a binary categorization, the left–right model isa priorino more
reductive than the “rationalism v. constructivism” debate, or any of
the great debates that have framed the history of the discipline. More
substantively, it should be stressed that the right clearly has greater
affinities with rationalists, while the left is more in harmony with
constructivists.
Of course, not all rationalists are conservatives, nor is every con-
structivist a progressive. Nevertheless, as in comparative politics, the
right is more comfortable with the methodological individualism, the
references to economics, and the problem-solving approach typical of
rationalism. The left, for its part, certainly feels more at home with the
cultural structuralism, the references to sociology, and the critical
approach of constructivism. It is often said that the knowledge pro-
duced by rationalists is oriented more toward the status quo, while
that produced by constructivists “is more useful for changing the
world.”^99 This distinction parallels the opposition between tradition
and emancipation that is intrinsic to many definitions of left and
right.^100 The ontological and epistemological issues that divide
international relations scholars today are obviously too complex to be
reduced to an opposition between progressives and conservatives.
Still, the debate between rationalists and constructivists does not exist
in a political vacuum, and within this conceptual conversation the left
and the right have their respective preferences.
The entwinement of methodological controversies and ideological
cleavages is nothing new in international relations. At least two of the
great debates that have characterized the evolution of the discipline –
the “idealism v. realism” debate of the interwar period, and the
“positivism v. postpositivism” debate of the 1980s – displayed a
rather obvious left–right pattern. The right generally lined up with
the realists and the positivists, whereas the left aligned itself with the
idealists and the postpositivists. Admittedly, the “traditionalism
v. scientism” debate of the 1950s and 1960s is more difficult to decode
using a left–right framework, which only confirms the notion that
methodological issues transcend politics. At the same time, however,
it is important to consider that there is no unanimity on the status of
(^99) Wendt,Social Theory of International Politics, p. 378.
(^100) Norberto Bobbio,Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction,
Chicago University Press, 1996, p. 47.
The core currency of political exchange 227