The Inter-Paradigm Debate Flashcards
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Key arguments
- What is the IPD?
- Anarchy vs Hierarchy
- Theoretical incoherency of the IPD
- Structural Effects on IRT
- Theoretical implications for understanding core IRT concepts
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Argument - What is the Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD)?
- It separates Mainstream IR Theories (MIRTs) - realism, liberalism, and constructivism - from Critical IR Theories (CIRTs) - primarily neo-Marxism and neo-Gramscianism
- It is framed around two fundamentally different assumptions about the structure of the international system:
• Anarchy: Central to MIRTs.
• Hierarchy: Central to CIRTs.
Core Argument:
These two terms - anarchy and hierarchy - have become organising principles for theory-building in IR, but their meanings are so contested, the debate becomes theoretically irresolvable for the discipline
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Argument - Anarchy vs. Hierarchy: Defining the Divide
Mainstream Theories (MIRTs)
- Shared Assumption: The international system is anarchic,
Key Differences within MIRTs:
- Realists: Anarchy leads to self-help, security competition, and war.
- Liberals: Anarchy is problematic but can be mitigated through institutions and interdependence.
- Constructivists: Anarchy is not deterministic but socially constructed (Wendt: “anarchy is what states make of it”)
Key concept: “Problem-solving theory” (Cox, 1981) - MIRTs accept the world as it is and seek ways to mitigate conflict within it. They do not challenge the status quo.
Critical Theories
- Shared Assumption: The international system is hierarchical, characterised by institutionalised inequality
- Neo-Marxists: Focus on economic exploitation (e.g. core-periphery models)
- Neo-Gramscians: Emphasise ideational and cultural domination, especially cultural hegemony
Key concept: “Emancipation” – CIRTs aim to challenge and transform the structures of power embedded in the system (inspired by Marx and Kant)
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Argument - Theoretical Incoherency of the IPD
- Conceptual Incoherence Within Paradigms
Anarchy: Even within mainstream theories, scholars define it differently:
- Waltz (1979): Absence of government (ruler), rules, and rule (enforcement)
- Krasner (1992): Absence of higher authority and enforceable rules
- Donnelly (2015): At least 20 definitions, grouped into: absence of a ruler, rule, or rules
- These variations lead to contradictory assumptions, especially over the relevance of international institutions
Hierarchy: Also fractured
- Wallerstein: Capitalist world-system with a static core–periphery–semi-periphery structure (static)
- Cox: Social forces can reshape hierarchy - hierarchy is not fixed (dynamic)
- The Ontological Reversal Problem
Ganchev shows both anarchy and hierarchy can be theorised as either:
- A root cause (foundational structure),
- Or a structural effect (product of deeper forces).
Example:
- MIRTs: Historical events (e.g. Treaty of Westphalia) cause anarchy → leads to war, balancing, cooperation
- CIRTs: Historical capitalism causes hierarchy → leads to inequality, dependence, suppression.
Conclusion: Both positions are conceptually plausible but mutually exclusive, making the debate impossible to resolve within its current terms
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Argument - Structural Effects on IRT
Fragmentation of Research Agendas
- Paradigms operate in silos - little dialogue or engagement across paradigms
- Key insight: Despite shared terms (e.g. ‘anarchy’), paradigms do not share meanings
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Argument - Theoretical Implications for Understanding Core IRT Concepts
- States
In MIRTs:
- Treated as rational, sovereign actors reacting to anarchy
In CIRTs:
- Viewed as embedded in global structures of inequality
- Cox: States are not unitary actors; they are shaped by internal and external social forces - War and Power
- Realism: War is a product of anarchy and power maximisation
- Liberalism: War can be prevented through norms and institutions
- Constructivism: War depends on the social meanings attached to anarchy and identity
- CIRTs: War reflects deeper economic and ideological hierarchies, not just strategic concerns - The International System
- Mainstream: Defined by anarchy
- Critical: Defined by hierarchy
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
“Critical scholars disagree on…”
“…the definition of their shared assumption of hierarchy”
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
“Theoretically…”
“…irresolvable”
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Strengths
- The IPD exposes foundational assumptions and forces theoretical self-awareness
- The IPD introduces structural diversity into the study of the international system
- The IPD reveals the limits of paradigmatic silos and encourages theoretical pluralism
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Strength - 1. The IPD exposes foundational assumptions and forces theoretical self-awareness
- It lays the core ontological and epistemological assumptions underlying mainstream and critical theories
- The debate compels scholars to confront how their paradigms conceptualise the international system etc.
