Why do theories matter

Include Synonyms Include Dead terms. Download full text. University professors teaching pre-service teachers base much of their philosophies on theories. Students often ask "Why do we have theories? However, if anarchy is what we make of it, then different states can perceive anarchy differently and the qualities of anarchy can even change over time. International anarchy could even be replaced with a different system if a critical mass of other individuals and by proxy the states they represent accepted the idea.

IR is, then, a never-ending journey of change chronicling the accumulation of the accepted norms of the past and the emerging norms of the future.

As such, constructivists seek to study this process. Critical approaches refer to a wide spectrum of theories that have been established in response to mainstream approaches in the field, mainly liberalism and realism.

In a nutshell, critical theorists share one particular trait — they oppose commonly held assumptions in the field of IR that have been central since its establishment. Thus, altered circumstances call for new approaches that are better suited to understand, as well as question, the world we find ourselves in.

Critical theories are valuable because they identify positions that have typically been ignored or overlooked within IR. They also provide a voice to individuals who have frequently been marginalised, particularly women and those from the Global South. Marxism is a good place to start with critical theories. This approach is based upon the ideas of Karl Marx, who lived in the nineteenth century at the height of the industrial revolution.

The proletariat are at the mercy of the bourgeoisie who control their wages and therefore their standard of living. Marx hoped for an eventual end to the class society and overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat. Critical theorists who take a Marxist angle often argue that the internationalisation of the state as the standard operating principle of international relations has led to ordinary people around the globe becoming divided and alienated, instead of recognising what they all have in common as a global proletariat.

For this to change, the legitimacy of the state must be questioned and ultimately dissolved. In that sense, emancipation from the state in some form is often part of the wider critical agenda.

Postcolonialism differs from Marxism by focusing on the inequality between nations or regions, as opposed to classes. The effects of colonialism are still felt in many regions of the world today as local populations continue to deal with the challenges created and left behind by the former colonial powers.

This approach acknowledges that politics is not limited to one area or region and that it is vital to include the voices of individuals from other parts of the world. As a result, more focus within the discipline was placed on including the viewpoints of those from the Global South to ensure that Western scholars no longer spoke on their behalf.

This created a deeper understanding of the political and social challenges faced by people living within these regions as well as an acknowledgement of how their issues could be better addressed.

Another theory that exposes the inequality inherent in international relations is feminism. Feminism entered the field in the s as part of the emerging critical movement. It focused on explaining why so few women seemed to be in positions of power and examining the implications of this on how global politics was structured.

What exactly is masculinity as a gender and how has it imposed itself on international relations? Once it is recognised that gender is essentially a social construction permeating all aspects of society, the challenges it presents can be better confronted in a way that benefits all individuals.

Here, you might be beginning to see some overlaps — with constructivism for example. We are doing our best to present each approach separately so that you have a clearer starting point, but it is wise to caution you that IR theory is a dense and complex web and not always clearly defined.

Keep this in mind as you read on, and as your studies develop. The most controversial of the critical theories is poststructuralism. Poststructuralism questions the dominant narratives that have been widely accepted by mainstream theories.

For instance, liberals and realists both accept the idea of the state and for the most part take it for granted. So, although these two theoretical perspectives may differ in some respect in regards to their overall worldviews, they share a general understanding of the world. Neither theory seeks to challenge the existence of the state. They simply count it as part of their reality. Poststructuralism seeks to question these commonly held assumptions of reality that are taken for granted, such as the state — but also more widely the nature of power.

If you can deconstruct language expose its hidden meanings and the power it has , then you can do the same with fundamental ideas that shape international relations — such as the state. By introducing doubt over why the state exists — and who it exists for — poststructuralists can ask questions about central components of our political world that traditional theories would rather avoid. If you can shake the foundations of a structure, be that a word or an idea, you can move beyond it in your thinking and become free of the power it has over you.

Although it continues to exist, many doubt its claims to success. The United Nations General Assembly is an organ that provides every country with a seat at the table. However, the United Nations Security Council is where power ultimately resides. The Security Council has ten elected non-permanent members, each with their own vote.

More importantly, the Security Council also contains five permanent members — the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom — reflecting the victors of the Second World War who stood dominant in as the United Nations was created.

