Michael W. Doyle, G. John Ikenberry, eds.. New Thinking in Theory. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997. viii + 296 pp. $25.00, paper, ISBN 978-0-8133-9966-9.

Reviewed by Scott Waalkes

Published on H-Teachpol (February, 1998)

Doyle and Ikenberry have produced a timely about the causes of Soviet collapse, speculations sampler of emerging theories in international re‐ on why it was a surprise, and calls for new theo‐ lations ("IR" to American scholars). The book is ries or research projects.[3] New Thinking distills timely: it begins picking up the theoretical pieces some of these refections and highlights the unity shattered by the end of the Cold War. But it is only and diversity of current IR theory. a sampler. Students looking for a comprehensive What unifes the feld--and the present book-- overview of recent IR theory would be well-ad‐ is the belief that "to understand international pol‐ vised to read this book alongside others that map itics we need international theory" (p. 2). Doyle out the terrain diferently--or more systematical‐ and Ikenberry attempt to fnd unity among a di‐ ly--to get a fuller picture.[1] Contributors present‐ verse set of contributions, selecting "authors and ed papers at Princeton before publishing them categories according to how they conceptualize here; unfortunately, a few major voices in IR theo‐ the task of international political analysis... and ry were not represented.[2] Still, it would be hard how they categorize the important sources of to beat this book as a handy introduction to some change" (p. vii). The essays collected here do plen‐ of the main trends in current thinking about ty of "conceptualization"; unfortunately, they "cat‐ world politics. egorize" international change less clearly, and No doubt about it: this book is well-timed, with less unity. coming as it does in the late 1990s. As the editors Here is where the diversity of the volume, note in their Preface and Introduction, both theo‐ like that of any edited volume, creeps in. Several rists and practitioners were surprised by the end theoretical approaches get showcased, but the of the United States-Soviet rivalry. Thus interna‐ thematic focus on change gets blurred. The essays tional relations journals in the 1990s were flled by Daniel Deudney, Matthew Evangelista, and with refections on the Big Surprise, discussions Steven Weber do address the problem of interna‐ which took many diferent forms: arguments tional change directly. But others only touch on H-Net Reviews the problem indirectly. Deudney, in a stimulating gender is important, but "No single standpoint or essay, argues for a revival of classical geopolitical perspective, feminist or nonfeminist, gives us theory as the best way to account for change: transparent pictures of reality" (p. 88). Like Der change as the product of colliding material forces. Derian, Elshstain defends a new approach to IR By contrast, Evangelista and Weber locate the with clarity and grace. sources of change in domestic political structures 2. Research Agendas (Evangelista) and historically emerging interna‐ Some of the essays present the author's work tional institutions (Weber). Although the editors' in progress, with less attention to summarizing Conclusion attempts to weave these and other ex‐ existing or emerging thinking. These, to me, are planatory strands together, an overall tapestry the least valuable contributions to the volume. fails to emerge at the end. The book never devel‐ James DeNardo's essay describes his research on ops a coherent picture of international change. formal models of the Strategic Defense Initiative, Which levels, which factors, should analysts of in‐ but fails to convey the relevance and richness of ternational change focus on? How do they ft to‐ formal modeling. Undergraduates will be put of gether? The editors never answer.[4] by the formal terminology. This is a shame, be‐ Instead, the essays collected here mainly cause the debate over rational choice theory is not show of recent trends in IR theory. They break just a debate about methods; it involves real-life down into three diferent types. Each type high‐ issues of what theory can and cannot do. DeNardo lights the possible advantages or disadvantages of only engages these issues tangentially, before and this book for graduate or undergraduate courses. after his detailed description of his current re‐ 1. Personal Manifestos search.[5] Matthew Evangelista's chapter falls Some of the essays ofer defenses of particu‐ prey to a similar faw: a narrow focus on domestic lar theoretical traditions from individuals square‐ structure and case studies of Poland and Romania ly within those traditions. Combining passion rather than connections to other theories of do‐ with erudition, and perhaps a few too many self- mestic-international politics--for example, the citations, these essays provide excellent introduc‐ rich literature on two-level games.[6] These essays tions for undergraduates. For example, James Der seem out of place--cautious, tentative, empirical-- Derian's essay "Post-Theory: The Eternal Return of in what is generally a bold volume. Ethics in International Relations" is one of the 3. Overviews of the Literature most accessible introductions to postmodern (or Three of the essays provide comprehensive poststructural) theory available anywhere, com‐ overviews of international-theoretical traditions; ing from one of its leading practitioners. Calling each clocks in with over seventy-fve endnotes. for a "semiology of IR," Der Derian defends the Graduate students would be more apt to embrace "real-world" relevance of these approaches in these, although it is possible to envision advanced these terms: "The instantaneity of communica‐ undergraduate courses using them as introduc‐ tion, the ubiquity of the image, the fow of capital, tions. First, Miles Kahler's "Inventing Internation‐ the videographic speed of war have made the re‐ al Relations" is a tightly packed institutional histo‐ ality of world politics a transitory, technologically ry of international relations theorists. The story contingent phenomenon" (p. 64). Jean Bethke could be told with more color, but he plots the ba‐ Elshtain's "Feminist Inquiry and International Re‐ sic trajectory of the entire feld accurately. Second, lations" makes a similar call for the relevance of Joseph Grieco's "Realist International Theory and gender questions. But her synoptic overview of the Study of World Politics" is a stunningly com‐ the literature refects a healthy sense of balance: prehensive accounting of the strengths and weak‐