- This fosters self-reflexivity, making theorists more aware of the philosophical and political roots of their claims
- It challenges the illusion of neutrality, highlighting that theoretical choices are never apolitical
- Whereas realism, liberalism etc. often assume their core concepts as given, the IPD brings those assumptions into question
- The English School or securitisation theory promote pluralism, but do not interrogate the deep structural binaries the way the IPD does
- Offers a meta-theoretical lens that pushes all IR theories to justify their conceptual foundations
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Strength - 2. The IPD introduces structural diversity into the study of the international system
- Reveals that the international system can be interpreted not just through the absence of authority (anarchy) but also through the presence of power asymmetries and institutionalised inequality (hierarchy)
- This broadens the conceptual architecture of IRT by incorporating multiple structural logics
- Most mainstream theories treat the international system as functionally uniform
- The IPD disrupts this homogeneity by legitimising theories (like Marxism, post-colonialism,) that analyse how structural hierarchies shape global outcomes
- The IPD allows for non-anarchic ontologies, bringing in capitalist exploitation, historical subjugation, and hegemonic ideology as system-defining features
- Offers an ability to theorise global inequality, dependency, and structural violence as central - rather than peripheral - features of IR
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Strength - 3. The IPD reveals the limits of paradigmatic silos and encourages theoretical pluralism
- The IPD has exposed how ‘boxing’ theories into paradigms can lead to intellectual fragmentation and selective readings
- Ganchev’s critique demonstrates that shared terms (like anarchy or hierarchy) don’t imply shared meanings, and that rigid paradigmatic boundaries hinder meaningful synthesis
- IRT’s evolution has often been defined by internal rivalries and the IPD not only maps these rivalries but shows their limitations, prompting scholars to look beyond labels and engage in cross-paradigm thinking
- The IPD differs from most IR theories in that it is not just a body of theory, but a theoretical reflexivity mechanism
- The IPD uniquely identifies and interrogates the structural causes of theoretical fragmentation in the discipline itself
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Weaknesses
- The IPD entrenches a false binary between anarchy and hierarchy
- The IPD misrepresents the discipline’s history and marginalises non-Western and pre-1919 thought
- The IPD inhibits theoretical synthesis and innovation
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Weakness - The IPD entrenches a false binary between anarchy and hierarchy
- Although the IPD claims to expose the divide between anarchy and hierarchy, it ends up reifying a rigid binary rather than resolving it
- This framing risks oversimplifying the international system, forcing scholars into either ontologies
- It ignores hybrid or complex configurations (e.g. hierarchical features within an anarchic system) and constrains theory-building within binary categories that do not reflect empirical reality
- The English School views the international system not as strictly anarchic or hierarchical but as a pluralist society of states with layered norms and institutions
- Constructivists argue that both anarchy and hierarchy are socially constructed, not fixed or ontologically opposed
- Rather than dismantling theoretical walls, the IPD often reinforces them by treating anarchy and hierarchy as definitive starting points rather than evolving outcomes of interaction, history, or discourse
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Weakness - The IPD misrepresents the discipline’s history and marginalises non-Western and pre-1919 thought
- Ganchev critiques the tendency of the IPD to impose post-1945 paradigms onto earlier thinkers like DuBois, Mackinder, or Angell
- This practice distorts intellectual history, reducing multidimensional ideas to simplistic ‘-isms’
- This approach marginalises non-Western contributions, pre-1945 theoretical richness
- It prioritises presentist categorisation over genuine engagement with alternative visions of international order
- Postcolonial theorists criticise how IR law formation distorts non-Western voices and the colonial context of global politics
- By mislabelling early thinkers or marginalising non-Western traditions, the IPD contributes to a narrow and Western-centric disciplinary narrative, limiting the scope of what is considered “theoretical” in IR
“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev
Weakness - The IPD inhibits theoretical synthesis and innovation
- Despite its intent to map divisions, the IPD has become a source of fragmentation, encouraging scholars to work within entrenched paradigms rather than seek cross-paradigm synthesis
- This discourages problem-driven scholarship and deters scholars from integrating insights across paradigms
- It contributes to a stagnant research culture, where theories defend ideas instead of collaboratively addressing evolving global issues
- By perpetuating labels over questions, the IPD limits the field’s ability to adapt to interconnected global realities that do not map neatly onto existing paradigms
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Key arguments
- What Is the Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD) in IRT?
- Positivism as the Underlying Constraint of the IPD
- How the IPD Shapes Core IRT Concepts
- Why the IPD Was Structurally Limiting
- The Real Debate Was Epistemological, Not Paradigmatic
- The IPD’s Lasting Impact on IR
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Argument - What Is the Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD) in IRT?
- Definition and Origin - The Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD), particularly associated with the 1980s, is characterised by attempts to reconcile or distinguish among three main theoretical traditions:
Realism
Pluralism/Liberalism
Structuralism/Globalism (e.g. Marxism) - Smith argues, however, that these paradigms did not truly challenge each other at a foundational level, because they all shared a commitment to positivist assumptions
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Argument - Positivism as the Underlying Constraint of the IPD
- The inter-paradigm debate is not a true epistemological or ontological debate - it is a debate within a shared methodological framework rooted in positivism
- Smith defines positivism in IR as:
1. A belief in naturalism (that social science should mimic the natural sciences)
2. The assumption of regularities in the international system
3. A theory-observation distinction
4. A reliance on empirical verification or falsification - These assumptions structure what can be studied, what counts as theory, and which types of knowledge are valued
- Because realism, liberalism, and structuralism all operated within positivism, the inter-paradigm debate simply offered “three versions of one world” rather than genuine alternatives
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Argument - How the IPD Shapes Core IRT Concepts
States
- The state is largely treated as a rational, observable unit
- Positivist methodologies rely on treating the state as a unit of analysis, capable of producing empirical generalisations about behaviour (e.g. decision-making, balancing, cooperation)
- However, this limits how we can theorise state identity or ideational factors which post-positivist approaches later emphasised
Power and War
- Power, under positivist assumptions, is typically treated as material and measurable (e.g. military capability, economic capacity)
- War is seen as the result of measurable factors: polarity, misperception, or structural pressures
- This removes any analysis of how power is socially constructed, discursively legitimised, or normatively challenged
- Smith critiques this narrow view, noting:
- “Theories do not simply explain or predict, they tell us what possibilities exist for human action and intervention.”
- This quote highlights how a positivist-constrained IPD fails to engage with the ethical, normative, or emancipatory dimensions of war and power.
The International System
- All IPD paradigms treat the international system as objective
- Whether it’s an anarchic structure, interdependence, or capitalist exploitation, the system is presumed to be externally existing and observable
- Post-positivists challenge this, arguing that the system itself is constructed, interpreted, and shaped by power relations, language, and history
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Argument - Why the IPD Was Structurally Limiting
- It Defined the Boundaries of “Valid” Knowledge
Positivism served as a gatekeeping framework:
- Determined what counts as a theory
- Defined the rules of scientific legitimacy
- Marginalised non-positivist or critical approaches - It Silenced Epistemological Pluralism
- The IPD failed to debate how knowledge is produced, because all paradigms accepted the same epistemological foundation - It Marginalised Critical and Reflective Approaches
- Post-positivist theorists (e.g. critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism) were deemed “unscientific” because their methods and questions did not conform to positivist standards
- Robert Keohane’s demand for “testable theories” exemplifies how positivist criteria were used to exclude rival
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Argument - The Real Debate Was Epistemological, Not Paradigmatic
- The real division in IR theory is not between realism, liberalism, and Marxism - but between positivist and post-positivist approaches
- Smith calls this the Third Great Debate in IR:
- First: Idealism vs. Realism (1930s–40s)
- Second: Traditionalism vs. Behaviouralism (1960s)
- Third: Positivism vs. Post-Positivism (1980s–1990s)
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Argument - The IPD’s Lasting Impact on IR
Despite the rise of alternative epistemologies, positivism still dominates:
- Realism and liberalism remain committed to testability, generalisability, and empirical observation
- Alternative voices (e.g. post-structuralism, feminist epistemology) are often sidelined as non-scientific
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
“Positivism is a methodological view that…”
“…combines naturalism… and a belief in regularities.”
