Search

In order to grasp some of the key intellectual developments and trends that shaped the global politics of twentieth century and continue to shape our own world—neo-classical economics, modernization theory, deterrence theory, the democratic peace, among others—it is necessary to explore the history of the human sciences. It is important, in other words, to examine the role of the modern research university in producing and diffusing ideas about the self, society, the economy and world order. International Relations (IR), and political science more generally, played a significant role in this story. In recent years we have seen a growth of interest in the history of IR, though it is still an underdeveloped area of research. Among other things, scholars have shown that many of the foundational myths of the discipline—the views that inform textbook understandings of the past and present—are deeply flawed. This article first surveys this recent work, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and then proceeds to offer some thoughts on future directions for research. It identifies a range of questions and topics that have yet to be adequately addressed, and draws on the latest methodological work in intellectual history, highlighting some new interpretative approaches that can enrich scholarship in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of Africa has been undermined by attempts to develop and apply theories that claim universal relevance as "objective" science, whether neoclassical economics, rational-choice theory, dependency theory, or some versions of Marxist theory. Such efforts at a scientistic universalism leads to "one size fits all" theorizing that have been found historically fallacious, intellectually misleading, and politically disastrous. The creation of a universal theory has been rejected as the end and purpose of social science and history, and, instead, tried to employ theory as a conceptual toolkit that makes possible the analysis of the similarities and differences between real world cases, with the belief that understanding lies in the explanation of complexity and contingency in a small universe of cases with distinctive idiosyncrasies and trajectories of change.