Any of those five permanent members can, through the use of a veto, stop any major resolution. The United Nations does not possess complete power over states.

In other words, it has limited authority to interfere in domestic concerns since one of its main purposes has generally been to mediate diplomatically when issues between countries arise. Irrespective of any actual desire to maintain peace in a certain area, peacekeepers are typically only permitted to apply force in matters of self-defence.

For these reasons, among others, it is possible to argue that the United Nations as an organisation is merely symbolic. At the same time, despite its limited ability to influence heads of state or prevent violence, it is also possible to argue that many nations have benefitted from its work.

Aside from its mission to maintain peace and security, the United Nations is also committed to promoting sustainable development, protecting human rights, upholding international law, and delivering humanitarian aid around the world.

From a theoretical point of view, the effectiveness and utility of the United Nations differs depending on which perspective we choose to adopt. Liberals tend to have faith in the capacity of international organisations, primarily the United Nations, along with others organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization and the World Bank, to uphold the framework of global governance.

International organisations may not be perfect, but they help the world find alternatives to war through trade and diplomacy among other things , which are staples of the liberal account of IR. On the other hand, middle-ground theories such as constructivism focus on ideas and interests.

As constructivists focus often on the interactions of elite individuals, they see large organisations like the United Nations as places where they can study the emergence of new norms and examine the activities of those who are spreading new ideas. Realists, although they do not reject the United Nations completely, argue that the world is anarchic and states will eventually resort to war despite the efforts of international organisations, which have little real authority. Generally, realists believe that international organisations appear to be successful when they are working in the interests of powerful states.

But, if that condition is reversed and an organisation becomes an obstacle to national interests, then the equation may change. A contemporary example would be the United States invading Iraq in despite the Security Council declining to authorise it.

The United States simply ignored the United Nations and went ahead, despite opposition. On the other hand, liberals would argue that without the United Nations, international relations would likely be even more chaotic — devoid of a respectable institution to oversee relations between states and hold bad behaviour to account.

A constructivist would look at the very same example and say that while it is true that the United States ignored the United Nations and invaded Iraq, by doing so it violated the standard practices of international relations.

But we will pause here to examine the concept of theory itself. A theory is, in the broadest sense, one or more hypotheses about some particular subject matter, such as mechanics, optics, international trade, disease transmission, learning, pest control, ethics, infinite numbers, or sexual maturation. A theory is, in brief, an attempt to come to grips with, to make sense of, to explain, and in some instances to control and predict, something of particular interest to us, often some feature of the world children's growth, climatic changes, audio reproduction, etc.

On this account, we all construct theories constantly. Some of them may be relatively long-lived; for example, you might theorize that investing one-tenth of your net income in government bonds is the best manner to save for your retirement and might subscribe to this theory and put it into practice follow its precepts for all of your working lifetime.

Other theories might be rejected almost immediately; for instance, the theory that the noise in a distant part of your friend's apartment was caused by someone's knocking on a window. It may happen that no sooner does this theory cross your mind than it might immediately be discarded, particularly if you happen to recall that you are visiting in an apartment on the forty-second floor. It might strike you as rather overstated, even a bit pretentious, to call a momentarily entertained belief that someone is knocking on the window a "theory".

You might, that is, be inclined to reserve the term "theory" exclusively for recognizably scientific contexts. But there is no particular need to be diffident about conceiving of commonplace, even momentary, beliefs — e.

Scientists have no more proprietary claim to "theory" than they have to terms like "experiment", or economists have to terms like "profit".

To be sure, there is, for example, a specialized sense of "profit" which economists adopt in their economic writings, but that sense is certainly not the only viable sense. We can, and do, for example, talk about the profit , not monetary or capital gain certainly, in reading a good book, or taking a vacation, or quitting smoking. There unquestionably is this more general notion of "profit" having to do with gaining a good of any sort.

So too is there a notion of "experiment" which includes, but is not restricted to, the kinds of deliberately crafted laboratory experiments conducted by scientists. The four-year-old child, in rubbing one crayon over a mark made by another crayon, is experimenting with colors and textures; a chef substituting one spice for another specified in a recipe is experimenting with flavors; and so on.