises, but ultimately founders, on the irreconcilable theoretical differences identified by Carr. / Arts, Faculty of / Political Science, Department of / Graduate

This study uses Kenneth Burke's concept of terministic filters to examine what the word security means to two different publics within the academic discipline of international relations. It studies the rhetoric feminist international relations theorists and contrasts their view security with that of realist and neo-realist interpretations of international affairs. This study claims to open up the possibility for studying the rhetoric of emergent movements through the use of dramatistic or terministic screens.

No description available.

This dissertation examines the emergence of revisionism in the foreign policies of the great powers: it is concerned with the rise of 'challenger' states. Current approaches to the rise of challengers (arguments from 'structure', 'prudence', and 'historical sociology') are if generally useful also incomplete, leaving the emergence of several great power challengers not fully explained. This dissertation offers a new explanation, not as a replacement but as a complement to these theories, and in doing so accomplishes two tasks: first, it explains cases previously unaccounted-for; and second, it does so in a fashion that acknowledges the co-determination of domestic and international politics. The new model suggests that the seeds of challenges to international orders are often found in the wartime experience itself, in social pacts between elites and societal groups struck to achieve mobilization requirements. Violation of these pacts in the postwar period can in turn generate powerful political movements for the overthrow of both the domestic and international postwar orders. The explanation offered by this model is then applied to five cases of great power behaviour after major wars. While imperfect in its ability to account for great power behaviour in all these cases and thus requiring refinement, the model obtains sufficient support to warrant further exploration of these and other cases in future studies.

Using notions of change developed by Thomas Kuhn, the thesis argues that the rise of globalisation and the end of the Cold War presented the Westphalian or state-centric paradigm of international relations with a Kuhnian paradigm “crisis”. As a result, both the theory and the practice of international relations are in the midst of (what Kuhn calls) a “paradigm shift”. Emerging from this shift is (what is described in this work as) “Access World” and “Denial World” – a particular global configuration of the practice of international relations. Kuhn’s idea of “incommensurability” seems to typify the relationship between the two components of this bifurcated configuration of the international. Both intellectual risk-taking and political courage are required if the ontological struggle raging between “Access World” and “Denial World” is to be settled. This will pave the way for a new paradigm to emerge. Kuhn provides us with the insight that, to achieve this ontological breakthrough, a fundamental change in our vision of the discipline of International Relations, but also of the world of everyday international relations, is required. This entails recasting the study of International Relations as an emancipatory project and by recognising the centrality of human beings in the practice of international relations. Only if this is done, will we be able to arrive at a cosmopolitan political bargain that is appropriate for the 21st century.