International relations theory Puns

Hello All!

I applied to this program at the beginning of January. I'm an American student, and I changed my major to history and economics after studying engineering for two years. My overall GPA is a 3.6 because of this, but the courses most relevant to my chosen MSc (history/political science, I have not gotten less than an A- in any history/polisci course) I have very good grades in. I explained this in a letter on my application, but does LSE take this into account? I also have several internships/research experience, really good letters of rec, and a decent PS that explains why I want to do this program at LSE specifically. LSE is my absolute top choice, so I wanted to know my chances since my anxiety is through the roof. Any and all help is welcome!

Reposted this because I accidentally deleted it.

Hello,

I am a pol sci major/undergraduate and I've gotten very interested in IR theory and I think it would be fun and educational to have a group to talk about it with. Anyone interested in doing a book club/ reading group? We could meet by zoom. I think it would be cool to do it chronologically, so start with classical realism for example Politics Among Nations by Morgenthau then go to Neo Realism with the work of Kenneth Waltz Probably Theory of International Politics and then do Neoliberal Institutionalism and Constructivism. That is just one idea I am open to anything

This is maybe several questions in one:

• Is it accurate to call the period peaceful at all, or is it essentially rose tinted glasses to see 1815-1914 as nearly a century with no great power conflict?
• How conscious was the effort to maintain the peace between great powers vs how much of the peace was a byproduct of great powers simply wanting to maintain the balance of power? (i.e. Did Britain consciously seek peace on the continent for peace's sake or did they just not want to see Germany become hegemon for example, and peace was the best means for maintaining the balance?)
• Is it fair to say that whatever peace resulted was a product of a "realist" conception of international relations on the part of individual actors on the world stage or is the Congress of Vienna an example of an "idealist/liberal" institution for preserving international peace?

Hello,

I am a pol sci major/undergraduate and I've gotten very interested in IR theory. I am organizing an international relations theory book club/reading group. We're going to be on Saturdays at 4 PM MST starting on August 21 and every two weeks after that, We are going to meet on zoom. If you want to join just DM me. we are going to do it chronologically, so start with classical realism for example Politics Among Nations by Morgenthau then go to Neo Realism with the work of Kenneth Waltz Probably Theory of International Politics and then do Neoliberal Institutionalism and Constructivism. We are staring with Politics Among Nations 6th edition by Hans Morgenthau Pages 1-37 86-120 185-237 328-346 360-391. Feel free to join if you want to!

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003008644

links: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003008644/international-relations-theory-cynthia-weber

https://www.routledge.com/International-Relations-Theory-A-Critical-Introduction/Weber/p/book/9780367442712

An old version of this book is available but not the latest one. Can someone help me get this? Thanks in advance

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198814443.001.0001

URL

Must be the 5th Edition

By anarchy I’m referring to the international relations definition, which is the idea that there is no supreme authority in the world over states. Marxist theory seems a lot less focused on anarchy than other theories like realism and liberalism, but I was curious as to what role anarchy plays in it because I haven’t been able to find much information on this. Thanks!

I love these little debates. They're entertaining to listen to while I'm cleaning my house, but I feel like they are pretty thin on substance.

I have a degree in IR and political economy and would love to hear that side of theory represented on Twitch. Even if that analysis and theory was exclusively critical theory ie Marxism, structualism.

A brief overview:

> Although the idea probably always has been present in some form, elitism emerged as a recognizable and clearly defined part of Western political thought in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The leading contributors to the theory were Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto, and Robert Michels. These writers attacked classical democratic thought and also Aristotle and Karl Marx. Majority rule, they insisted, is impossible. Every society is divided into those who rule and those who are ruled; and the rulers constitute only a small minority of any society. Aristotle's classification, which divided political systems into three types (rule by one, rule by a few, and rule by the many), does not fit reality either, for no man is capable of ruling by himself, and the many, too, lack the ability to govern. It is the few, under any political system, who exercise effective control. And Marx, with his emphasis on a class struggle that in the end (following the victory of the working class) leads to social harmony in a classless society, was also wrong. History features a continuing struggle among elites. That struggle will never end, and a classless society cannot be created. Moreover, to the pioneers in the development of elitist theory, Marx placed too much emphasis on economics and not enough on politics, which could be autonomous.

I myself am a firm believer of this theory and apply it to understand domestic political situations in a country. Eg for example from this we can deduce that the fight over net neutrality in the United States is less a battle between the "democratic majority" and the "greedy corporations" and more a battle for dominance over the internet between the big tech and big telecom corporations aka an intra elite fight where the masses are mere foot soldiers for either side.

Now IR is admittedly not my area of expertise. But how do we apply this theory to the international arena where the overall situation is largely anarchic and truely global elites barely exist?

I️ was wondering if anyone who studies international relations/affairs or has experience in the field can explain their perspective to me. I mainly would like to know how a socialist perspective understands and critiques theories of IR like realism, liberalism (in the IR sense), and constructivism.

There are aspects of each theory which make sense to me, but realism seems the most logical from my limited reading. I️ understand a little about the Marxist theory of IR but would like to know more about how this view criticizes other theories. Is one of these perspectives most opposed to socialist ideas, or most agrees with them?

I hope this question is makes sense and is easy to understand. Thanks for any thoughts or references.

Just finished Guns, Germs, and Steel; it was great and gave me lots of ideas for worldbuilding. I made a post recently on distilling the author's findings to make a world history timeline. Now, I'm looking to make a similar methodology for international political structures.

The only theory I'm aware of its the Balance of Power; it's pretty good, but doesn't necessarily offer much guidance in creating an international system (though I'm sure I could make it work). Any books or other resources y'all can recommend?

Thanks in advance!

Edit: I'm aware that there's a lot of people that aren't fond of Guns, Germs, and Steel's reductive approach. I know there's plenty of issues with it, but it does offer a general framework for worldbuilding---and, in my opinion, a mental scaffold for understanding some of the nuances of world history that GGS ignores or doesn't address.

Hey all! I am writing my thesis about the impact of diasporas on foreign policy but I'm still trying to find some theories to build my theoretical framework. The closest study that comes to mind comes from Clash of Civilizations but that doesn't really put such an emphasis on diasporas as I want.

Thanks in advance for the help and sorry for my English :)

View Poll

First of all I am not sure if I am right with this question on this subreddit or if I should turn to r/askpoliticalscience. Excuse me if I am wrong.

I am currently doing my bachelor in political science and have my first IR seminar. We are currently working on poststructuralism, discourse theory, Ole Waever and Michel Focault.

My question now is: Where exactly can poststructuralism be located in the field of theories of international relations and how exactly can the discourse concept of Focault be defined.

How important is to have a firm grasp of the theories of international relations (realism, liberalism, constructivism, etc.) in order to better understand geopolitics and states behavior?

Realism and liberalism and all the IR theories that I have been exposed to look on how war starts/preventing war. But I’d argue that lack of war doesn’t necessarily equate peace and prosperity. So why aren’t times of peace studied as heavily?

A couple of days ago I made a post about international relations theory book club reading group

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalScience/comments/ouww9c/anyone_interested_in_a_international_relations/

Just a quick follow up. We're going to be on Saturdays at 4 PM MST starting on August 21 and every two weeks after that, We are going to meet on zoom. If you want to join just DM me. We are staring with Politics Among Nations 6th edition by Hans Morgenthau Pages 1-37 86-120 185-237 328-346 360-391. Feel free to join if you want to!