Abstrakt
W artykule autor koncentruje się na wybranym aspekcie problemu związanym z rozumieniem historii genezy teoretyzowania w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych. W szczególności ukazuje jak zwrócenie większej uwagi na stosunek między tekstem i kontekstem może uchronić przed błędną interpretacją kolektywnego historiograficznego rozumienia dyscypliny, a w szczególności genezy teoretyzowania w NSM. Postępowanie to zostało przeprowadzone w oparciu o analizę tekstów i kontekstów teoretyzowania stosunków międzynarodowych dwóch autorów symbolizujących: podejście idealistyczne – Ralpha Normana Angella Lane’a (1872–1967) oraz podejście realistyczne – Hansa J. Morgenthau (1904–1980). Artykuł omawia także najważniejsze ustalenia rewizjonistycznej literatury o Pierwszej „Wielkiej Debacie” i kształtowanie się mitu „Wielkich Debat” jako opisu historii teoretyzowania o stosunkach międzynarodowych.
Bibliografia
Angell N. (1912), Peace theories and the Balkan War, London.
Ashworth L. M. (2002), Did the Realist-Idealist Great Debate Really Happen? a Revisionist History of International Relations, „International Relations”, Vol. 16, No. 1.
Ashworth L. M. (2006), Where are the Idealists in Interwar International Relations?, „Review of International Studies”, Vol. 32, No. 2.
Ashworth L. M. (2009), Norman Angell’s ‘left turn with doubts’ and the study of interwar International Relations, BISA Paper.
Booth K. (1996), 75 years on: rewriting the subject’s past – reinventing its future, w: International theory: positivism and beyond, (eds.) S. Smith, K. Booth, M. Zalewski, New York.
Butterfield H. (1931), The Whig Interpretation of History, London.
Carr E. H. (1945), The Twenty Years’ Crisis: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, New York.
Conference on International Politics, May 7–8, 1954 (Appendix 1), w: The invention of international relations theory. Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, (ed.) N. Guilhot, New York.
Fox W. T. R., Fox Baker A. (1961), The Teaching of International Relations in the United States „World Politics”, Vol. 13, No. 3.
Guilhot N. (2011), Introduction. One discipline, many histories, w: The invention of international relations theory. Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory, (ed.) N. Guilhot, New York.
Gunnell J. G. (1979), Political Theory: Tradition and Interpretation, Latham.
Gunnell J. G. (1986), Between Philosophy and Politics: The Alienation of Political Theory, Amherst.
Hamilton S. (2017), A genealogy of metatheory in IR: how ‘ontology’ emerged from the interparadigm debate, „International Theory”, Vol. 9, No. 1.
Kaplan M. A. (1966), The New Great Debate: Traditionalism vs. Science in International Relations,„World Politics”, Vol. 19, No. 1.
Knorr K. E., Rosenau J. N. (1969), Contending Approaches to International Politics, New York.
Lijphardt A. (1974), International relations theory: great debates and lesser debates, „International Social Science Journal”, Vol. 26, No. 1.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2005), E. H. Carr vs. Idealism: The Battle Rages On, „International Relations”, Vol. 19, No. 2.
Miller J. D. B. (1986), Norman Angell and the Futility of War. Peace and the Public Mind, New York.
Miller J. D. B. (1995), Norman Angell and Rationality in International Relations, w: Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis. Inter-war Idealism Reassessed, (eds.) D. Long, P. Wilson, Oxford.
Morgenthau H. J. (1944), The Limitations of Science and the Problem of Social Planning, „Ethics”, Vol. 54, No. 3.
Morgenthau H. J. (1947), Scientific Man versus Power Politics, London.
Morgenthau H. J. (1948), Politics among Nations. The Struggle for Power and Peace, New York.
Morgenthau H. J. (1951), In Defense of the National Interest: A Critical Examination of American Foreign Policy, New York.
Morgenthau H. J. (1952), Another „Great Debate”: The National Interest of the United States, „The American Political Science Review”, Vol. 46, No. 4.
Olson W. C., Groom A. J. R. (1991), International Relations: Then and Now, London.
Osiander A. (1998), Rereading Early Twentieth-Century IR Theory: Idealism Revisited,„International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 42, No. 3.
Quirk J., Vigneswaran D. (2005), The construction of an edifice: the story of a First Great Debate,„Review of International Studies”, Vol. 31, No. 1.
Schmidt B. C. (1998a), Lessons from the Past: Reassessing the Interwar Disciplinary History of International Relations, „International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 42, No. 3.
Schmidt B. C. (1998b), The Political Discourse of Anarchy. A Disciplinary History of International Relations, New York.
Schmidt B. C. (2002), Anarchy, World Politics and the Birth of a Discipline: American International Relations, Pluralist Theory and the Myth of Interwar Idealism, „International relations”, Vol. 16, No. 1.
Tannenbaum F. (1952), The Balance of Power Versus the Coordinate State, „Political Science Quarterly”, Vol. 67, No. 2.
Thies C. G. (2002), Progress, History and Identity in International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist-Realist Debate, „European Journal of International Relations”, Vol. 8, No. 2.
Waever O. (1997), Figures of international thought: introducing persons instead of paradigms, w: The Future of International Relations. Masters in the Making?, (eds.) I. B. Neumann, O. Waever, London and New York.
Waldo D. (1956), Political Science in the United States of America, Paris.
Wilson P. (1995), Introduction: The Twenty Years’ Crisis and the Category of „Idealism” in International Relations, w: Thinkers of the Twenty Years’ Crisis. Inter-war Idealism Reassessed,(eds.) D. Long, P. Wilson, Oxford.
Wilson P. (1998), The Myth of the „First Great Debate”, „Review of International Studies”, Vol. 24, No. 5.
Wilson P. (2003), The International Theory of Leonard Woolf. A Study in Twentieth Century Idealism, New York.
Wilson P. (2011), Gilbert Murray and International Relations: Hellenism, liberalism, and international intellectual cooperation as a path to peace, „Review of International Studies”, Vol. 37, No. 2.
Wilson P. (2012), Where are we in the debate about the first great debate?, LSE Research Online, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/41819/ (14.01.2017).
Licencja
Teksty opublikowane na łamach czasopisma "Przegląd Strategiczny" i udostępniane w formacie PDF objęte są licencją CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons - Uznanie autorstwa). Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie dozwolone jest pod warunkiem uznania autorstwa.