The Inter-Paradigm Debate

Question 1

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Key arguments

Answer 1

1. What is the IPD?
2. Anarchy vs Hierarchy
3. Theoretical incoherency of the IPD
4. Structural Effects on IRT
5. Theoretical implications for understanding core IRT concepts

Question 2

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Argument - What is the Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD)?

Answer 2

• It separates Mainstream IR Theories (MIRTs) - realism, liberalism, and constructivism - from Critical IR Theories (CIRTs) - primarily neo-Marxism and neo-Gramscianism
• It is framed around two fundamentally different assumptions about the structure of the international system:
  • Anarchy: Central to MIRTs.
  • Hierarchy: Central to CIRTs.

Core Argument:
These two terms - anarchy and hierarchy - have become organising principles for theory-building in IR, but their meanings are so contested, the debate becomes theoretically irresolvable for the discipline

Question 3

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Argument - Anarchy vs. Hierarchy: Defining the Divide

Answer 3

Mainstream Theories (MIRTs)
- Shared Assumption: The international system is anarchic,

Key Differences within MIRTs:
- Realists: Anarchy leads to self-help, security competition, and war.
- Liberals: Anarchy is problematic but can be mitigated through institutions and interdependence.
- Constructivists: Anarchy is not deterministic but socially constructed (Wendt: “anarchy is what states make of it”)

Key concept: “Problem-solving theory” (Cox, 1981) - MIRTs accept the world as it is and seek ways to mitigate conflict within it. They do not challenge the status quo.

Critical Theories
- Shared Assumption: The international system is hierarchical, characterised by institutionalised inequality
- Neo-Marxists: Focus on economic exploitation (e.g. core-periphery models)
- Neo-Gramscians: Emphasise ideational and cultural domination, especially cultural hegemony

Key concept: “Emancipation” – CIRTs aim to challenge and transform the structures of power embedded in the system (inspired by Marx and Kant)

Question 4

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Argument - Theoretical Incoherency of the IPD

Answer 4

1. Conceptual Incoherence Within Paradigms
   Anarchy: Even within mainstream theories, scholars define it differently:
   - Waltz (1979): Absence of government (ruler), rules, and rule (enforcement)
   - Krasner (1992): Absence of higher authority and enforceable rules
   - Donnelly (2015): At least 20 definitions, grouped into: absence of a ruler, rule, or rules

• These variations lead to contradictory assumptions, especially over the relevance of international institutions

Hierarchy: Also fractured
- Wallerstein: Capitalist world-system with a static core–periphery–semi-periphery structure (static)
- Cox: Social forces can reshape hierarchy - hierarchy is not fixed (dynamic)

2. The Ontological Reversal Problem
   Ganchev shows both anarchy and hierarchy can be theorised as either:
   - A root cause (foundational structure),
   - Or a structural effect (product of deeper forces)

Question 5

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Argument - Structural Effects on IRT

Answer 5

Fragmentation of Research Agendas

• Paradigms operate in silos - little dialogue or engagement across paradigms
• Key insight: Despite shared terms (e.g. ‘anarchy’), paradigms do not share meanings

Question 6

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Argument - Theoretical Implications for Understanding Core IRT Concepts

Answer 6

1. States
   In MIRTs:
   - Treated as rational, sovereign actors reacting to anarchy
   In CIRTs:
   - Viewed as embedded in global structures of inequality
   - Cox: States are not unitary actors; they are shaped by internal and external social forces
2. War and Power
   - Realism: War is a product of anarchy and power maximisation
   - Liberalism: War can be prevented through norms and institutions
   - Constructivism: War depends on the social meanings attached to anarchy and identity
   - CIRTs: War reflects deeper economic and ideological hierarchies, not just strategic concerns
3. The International System
   - Mainstream: Defined by anarchy
   - Critical: Defined by hierarchy

Question 7

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

“Critical scholars disagree on…”

Answer 7

“…the definition of their shared assumption of hierarchy”

Question 8

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

“Theoretically…”

Answer 8

“…irresolvable”

Question 9

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Strengths

Answer 9

1. The IPD exposes foundational assumptions and forces theoretical self-awareness
2. The IPD introduces structural diversity into the study of the international system
3. The IPD reveals the limits of paradigmatic silos and encourages theoretical pluralism

