Theories help one to understand, explain and transform the world one lives in by allowing one to conceptualize contextualize and visualize both past and current events, their causes and their consequences (Burchill, 1996:13). The role that theories play in transformation is perhaps the most important aspect of theories because transformation only arises out of the reevaluation of what constitutes norms.
A theory is just a theory until it is put in practice. Jackson puts it quite eloquently in his description of the fallacy of theory. Jackson says that fallacy of theory is that it is academics that use theory, not the states that are being theorized about (Jackson, 2010:6). My argument is that both explanatory theories and constitutive theories are equally important because they compliment each other by sometime offering a constructive critique.
It is important then to distinguish between the two main types of theory in international relations. These two theories are explanatory theory and constitutive theory respectively. An explanatory theory takes the point of view that the theory itself is separate from reality and only exists because of the observer, observed effect. Constitutive theory on the other hand takes the perspective that theory itself is not external to reality and that theory and reality both affect each other respectively (Burchill, 15).
To illustrate the importance of both theories, one can apply them to a single aspect of international relations such as the role of war. From an explanatory perspective, war arises out of conflicts between nations and is an inevitable part of international relations. From a constitutive perspective, the acceptance of war as an integral part of international relations may have stemmed from such theories as Hobb’s State of Nature and his description of the essence of anarchy for its players as “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short” (1651). Hobbs may have been biased. Perhaps he thought war was inevitable without a hegemon because he did know any better. To say that Hobb’s theory has had no impact on global wars may be naïve.
In conclusion, both theoretical schools of thought are equally important because the explanatory school of thought helps one to better understand an issue while the constitutive school of thought continually pushes us to reevaluate the explanatory perspective as well as instill hope within academia that theories are not disconnected from reality. And that continuing to work on and think about new theories can improve the lives of people. What is the point of understanding the problems of a system if one cannot attempt to correct them?
List of References:
· Hobbs,T, The Leviathon. 1651.
· Jackson, P.T, What is Theory?. 2010.
· Burchill, S. Theories of Internation Relations. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment