論戰模式的歷史建構與國際關係理論

Historical Construction of the Debates Narrative and International Relations Theory

林挺生(Ting-sheng Lin)

國際關係理論 ； 現實主義 ； 場域 ； 語言－行動 ； 科學哲學 ； International Relations Theory ； Realism ； field ； speech-act ； philosophy of science

台灣國際研究季刊

11卷3期（2015 / 09 / 01）

107 - 127

繁體中文

國際關係研究經常用一系列論戰的方式來論述其歷史，但是這樣的敘事模式充滿爭議。本文將從論戰歷史切入，採用知識社會學與思想史的方法進行分析。接著回到1954年國際政治理論研討會的記錄，探討現實主義者對學科獨立性與專有理論的看法。最後連結Waltz的結構現實主義理論，來理解關於理論的本質問題。

International Relations study tends to narrate its history in terms of ＂great debates.＂ This narrative is by no means uncontroversial. This paper will question this dominant historiography of the ＂debates,＂ with the help of theories from sociology of knowledge and intellectual history. We will then turn to the founding event of the realist school in 1954, and reveal the realists' struggle for the disciplinary autonomy and a specific theory by assessing the conference transcript. Finally, the main emphasis will be on the nature of theory by linking to Waltz's structural realist theory.

1. Morgenthau, Hans J. 1948. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
2. Carr, Edward H. 1939. Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Macmillan and Company
3. Banks, Michael(1984).The Evolution of International Relations.Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations,Brighton:
4. Baylis, John,Smith, Steve,Owens, Patricia(2011).The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
5. Bourdieu, Pierre(1976).Le sens pratique.Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,1,43-86.
6. Butterfield, Herbert(1959).The Whig Interpretation of History.London:G. Bell & Sons.
7. Buzan, Barry,Waever, Ole,de Wilde Jaap(1998).Security: A New Framework for Analysis.Boulder, Colo.:Lynne Rienner.
8. Carlsnaes, Walter(ed.)(2002).Handbook of International Relations.London:Sage.
9. Clark, Ian(1989).The Hierarchy of States: Reform and Resistance in the International Order.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
10. Collins, Randall(1998).The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change.Cambridge:Belknap.
11. Doyle, Michael W.(ed.),Ickenberry, G. John(ed.)(1997).New Thinking in International Relations Theory.Boulder, Colo.:Westview Press.
12. Farr, James(ed.),Dryzek, John S.(ed.),Leonard, Stephen T.(ed.)(1995).Political Science in History: Research Programs and Political Traditions.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13. Finifter, Ada W.(ed.)(1993).Political Science: The State of the Discipline II.Washington, DC:American Political Science Association.
14. Giere, Ronald N.(2006).Scientific Perspectivism.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
15. Guilhot, Nicolas(2015).Portrait of the Realist as a Historian: On Anti-whiggism in the History of International Relations.European Journal of International Relations,21(1),3-26.
16. Guilhot, Nicolas(2011).The Realist Gambit.The Invention of International Relations Theory,Cambridge:
17. Hellmann, Gunther(ed.)(2003).Symposium: Dialogue and Synthesis in Individual Scholarship and Collective Inquiry.International Studies Review,5(1),123-50.
18. Holden, Gerard(2002).Who Contextualizes the Contextualizers? Disciplinary History and the Discourse about IR Discourse.Review of International Studies,28(2),253-70.
19. Holsti, Kal J.(1985).The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory.Boston:Allen & Unwin.
20. Kaplan, Morton A.(1966).The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations.World Politics,19(1),1-20.
21. Kegley, Charles W., Jr(ed.)(1995).Controversies in International Relations Theory: Realism and the Neoliberal Challenge.New York:St. Martin's Press.
22. Knorr, Klaus E.(ed.),Rosenau, James N.(ed.)(1969).Contending Approaches to International Politics.Princeton, N.J.:Princeton University Press.
23. Kuhn, Thomas S.(1970).The Structure of Scientific Revolution.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
24. Lapid, Yosef(1989).The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.International Studies Quarterly,33(3),235-54.
25. Lijphardt, Arend(1974).International Relations Theory: Great Debates and Lesser Debates.International Social Science Journal,26(1),11-21.
26. Maghroori, Ray(ed.),Ramberg, Bennet(ed.)(1982).Globalism versus Realism: International Relations' Third Debate.Boulder, Colo.:Westview Press.
27. Puchala, Donald J.(ed.)(2002).Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field.Columbia:University of South Carolina Press.
28. Quirk, Joel,Vigneswaran, Darshan(2005).The construction of an edifice: The story of a First Great Debate.Review of International Studies,31(1),89-107.
29. Skinner, Quentin(2002).Visions of Politics. Vol. 1: Regarding Method.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
30. Smith, Steve(ed.),Booth, Ken(ed.),Zalewski, Marysia(ed.)(1996).International Theory: Positivism and Beyond.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
31. Stocking, George W.(1965).On the Limits of 'Presentism' and 'Historicism' in the Historiography of the Behavioral Sciences.Journal of the Behavioral Sciences,1(3),211-18.
32. Suppe, Frederick(1989).The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism.Champaign:University of Illinois Press.
33. Suppe, Frederick(1977).Afterword.The Structure of Scientific Theories,Champaign:
34. Thompson, Kenneth W.(1955).Toward a Theory of International Politics.American Political Science Review,49(3),733-46.
35. Waever, Ole(1998).The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations.International Organization,52(4),687-727.
36. Waever, Ole(2009).Waltz's Theory of Theory.International Relations,23(2),201-22.
37. Waever, Ole(2011).The Speech Act of Realism: The Move That Made IR.The Invention of International Relations Theory,Cambridge:
38. Waltz, Kenneth N.(1979).Theory of International Politics.New York:McGraw-Hill.
39. Waltz, Kenneth N.(1997).Evaluating Theories.American Political Science Review,91(4),913-17.