and parts. Four: change. Theories of International Politics need a comprehensive
theory of change. There may be things to learn from developmental systems theory
(DST) in Biology, which seeks to integrate processes that some want to separate by
rejecting the idea of evolution as ‘merely a sequence of genomes, without worrying
about the messy processes that led from one genome in one generation to another
in the next... these must be brought together’.^46 So, for example, ‘genocentism’
is rejected in favour of a comprehensive explanation that would include both
evolution and development. In the same way, a developmental theory of inter-
national politics requires a comprehensive picture integrating world history,
Economics, and Sociology with International Politics.^47 Finally: reflexivity (the
‘strategic monitoring’ of our ideas). Students of International Politics – without
exaggerating our influence – have a role in shaping the collective consciousness
about living globally. The strategic monitoring of the discipline, and of the state of
the world, cannot but lead to the conclusion that global business-as-usual will simply
perpetuate a world that is not working for many fellow humans and for much of
the natural world on which all depend.
I hope the contributions to this book will help in a small way to rekindle a
pluralistic community of scholars with a shared sense of a world out thereneeding
urgent practical help, and a world in heresearching for better theory-building for
political guidance. In Chapter 1 I argued that realism in IR has the function of being
nonsense-challenging, that its various agendas must have their say, and that its ideas
should be engaged with by serious students. But to recognise realism’s roles in these
ways is certainly not the same as endorsing its assumptions, explanations, and
prescriptions. Various chapters have revealed key elements of realism to be at the
wrong end of the discipline’s great debates. In particular: realism privileges
abstraction and efficiency of explanation at the cost of insights from a broader
developmental perspective on world affairs; it prioritises the structure of anarchy
while sidelining ‘cultures of anarchy’ and technological revolutions (notably nuclear
weapons); it maintains traditional assumptions about the separateness of theory and
practice, with the result that the constitutive role of theory and the normative
interests of theory are overlooked; it overemphasises continuity arising from
structure or human nature while downplaying change arising from ideas; and while
realism is not ‘amoral’ in the sense usually implied, it does reify the ethics of statism
and nationalism – ideas which are hostile to solving the problems of the global
neighbourhood.
To argue that realism has been at the wrong end of key debates in IR is not the
same as saying that ideas at the other end are always right. For critical theorists there
is work to do, but jointly. Realism and critical theory are inseparable. The work to
be done involves re-examining powerful realist ideas purporting to explain the world
‘as it is’; as well as developing ideas (such as critical theory’s ‘possible futures’) seeking
to contribute to long-term human survival. The insider problem-solving perspective
of realism constitutes part of critical theory’s meta-problem.
In conclusion: the disciplinary pre-eminence of realism has been that it offers a
widely plausible explanation of how the international world works; its weakness is
340 The inconvenient truth