Why do we use theories in IR?In the social world it is not enough simply to base our account of individual solely on the reasons they give for the actions of the social world is one in which individuals exist within powerful economic, political, social, gender, racial, linguistic, and moral structure. We might be able to describe actions fairly easily (ie Prime Minister Tony Blair said that he supports Bush going to war against Iraq.) but it is far more difficult to explain it (why was the action undertaken?) And when it comes to explaining actions we are, whether we like it or not in the realm of theory.Theory is often accounts of why things happen and the fact that the offer a wide ra ...view middle of the document...
2. Traditionalist vs behavioristTaking place in the 1960's, this was essentially a methodological debate revolving around the belief of Behaviouralists that IR could only advance itself by applying the methods of naturalist science. They believed that the field was too dominated by historians, who they labelled Traditionalists, who took the view that IR should be developed through more interpretive historicist methods.Behaviouralist focus was on the opinion of systems and that those analyses, and any subsequent hypotheses of causality, should be subject to empirical testing, mainly via deception. That way knowledge in IR could be progressively built up, allowing for greater intuitions and progress in theory development.Kaplan countered that Traditionalism's inherent breadth of analysis meant that its ''generalizations are applied broadly over enormous stretches of time and space. They are sufficiently loosely stated so that almost no event can be unpredictable with them'' and thus would do nothing to increase understanding or develop theory.3. Third Debate: Neorealism Vs. Neorealism vs. MarxismBoth 'neos': share a common (neorealist) starting point 'states are the main actors in an international anarchy, and continue to look after their own interests; neoliberals argue that institutio...