Question 10

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Strength - 1. The IPD exposes foundational assumptions and forces theoretical self-awareness

Answer 10

• The debate compels scholars to confront how their paradigms conceptualise the international system etc.
• This fosters self-reflexivity, making theorists more aware of the philosophical and political roots of their claims
• It challenges the illusion of neutrality, highlighting that theoretical choices are never apolitical
• Whereas realism, liberalism etc. often assume their core concepts as given, the IPD brings those assumptions into question
• Offers a meta-theoretical lens that pushes all IR theories to justify their conceptual foundations

Question 11

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Strength - 2. The IPD introduces structural diversity into the study of the international system

Answer 11

• Reveals that the international system can be interpreted not just through the absence of authority (anarchy) but also through the presence of power asymmetries and institutionalised inequality (hierarchy)
• This broadens the conceptual architecture of IRT by incorporating multiple structural logics
• Most mainstream theories treat the international system as functionally uniform
• The IPD disrupts this homogeneity by legitimising theories (like Marxism, post-colonialism,) that analyse how structural hierarchies shape global outcomes
• The IPD allows for non-anarchic ontologies, bringing in capitalist exploitation, historical subjugation, and hegemonic ideology as system-defining features
• Offers an ability to theorise global inequality, dependency, and structural violence as central - rather than peripheral - features of IR

Question 12

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Strength - 3. The IPD reveals the limits of paradigmatic silos and encourages theoretical pluralism

Answer 12

• The IPD has exposed how ‘boxing’ theories into paradigms can lead to intellectual fragmentation
• Ganchev’s critique demonstrates that shared terms (like anarchy or hierarchy) don’t imply shared meanings, and that rigid paradigmatic boundaries hinder meaningful synthesis
• IRT’s evolution prompting scholars to look beyond labels and engage in cross-paradigm thinking
• The IPD uniquely identifies structural causes of theoretical fragmentation in the discipline itself

Question 13

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Weaknesses

Answer 13

1. The IPD entrenches a false binary between anarchy and hierarchy
2. The IPD misrepresents the discipline’s history and marginalises non-Western and pre-1919 thought
3. The IPD inhibits theoretical synthesis and innovation

Question 14

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Weakness - The IPD entrenches a false binary between anarchy and hierarchy

Answer 14

• Although the IPD claims to expose the divide between anarchy and hierarchy, it ends up reifying a rigid binary rather than resolving it
• This framing risks oversimplifying the international system, forcing scholars into either ontologies
• It ignores hybrid or complex configurations (e.g. hierarchical features within an anarchic system) and constrains theory-building within binary categories that do not reflect empirical reality
• The English School views the international system not as strictly anarchic or hierarchical but as a pluralist society of states with layered norms and institutions
• Rather than dismantling theoretical walls, the IPD often reinforces them by treating anarchy and hierarchy as definitive starting points rather than evolving outcomes of interaction, history, or discourse

Question 15

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Weakness - The IPD misrepresents the discipline’s history and marginalises non-Western and pre-1919 thought

Answer 15

• Ganchev critiques the tendency of the IPD to impose post-1945 paradigms onto earlier thinkers like DuBois, Mackinder, or Angell
• This practice distorts intellectual history, reducing multidimensional ideas to simplistic ‘-isms’
• This approach marginalises non-Western contributions, pre-1945 theoretical richness
• It prioritises presentist categorisation over genuine engagement with alternative visions of international order
• Postcolonial theorists criticise how IR law formation distorts non-Western voices and the colonial context of global politics
• By mislabelling early thinkers or marginalising non-Western traditions, the IPD contributes to a narrow and Western-centric disciplinary narrative, limiting the scope of what is considered “theoretical” in IR

Question 16

“A Reflexive Critique of Inter-paradigm Divisions in International Relations Theory: On Anarchy, Hierarchy and Pre-1919 Theory” - Ivo Ganchev