2 H-Net Reviews nesses of neorealism (hence the 119 endnotes). , "Getting the End of the Cold War This is the best overview of neorealism--a school Wrong," International Security 18 (Fall 1993), pp. that follows the work of Berkeley's Kenneth 202-08. Charles W. Kegley, "How did the Cold War Waltz--that I have seen. Finally, Steve Weber's "In‐ Die? Principles for an Autopsy," Mershon Interna‐ stitutions and Change" blends a discussion of his tional Studies Review 38 (1994), pp. 11-41. Michael personal research agenda with a broader engage‐ E. Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. ment of the dominant approaches to international Miller, The Perils of Anarchy: Contemporary Real‐ institutions, an emerging interest for many in the ism and International Security (Cambridge, MA: feld. For students at any level, these essays make MIT Press, 1995). Daniel Deudney and G. John the book worth buying. Ikenberry, "The International Sources of Soviet In sum, this is another of those uneven edited Change," International Security 16 (Winter volumes. But the high quality of most essays 1991/92), pp. 74-118. Friedrich Kratochwil, "The makes the book a worthwhile addition to the Embarrassment of Changes: Neo-realism as the shelves of anyone interesting in sampling the lat‐ Science of Realpolitik Without Politics," Review of est favors of IR theory. International Studies 19 (January 1993), pp. 63-80. Notes: [4]. They come closest to answering these questions on pp. 277-78 of the "Conclusion." [1]. Other cuts at new IR theory, most from 's work would help weave to‐ non-American standpoints: Steve Smith, "New Ap‐ gether the diverse strands they leave dangling. proaches to International Theory," in J. Baylis and See Wendt, "Constructing International Politics," Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Pol‐ International Security 20 (Summer 1995), pp. itics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Ken 71-81. Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Rela‐ tions Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, [5]. See DeNardo's The Amateur Strategist: In‐ 1995). Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater, Theo‐ tuitive Deterrence Theories and the Politics of the ries of International Relations: Masters in the Nuclear Arms Race (New York: Cambridge Uni‐ Making (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996). Iver versity Press, 1995), for a fascinating contrast be‐ B. Neumann and Ole Waever (eds.), The Future of tween deductive deterrence theory and the real- International Relations (New York: Routledge, world perceptions of policymakers. Sadly, his es‐ 1997). A.J.R. Groom and Margot Light (eds.), Con‐ say here draws very little from that provocative temporary International Relations: A Guide to book. Theory (London: Pinter, 1994). [6]. Peter B. Evans, Harold K. Jacobson, and [2]. Alexander Wendt, then of Robert D. Putnam (eds.), Double-Edged Diplomacy and now at Dartmouth, is one of the leading "con‐ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993). structivist" scholars. Including him, or Columbia's James A. Caporaso, "Across the Great Divide: Inte‐ John Ruggie, in the volume would have helped grating Comparative and International Politics," round out the selection of "new thinking." Even International Studies Quarterly 41 (December more puzzling, given Doyle's early discussion of 1997), pp. 563-92. Liberal approaches, is the absence of any self- Copyright (c) 1998 by H-Net, all rights re‐ styled "neo-liberals," for example, Robert Keo‐ served. This work may be copied for non-proft hane. educational use if proper credit is given to the au‐ [3]. John Lewis Gaddis, "International Rela‐ thor and the list. For other permission, please con‐ tions Theory and the End of the Cold War," Inter‐ tact [email protected]. national Security 17 (Winter 1992/93), pp. 5-58.

3 H-Net Reviews

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-teachpol

Citation: Scott Waalkes. Review of Doyle, Michael W.; Ikenberry, G. John, eds. New Thinking in International Relations Theory. H-Teachpol, H-Net Reviews. February, 1998.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1663

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

4