| ID | 175158 |
| Title Proper | Analytic eclecticism—continuing the conversation |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Sil, Rudra |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | In this response to the contributions in this symposium, I approach the above articles not as wholesale critiques requiring point-by-point rebuttal but as constructive engagements that require clarification or invite further reflection as part of an ongoing conversation. In some instances, I revisit and elaborate upon the main motivations and assumptions that Peter Katzenstein and I had in mind as we sought to lay out the significance of analytic eclecticism for different audiences. At other times, I take it upon myself to consider aspects of our approach that might be updated or reframed in light of concerns raised by some of the authors. I specifically address four issues that have been raised: the core logic of analytic eclecticism and its operationalization with respect to once-dominant paradigms in International Relations; the link between complexity, causality, and constitutive logics; the status of metatheory and the links between eclecticism and pragmatism; and the relationship between scholarly debates and “real-world” issues of policy and ethics. Whether the response is satisfactory or not, it is worth bearing in mind that, for Peter Katzenstein and myself, analytic eclecticism was always meant to be more of an ethos than a method or manifesto; that ethos long predates our published work and is evident in the thoughtful contributions that constitute this symposium. |
| `In' analytical Note | International Journal Vol. 75, No.3; Sep 2020: p.433-443 |
| Journal Source | International Journal Vol: 75 No 3 |
| Key Words | Pragmatism ; Social Theory ; Epistemology ; Paradigms ; Metatheory ; Analytic Eclecticism ; International Relations |