philosophy, and other social sciences. From a more applied perspec-
tive, the left–right distinction also has the potential to open up a fertile
research program within constructivism. This theoretical approach is
indeed defined by the importance it ascribes to ideas in world politics.
Yet constructivists have to date paid relatively little attention to the
ideologies that actually shape international relations. Global in scope,
the left–right framework undoubtedly offers a useful approach to
closing this gap, as well as being a core instrument in the elaboration
of a grammar of international discourse.
Conclusion
The left–right metaphor does not explain everything. The politics of
identity, the war on terrorism, and the global environmental debate
have cultural and sociological foundations that are certainly distinct
from the opposition between progressive and conservative ideas or
forces. Identity politics, for instance, is anchored in deep psycho-
logical perceptions about a person’s sense of belonging. Both the war
on terrorism and the global environmental debate have to do, as well,
with the interests of states. Still, each of these debates is undeniably
fashioned and constructed as an opposition between the left and the
right. Without this distinction, it would in fact be very difficult to
comprehend these contemporary conflicts. In that sense, the left–right
metaphor is truly the core currency of political exchange.
Political science and international relations scholarships are also
shaped and defined by this ubiquitous opposition. In his recent survey
of the social sciences, Peter Hall makes this connection transparent by
noting that his colleagues have experienced their “own version of the
culture wars, sparked by the imperial ambitions of those who seem to
hope that rational choice analysis will provide a new master social
science.”^104 In both political science and international relations,
scholars are indeed divided over methodology, epistemology, and
relevance, and these divisions fundamentally reflect in sophisticated
ways the enduring opposition between conservatives and progressives.
Obviously, these divisions – or the widespread agreement to disagree –
are there to stay. Scholars would be well advised, however, to acquire
a better understanding of their differences, and to gain, as Theodore
(^104) Hall, “The Dilemmas of Contemporary Social Science.”
The core currency of political exchange 229