Implications of Commitment: Reflections On the Study of International Relations in Britain
| Author | N.A. Sims |
| Date | 01 August 1972 |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711787200400307 |
| Published date | 01 August 1972 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
274
IMPLICATIONS
OF
COMMITMENT:
REFLECTIONS
ON
THE
STUDY
OF
INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS
IN
BRITAIN*
N.
A.
SIMS
To
try
to
lay
bare,
as
I
have
been
asked to
do,
the
assumptions
on
which
we
seek
to
carry
out
our
commitment
to
the
study
of
International
Relations
(IR)
is
no
easy
task.
The
’new
Great
Debate’
(Kaplan)
of the
mid-sixties
between
proponents
of
the
classical
and
behavioural
approaches
(’traditionalist’
and
’scientistic’
to
their
opponents)
appears
not
so
much
to
have
been
resolved
as
to
have
lost,
for
many,
the
relevance
it
once
seemed
to
have.
Perhaps
the
two
categories
are
no
longer
capable
of
being
so
clearly
distinguished;
perhaps
there
is
a
growing
tolerance
of
the
’games
IR
scholars
play’
(Rosenau).
Optimistically,
one
might
hope
that
most
of
us
have
now
reached
the
point,
described
only
as
a
possi-
bility
six
years
ago,
of
seeing
&dquo;the
division
of
international
theorists
into
schools
of
thought
not
as
the
disintegration
of
a
once-proudly
homogeneous
discipline,
but
as
the
fruitful
division of
labour
of
a
group
of
vigorously
inquisitive
minds.&dquo;’
Meanwhile,
the
new
concern
for
values
and
issues
of
social
and
political
responsibility,
which
is
said
to
characterise
the
dis-
course
of
the
American
political
science
fraternity
(and
IR
scholars
among
them),
in
the
’post-behaviouralist’
eraj may
understandably
produce
a
certain
sensation
of
dija
vu
in
this
country.
Is
it
altogether
too
smug
to
say
that,
for
us,
these
issues
have
always
been
accorded
sign~ificance‘I
It
may
be
that
the
difference
springs
from
cultural
specificity
and
intellectual
history:
that
the
British
experience
of
behaviouralism,
in
IR
at
least,
has
been
one
of
methodological
and
conceptual
innovation
rather
than
one
of
scientific
dogmatism.
If
that
is
so,
one
consequence
may
be
that
we
are
not
reacting
against
the
philosophical
credo
of
behaviourism,
because
we
have
never
been
bombarded
with
it,
and
another
may
be
that
the
virtues
of
humane
scholarship
stand
in
no
need
of
rediscovery.
Are
there,
then,
any
controversial
assumptions
to
explore?
I
think
there
are,
and
in
this
paper
I
seek
to
uncover
some
of
those
*This
article
is
based
on
a
paper
commissioned
for
the
International
Relations
Section
of
the
Political
Studies
Association
of
the
United
King-
dom
and
presented
at
its
23rd
Annual
Conference,
University
of
Edinburgh,
27-29
March
1972.
I
am
grateful
to
R.
E.
Jones,
Convenor
of the
Section,
for
commissioning
the
paper,
and
to
M.
D.
Donelan,
E.
J.
Hughes,
P.
H.
Lyon,
C.
M.
Mason,
R.
C.
Ogley
and
P.
A.
Reynolds
for
their
helpful
suggestions
in
discussion.
1
M.
H.
Banks,
’Two
Meanings
of
Theory
in
the
Study
of
International
Relations’,
in
Yearbook
of
World
Affairs,
1966,
p.
240.
2
I
take
it
as
generally
accepted
that
the
IR
specialism
is
much
more
firmly
integrated
within
the
political
science
discipline
in
the
USA
than
in
Britain,
where
the
connections
are
felt
to
be
less
close.
To continue reading
Request your trial