| ID | 102441 |
| Title Proper | Revisiting the third debate (part I) |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Blair, Brook M |
| Publication | 2011. |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | D. S. L. Jarvis has led a spirited and well-considered polemic against post-structuralist and post-modernist theories of International Relations, arguing that they still leave much to be desired if they are to succeed in establishing a viable alternative to the traditional theoretical approaches of the field. While Jarvis and his cohorts have clearly delivered a great many important criticisms to this end, the question nonetheless remains as to how adroitly the foundational literature of post-structuralist and post-modernist thought has been deployed by the dissident school of International Relations theory. As this article argues, a return to the foundations of anti-foundationalist thought thus becomes a vital necessity if the footing of the 'third debate' is to be secured with some greater degree of perspicuity and, indeed, in a manner more fruitful for the study of International Relations. In so doing, it concludes that the 'power-knowledge' problématique has been poorly construed and must be revisited with much greater care and attention to some clear object of study if the post-structuralist and post-modernist ventures are ultimately to be fulfilled. |
| `In' analytical Note | Review of International Studies Vol. 37, No. 2; Apr 2011: p.825-854 |
| Journal Source | Review of International Studies Vol. 37, No. 2; Apr 2011: p.825-854 |
| Key Words | International Relations ; Post - Modernist Theories ; International Relations Theory |