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
“They could be seen as three versions of one world, rather than…”
“…three genuine alternative views of international relations.”
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
“Theories do not simply explain or predict,…”
“…they tell us what possibilities exist for human action and intervention.”
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
“Even the inter-paradigm debate of the 1980s looks very narrow…”
“…because all three paradigms… were working under positivist assumptions.”
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Strengths
- The argument exposes the hidden epistemological unity behind supposed theoretical pluralism
- The argument challenges disciplinary power and opens space for alternative voices
- The argument shifts the focus from theory competition to epistemological diversity
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Strength - The argument exposes the hidden epistemological unity behind supposed theoretical pluralism
- Smith’s key claim is that the inter-paradigm debate conceals a methodological conformity - specifically, a shared commitment to positivism
- All three paradigms treat the international system as an objective, external reality governed by observable regularities
- This reframes what the real divisions in the field are
- Rather than accepting the IPD as a sign of openness or pluralism, Smith shows that the field has been epistemologically narrow, marginalising post-positivist voices
- This matters because it shapes what counts as valid knowledge and which voices are legitimised in theory-making
- Most mainstream theories focus on solving problems within the existing system
- Smith’s critique stands apart by shifting the focus to how knowledge itself is produced and constrained
- Smith’s critique opens a space for epistemological reflexivity
- Offers a meta-theoretical lens that challenges the disciplinary foundations of IRT
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Strength - The argument challenges disciplinary power and opens space for alternative voices
- Smith’s analysis shows that positivist gatekeeping within the IPD has excluded non-conforming perspectives, such as feminism and post-colonialism
- He illustrates how power operates not only between states but also within the discipline itself, throughcontrol over what is considered legitimate theory
- This strength is crucial because it uncovers the politics of knowledge in IR
- It expands the field’s self-understanding by showing that epistemology is not neutral, but deeply political
- By exposing how mainstream paradigms reproduce dominant forms of knowledge, Smith’s argument pushes IRT to become more inclusive and reflexive
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Strength - The argument shifts the focus from theory competition to epistemological diversity
- Smith’s analysis shows that positivist gatekeeping within the IPD has excluded non-conforming perspectives, such as feminism and post-colonialism
- He illustrates how power operates not only between states but also within the discipline itself, through control over what is considered legitimate theory
- This strength is crucial because it uncovers the politics of knowledge in IR
- It expands the field’s self-understanding by showing that epistemology is not neutral, but deeply political
- By exposing how mainstream paradigms reproduce dominant forms of knowledge, Smith’s argument pushes IRT to become more inclusive and reflexive
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Weaknesses
- Overemphasis on epistemology risks neglecting explanatory power and empirical usefulness
- Neglect of ontology and material structure in favour of epistemological critique
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Weakness - Overemphasis on epistemology risks neglecting explanatory power and empirical usefulness
- Smith’s argument centres heavily on epistemological critique, which can undermine the practical utility of IR theory by deprioritising explanation, prediction, and policy relevance
- EG, by dismissing realism, liberalism, and Marxism as three “versions of one world”, Smith risks ignoring the substantive differences in how these theories explain phenomena like war, cooperation, or global inequality
- This weakness is exposed through neorealism and neoliberalism, both of which maintain that theories must offer falsifiable, empirically grounded insights if they are to be useful
- Smith overlooks the practical benefits of positivist-informed theories, especially in analysing state behaviour and institutional design
- Smith’s emphasis on reflexivity and pluralism, while valuable, can render IR too abstract and detached from real-world application if not balanced with empirical analysis. It risks trading explanation for critique, weakening the field’s relevance to practitioners
“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith
Weakness - Neglect of ontology and material structure in favour of epistemological critique
- While Smith thoroughly critiques how knowledge is produced in IR, he pays less attention to ontological debates - such as the nature of the international system, the material basis of power, or the role of structural constraints in shaping state behaviour
- This leaves his critique somewhat epistemologically top-heavy: rich in methodological reflection but light on engagement with the actual substance of international politics
- Marxism argues that IR cannot be fully understood without analysing the material structures of power - capital accumulation, class relations, imperialism - which are ontologically prior to how knowledge is framed
- Smith overlooks the structural logic of global capitalism (Wallerstein, Cox).
