the “traditionalism v. scientism” debate in the history of international
relations. Indeed, some experts suggest that this controversy had no
bearing on the “substantive aspects of the subject matter of inter-
national politics,” and thus regard it as a “pseudo-debate.”^101
In the end, the left–right cleavage in international relations very
much concerns the way scholars represent the social relations that
define their own community. Typically, the right has a more con-
sensual, and the left a more conflictual view of the situation. In his
1999 International Studies Association (ISA) presidential address,
Michael Brecher, for instance, proposed a clearly non-politicial vision
of the field, which he described as a “mature social science discipline.”
Skeptical toward pluralism, he maintained that “continuing fratricides
among paradigms and methodologies” could lead to the implosion of
international relations theory. According to Brecher, not only should
“synthesis in every facet of the field” be a goal in itself, but “it would
also enhance our contribution to society, especially to foreign policy
and national security decision-makers.”^102 When Steve Smith pre-
sented his own ISA presidential speech a few years later, the tone
was markedly different. Adopting a normative stance open to a variety
of theoretical positions, he claimed that “there is no view from
nowhere,” and that academic perspectives are always linked to social
forces. In his critical analysis, Smith further argued that the discipline
of international relations had “effectively served as a handmaiden
to Western power and interests.”^103 Brecher and Smith held the same
prestigious post, but stood for quite distinct values. There is little
doubt as to where each one can be located in the left–right spectrum.
The left–right opposition enlightens our understanding of inter-
national relations theory because it helps historicize the debates of
the discipline and clarify their political meaning. Such added value
is particularly welcome because it encourages dialog and bridge-
building among international relations, comparative politics, political
(^101) Brian C. Schmidt, “On the History and Historiography of International
Relations,” in Carlsnaes, Risse, and Simmons (eds.),Handbook of
102 International Relations, p. 14.
Michael Brecher, “International Studies in the Twentieth Century and Beyond:
Flawed Dichotomies, Synthesis, Cumulation,”International Studies
Quarterly, vol. 43, no. 2, 1999, 213–64, pp. 214 and 252.
(^103) Steve Smith, “Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations
Theory and September 11,”International Studies Quarterly, vol. 48, no. 3,
2004, 499–515, pp. 500 and 513.
228 Left and Right in Global Politics