A theory’s time perspectives: contributing to a theory’s inadequacy
| Published date | 01 December 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231185669 |
| Author | Christopher James Wheeler |
| Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231185669
International Relations
2023, Vol. 37(4) 634 –653
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00471178231185669
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
A theory’s time perspectives:
contributing to a theory’s
inadequacy
Christopher James Wheeler
Newcastle University
Abstract
Theories can either have something to say about the future or provide foundations for making
judgments about the future. In either case, however, a theory remains inadequate for obtaining
insights about the future which no amount of advancements in information access and quality
or methodologies can overcome. This article suggests that inadequacy persists and cannot be
completely overcome because of the long-term and short-term time perspectives embedded
within a theory. Using illustrative examples of time perspectives from Morgenthau’s theory of
international politics, this article illustrates and analyses how long-term and short-term time
perspectives within a theory delimit claims or judgments about the future made within or derived
from a theory. Subsequently, readers gain insights on how to conceptualise long-term and short-
term time perspectives, methods for identifying and differentiating between time perspectives
within a theory and the distinct work time perspectives perform within a theory when multiple
time perspectives are present.
Keywords
future, inadequacy, IR theories, long-term, short-term, time perspectives
Introduction
‘To improve our theories, we need to know how and why they are inadequate.’1
The inadequacy of theories referred to in this quote implies theories are limited.
Evidence of this limitation is most stark when looking at the statements made within
a theory (e.g. predictions) or judgments made based upon a theory about the future
Corresponding author:
Christopher James Wheeler, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Email: cwheeleruaf@gmail.com
1185669IRE0010.1177/00471178231185669International RelationsWheeler
research-article2023
Article
Wheeler 635
(e.g. estimations, speculations and strategic planning). The relaxing of Cold War
tensions during the late 1980s and early 1990s between the US and former USSR,2 the
global unfolding of the 2007–2009 financial crisis,3 the manifestations of the Arab Spring
in 2010–2011,4 and the ongoing political effects and responses to global pandemics such
as COVID-19 and its variants are just a few examples that highlight the inadequacy of
statements and judgments about the future made within or derived from a theory. This
article suggests that long-term and short-term time perspectives embedded within a
theory contribute to the inadequacy of International Relations (IR) theories and provides
a meta-theoretical understanding of how and why these time perspectives embedded
within an IR theory contribute to the inadequacy of a theory with respect to the future.
The insights about long-term and short-term time perspectives embedded within a theory
and their corresponding functions and effects serve as a basis of understanding for read-
ers that can help guide future efforts to address this inadequacy and highlight that this
inadequacy can never be completely overcome. Furthermore, the sharing of these insights
about the work performed by embedded time perspectives within a theory contributes to
a wider disciplinary discussion in IR regarding time.
An interest in time and improving the adequacy of theories to offer insights or be
useful for making judgments about the future of international relations is not new. As
mentioned earlier, the relaxing of Cold War tensions in 1990s is a noteworthy example
of this interest. This phenomenon forced a moment of reflection among IR scholars and
practitioners on how well the discipline’s theories performed their most important tasks;
to ‘provid[e] at least a preview of what is to come,’5 ‘provide a more solid base for
predicting than [another theory] that rests on observed covariations and postdictions
alone,’6 or provide explanations that are useful in thinking and making judgments about
the future. Beyond bringing to the forefront the failure of existing theories to perform
the aforementioned tasks, this reflection also prompted exploration into the potential
causes of this failure. Over the decades, this exploration has not abated within the dis-
cipline and has diverged in various directions, with sustained attention being given to
attributing the failures of theories to methodological issues and a lack awareness of and
access to existing information.7
Despite the methodological developments (e.g. Bayesian modelling and feminist
methodologies)8 and an augmented awareness of and access to information, however, the
inadequacy of theories to consistently provide accurate statements or be useful in making
judgments about the future persists. This article suggests that even if methodologies are
perfected and all available information is analysed, the inadequacy of theories would
persist because of other elements embedded within theories. Taking a cue from the grow-
ing IR literature on time, this article approaches the problem of the inadequacy of a
theory as being related to articulations of time within a theory, specifically via time
perspectives. To illustrate the connections between time perspectives and a theory’s
inadequacy, this article uses Morgenthau’s theory of international politics as an illustra-
tive example to show how long-term and short-term time perspectives embedded within
a theory contribute to a theory’s inadequacy.
Through the aforementioned example, the aim is to highlight five distinct time per-
spectives and their corresponding, salient functions and effects that may be found within
a theory. The five time perspectives addressed include: long-term historical, short-term
To continue reading
Request your trial