Midrange Theories in International Relations

The course is transitioning from grand theories (realism, liberalism, constructivism, postmodernism) to midrange theories.
Grand theories aim to answer broad, overarching questions about international relations.
The focus will primarily be on the bureaucratic politics model to understand the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Midrange theories aim to explain specific aspects or events in international relations.
There's a re-emergence of midrange theories after the decline of grand theories.
Limitations of midrange theories will be discussed, similar to the approach with grand theories.

There is an ongoing debate in international relations scholarship about the role and value of grand theories.
International relations has been dominated by inter-paradigm debates or "great debates" for about 70-80 years.
Most scholars discuss three great debates, though some divide the third into multiple parts.

The first great debate is between realists and liberals (or idealists/utopians).
This debate began after World War I, focusing on how to prevent future devastating conflicts.
Liberals advocated for international institutions like the League of Nations and international law to moderate conflict, creating institutions like the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Realists, drawing from thinkers like Thucydides, argued that preparing for war and balancing power are necessary to avoid conflict, viewing liberal ideas as wishful thinking.
The rise of Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s seemed to validate the realist perspective as the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II.
After World War II, realism dominated scholarship, but liberals argued that international institutions can have some impact and highlighted the importance of norms and democracy.
The first debate ended without a clear winner; both sides made valid points.

The second great debate concerned methodology, specifically the application of natural science methods to international relations.
Behavioralists: Inspired by the natural sciences and advances in mathematics, they advocated a more scientific approach using quantitative analysis and statistics. They focused on quantifiable data and mathematically tested hypotheses.
Traditionalists: Favored qualitative analysis and historical context, including ethics and morality, which are difficult to quantify. Machiavelli is cited as an example of a qualitative analyst.
Traditionalists argued that ignoring non-quantifiable factors like morality and ethics would lead to an incomplete understanding of politics.
Behavioralists initially gained dominance, particularly in North American political science departments, leading some traditionalists to the UK and the establishment of the English School.
However, the limits of quantitative analysis became apparent, and traditional approaches, along with postmodernism and discourse theory, made a comeback, resulting in no clear winner.

The third great debate also relates to methodology, pitting positivists against post-positivists.
Positivists (who might use traditional or quantitative methodology) believe in an objective and independent reality.
Post-positivists (e.g., postmodernists and constructivists) challenge the notion of an objective reality and question how it can be measured or understood.
This debate resulted in the two sides talking past each other, unable to agree on a common frame of reference.
Anne Tickner and Robert Cohane's debate exemplifies this disconnect.

The lack of resolution in the great debates has led to a challenging situation for grand theory.
Scholars operate in independent silos, not engaging with one another's work.
Some see this as an opportunity for non-Western theories or a shift, exemplified by Lake, towards midrange theorizing.

The inconclusiveness of the grand debates has allowed for the reemergence of midrange theories.
The analogy of mammals emerging after the extinction of the dinosaurs is used to describe the current rise of midrange theories.
Midrange theories are narrowly focused and aim to solve real-world problems, with a greater emphasis on application.
David Lake supports midrange theories for addressing specific problems in world politics.

One critique is that midrange theories are too narrowly focused, leading to a loss of the big picture, according to scholars like Walt and Mearsheimer.
Grand theories provide an overarching understanding of how different aspects of international relations fit together.
Critics argue that midrange theories lead to simplistic hypothesis testing and a failure to grasp foundational concepts.
Another critique is that midrange theories can be idiosyncratic and ad hoc, lacking rigorous scientific explanations and predictive power.
They are often more backward-looking (ex post facto) than forward-looking.
Midrange theories struggle to explain unexpected events or generalize effectively.
Critics argue that midrange theories create isolated "islands of theory" disconnected from the broader context of international relations.
For those who favor grand theories, this isolation is a significant weakness.