Product Description

Are the workings of the international world to be explained scientifically, or are they to be understood through their inward meaning? In Explaining and Understanding International Relations philosopher Martin Hollis and international relations scholar Steve Smith join forces to analyse the dominant theories of international relations and to examine the philosophical issues underlying them. The book has three parts. In the first the authors review the growth of the discipline since 1918, pose the 'level of analysis' problem of whether to account for a sytem in terms of its units or vice versa, and contrast the demand of scientific method with those of interpretative understanding. In the second they apply the contrast to four factors often cited in accounting for international behaviour - the international system, the state, bureaucracies, and decision-making individuals. Rival accounts of the games nations play are offered in readiness for the final part, where the authors propose a theoretical agenda, air their differences, and invite readers to take sides. By tackling deep theoretical issues with lucidity and verve this book will excite debate among theorists and students of international relations while also engaging thought about the philosophical character of the social sciences.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #136226 in Books
• Published on: 1991-07-04
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 240 pages

About the Author
Martin Hollis is the co-author, with F. Hahn, of the 1979 OUP book Philosophy and Economic Theory which sold 4000 copies before going out of print.

Customer Reviews

Relentless analysis
Very thorough. This acts as an excellent introductory framework, as a firm challenge in many areas of International Relations and also as an attempt at a new approach, seeing individuals as role-players in institutions.

Relentless in its analysis and sometimes hard-going, but also full of wit and clear examples. I was left with some questions about how much of a difference really exists between Hollis' view and Smith's view on the relative importance of 'explaining' and 'understanding', probably because they have done such a fine job of bringing the two together. Nevertheless, there is a vague sense that the clash of views and analytical options has not been described quite right yet. The criticisms of realism, foreign policy analysis and supposedly 'scientific' theories is spot on, and the debate on structure and agency fruitful.

A very important book, with lots to say about rationality in IR, that will repay closer attention and re-reading.