• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

International Studies Quarterly (2012) 56, 607–622 Politics and Paradigm Preferences: The Implicit Ideology of International Relations Scholars1 Brian Rathbun University of Southern California Are international relations scholars objective observers of political events, or do our political preferences influence the way in which we see the world? This article explores that question using data from a survey of international relations scholars. It develops and tests hypotheses about how we might expect adherents of particular paradigms to identify themselves politically on a left-right scale based on the resonance between the content of ideology and the key propositions of different schools of thought in IR. Although they are relatively centrist, I find that realists are the most conservative and right-leaning of international relations scholars, while Liberals are more liberal and left-leaning. Although neither approach has any intrinsic ontological content, rationalism and constructivism also have a distinct ideological profile, the former being more conservative than the latter. Post-positivist epistemologi- cal commitments are associated with the political left. More importantly, there is an interaction between ontology and epistemology. Positivism plays a role in breaking the link between political values and paradigm choice. Non- positivists demonstrate the strongest connection between ideology and international relations approach. I consider the implications of these findings for the use of paradigms in international relations theorizing, arguing that they should make us more circumspect about the use of paradigms in our discipline. Do the political beliefs of those who study interna- science and international relations scholarship in the tional relations affect their beliefs about international United States are informed and affected by the histori- relations and the way they study them? Is there an cal context. Positivistically inclined scholars of interna- association between the values that guide us in the vot- tional relations, however, would most likely object to ing booth and the approaches we adopt in our profes- this accusation. Although a contentious term, all sional lives? Are we drawn to particular paradigms and notions of positivism imply a detached and objective epistemologies based on our underlying political opin- analysis of our phenomena of interest. ions? In other words, is our research orientation to If there were such an influence, what would it be? some degree ideological, part of an underlying struc- How would political beliefs affect opinions on interna- ture of attitudes? Does our prescriptive and normative tional relations? E. H. Carr offered a crude hypothesis sense of politics at home influence our positive and long ago. In his treatise on early international rela- empirical understandings about politics abroad? Sur- tions theory, The Twenty Years Crisis, he wrote that the vey data have indicated that the domestic and foreign ‘‘antithesis of utopia and reality…further reproduces policy beliefs at both the mass and elite levels are itself in the antithesis of radical and conservative, of indeed related (Holsti and Rosenau 1988; Wittkopf Left and Right…The radical is necessarily utopian and 1990; Murray 1996). Is this true of international rela- the conservative realist’’ (Carr 1964:19). Carr was an tions scholars as well? early post-positivist who believed that politics and polit- Many in the field would not be surprised to learn ical science went hand in hand (Oren 2009). His that our politics are connected to our political science. hunch suggests that international relations paradigms, Critical theorists and postmodernists reject the notion so important for the development of the field (even if of the ‘‘subject–object distinction,’’ that is that interna- often bemoaned), might be part of the explanation tional relations scholars can objectively observe and (Lake 2011). Our choice of approach might be at least theorize about international politics independent of partially a function of our political ideology. their values. Political orientation is likely one of those To my knowledge, however, no one has systemati- influences. These scholars typically employ post-positiv- cally examined the effects of political ideology on ist epistemologies in keeping with this belief. There is international relations scholarship at the individual some evidence for the contention. In a remarkable level, likely because of a lack of systematic data. The book, Oren (2003) traces how the trends in political Teaching, Research, and International Policy Project (TRIP) survey of over 2,000 international relations scholars allows us to test for the first time the associa- 1 The author would like to thank Patrick T. Jackson, Stephanie Carvin, tion between academics’ theoretical, epistemological, Rodger Payne, Joshua Kertzer, and participants in the 2011 trip workshop in and political inclinations. It asks respondents to iden- Montreal for their helpful comments. Daniel Drezner dutifully served as a dis- missive discussant. I thank Sue Peterson and Mike Tierney at William and tify their political ideology as well as their paradig- Mary for making this data available to me. For more information on the sur- matic and epistemological preferences (Jordan, vey, see http://irtheoryandpractice.wm.edu/projects/trip/. Maliniak, Oakes, Peterson, and Tierney 2009). Rathbun, Brian. (2012) Politics and Paradigm Preferences: The Implicit Ideology of International Relations Scholars. International Studies Quarterly,doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00749.x Ó 2012 International Studies Association 608 Politics and Paradigm Preferences In this article, I derive hypotheses about how politi- and how our political values might through two path- cal ideology might be associated with one’s choice of ways influence our choice of paradigms. I then review international relations paradigms. I draw on research the ontological content of different international rela- in political psychology on the underlying motives, val- tions approaches, using the sometimes remarkable ues, and beliefs of the left and the right and look for overlap with conceptions in political ideology to resonance with the core assumptions of different inter- develop hypotheses about the political inclinations we national relations approaches. A paradigm is an indi- might expect in different schools of thought. The data vidual-level choice, even if there are social factors such analysis section presents the results of a statistical anal- as the views of one’s advisors and one’s peers that cer- ysis with the TRIP data. In the conclusion, I consider tainly influence that affiliation. This makes political the implications of the finding that our theoretical psychology a natural source for hypotheses. beliefs resonate with our ideological beliefs, arguing The data largely bear the expectations out. I find that it should make us very cautious and concerned for instance that the competitive and greedy view of about the role played by paradigms in international social relations offered by classical realism sounds a lot relations scholarship. like the beliefs that underlie social dominance orienta- I begin with a number of caveats. First, I am not tion (SDO). Structural realism’s emphasis on the role claiming that international relations scholars con- played by fear and uncertainty echoes right-wing sciously manipulate their findings to suit their own authoritarianism’s (RWA) threatening view of the political ends. I do not suggest that international rela- world. SDO and RWA are both conservative phenom- tions debates are thinly veiled political controversies. ena, and consistent with this, I find that realists are This is not an attempt at a radical deconstruction of the most conservative and right-leaning of all the inter- international relations paradigms. Rather, I am simply national relations scholars in the TRIP study, even if testing the proposition that we are at least partly and they are mostly politically moderate. International rela- implicitly, most likely unconsciously, led by virtue of tions Liberals, with their more optimistic view of the our political beliefs toward certain understandings of possibility for progress through international coopera- international politics. Second, claiming that some tion, lean more to the left, particularly the more ideal- international relations scholars are more conservative istic strand of Liberals. Intermediate positions are than others by reference to such concepts like RWA occupied by neoliberal institutionalists and the English and SDO is not to imply, for instance, a secret fascism School. Feminists and Marxists are the furthest to the among realists. RWA and SDO are nothing but scales, left, as we might expect given their more overtly nor- and moderate scores on them might simply indicate mative concerns. Epistemology also matters, albeit such politically unremarkable beliefs that welfare dulls slightly. Scholars who adopt a post-positivist approach the incentive for the poor to seek work or that harsh to international relations are slightly more leftist than prison sentences deter crimes. The data show that those who do not. international relations scholars of all stripes lean to This might not surprise readers. They might intui- the left of the political spectrum. I am merely looking tively have guessed as much, even if the article can to explain some of the variation within that limited now definitely show these associations. But there are space.

Load more

  16

Copy Link