typologies provided by normal science pay little attention to inter-
sections among competing schools of thought. They skim over the fact
that some liberals accept the assumptions of realism regarding power
and self-interest, that some constructivists share the liberal idea of
progress and cooperation, or that some neoMarxists and construct-
ivists agree on the importance of distinguishing “problem-solving
theory” from “critical theory.” Second, the standard typologies do not
account very well for the nuances that exist within each paradigm.
And yet the defensive realists’ conception of power and security is not
identical to that of offensive realists, there are various views on
democracy and markets among liberals, not all neoMarxists attribute
equal importance to structures of production, and constructivists do
not all share the same epistemological perspective. Most of these
subtleties are simply glossed over in conventional accounts of world
politics.
The different theories of international relations are seen as incom-
mensurable because, in a normal science perspective, they each coin-
cide with a discrete and monolithic worldview, without sharing any
common denominator with the others. Hence, usual classifications
seem incapable of locating theories on a continuum or a scale like the
left–right spectrum. One could possibly infer that by describing the
characteristics of realism, liberalism, neoMarxism, and constructivism
in that order, certain taxonomies rate each theory on the basis of its
relative popularity in the academic community. But aside from the
fact that this method is rarely made explicit, its scientific validity is in
any case doubtful. Approaches dominant in North America are not
the same as those prevailing in the Third World.^92
The “normal science” method of classifying international relations
theories has recently been challenged in an innovative way by Alexander
Wendt. Drawing on social theory, Wendt considers “four sociologies”
of international politics based on two key debates: one between
materialists and idealists, and the other between individualists and
(^92) See Stephanie G. Neuman, “International Relations Theory and the Third
World: An Oxymoron?,” in Stephanie G. Neuman (ed.),International
Relations Theory and the Third World, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1998,
pp. 1–29; and Arlene Tickner, “Seeing IR Differently: Notes from the Third
World,”Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, 2003,
295–324.
224 Left and Right in Global Politics