Weakness - The IPD inhibits theoretical synthesis and innovation

Answer 16

• Despite its intent to map divisions, the IPD has become a source of fragmentation, encouraging scholars to work within entrenched paradigms rather than seek cross-paradigm synthesis
• This discourages problem-driven scholarship and deters scholars from integrating insights across paradigms
• It contributes to a stagnant research culture, where theories defend ideas instead of collaboratively addressing evolving global issues
• By perpetuating labels over questions, the IPD limits the field’s ability to adapt to interconnected global realities that do not map neatly onto existing paradigms

Question 17

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

Key arguments

Answer 17

1. What Is the Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD) in IRT?
2. Positivism as the Underlying Constraint of the IPD
3. How the IPD Shapes Core IRT Concepts
4. Why the IPD Was Structurally Limiting
5. The Real Debate Was Epistemological, Not Paradigmatic
6. The IPD’s Lasting Impact on IR

Question 18

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

Argument - What Is the Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD) in IRT?

Answer 18

• Definition and Origin - The Inter-Paradigm Debate (IPD), particularly associated with the 1980s, is characterised by attempts to reconcile or distinguish among three main theoretical traditions:
  Realism
  Pluralism/Liberalism
  Structuralism/Globalism (e.g. Marxism)
• Smith argues, however, that these paradigms did not truly challenge each other at a foundational level, because they all shared a commitment to positivist assumptions

Question 19

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

Argument - Positivism as the Underlying Constraint of the IPD

Answer 19

• The inter-paradigm debate is not a true epistemological or ontological debate - it is a debate within a shared methodological framework rooted in positivism
• Smith defines positivism in IR as:
  1. A belief in naturalism (that social science should mimic the natural sciences)
  2. The assumption of regularities in the international system
  3. A theory-observation distinction
  4. A reliance on empirical verification or falsification
• These assumptions structure what can be studied, what counts as theory, and which types of knowledge are valued
• Because realism, liberalism, and structuralism all operated within positivism, the inter-paradigm debate simply offered “three versions of one world” rather than genuine alternatives

Question 20

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

Argument - How the IPD Shapes Core IRT Concepts

Answer 20

States
- The state is largely treated as a rational, observable unit
- Positivist methodologies rely on treating the state as a unit of analysis, capable of producing empirical generalisations about behaviour (e.g. decision-making, balancing, cooperation)
- However, this limits how we can theorise state identity or ideational factors which post-positivist approaches later emphasised

Power and War
- Power, under positivist assumptions, is typically treated as material and measurable (e.g. military capability, economic capacity)
- War is seen as the result of measurable factors: polarity, misperception, or structural pressures
- This removes any analysis of how power is socially constructed

The International System
- All IPD paradigms treat the international system as objective
- Whether it’s an anarchic structure, interdependence, or capitalist exploitation, the system is presumed to be externally existing and observable
- Post-positivists challenge this, arguing that the system itself is constructed and shaped by power relations, language, and history

Question 21

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

Argument - The Real Debate Was Epistemological, Not Paradigmatic

Answer 21

• The real division in IR theory is not between realism, liberalism, and Marxism - but between positivist and post-positivist approaches
• Smith calls this the Third Great Debate in IR:
• First: Idealism vs. Realism (1930s–40s)
• Second: Traditionalism vs. Behaviouralism (1960s)
• Third: Positivism vs. Post-Positivism (1980s–1990s)

Question 22

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

Argument - The IPD’s Lasting Impact on IR

Answer 22

Despite the rise of alternative epistemologies, positivism still dominates:

• Realism and liberalism remain committed to testability, generalisability, and empirical observation
• Alternative voices (e.g. post-structuralism, feminist epistemology) are often sidelined as non-scientific

Question 23

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

“Positivism is a methodological view that…”

Answer 23

“…combines naturalism… and a belief in regularities.”

Question 24

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith

“They could be seen as three versions of one world, rather than…”

Answer 24

“…three genuine alternative views of international relations.”

Question 25

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith “Theories do not simply explain or predict,…”

Answer 25

“…they tell us what possibilities exist for human action and intervention.”

Question 26

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith Strengths

Answer 26

1. The argument exposes the hidden epistemological unity behind supposed theoretical pluralism 2. The argument challenges disciplinary power and opens space for alternative voices

Question 27

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith Strength - The argument exposes the hidden epistemological unity behind supposed theoretical pluralism

Answer 27

- All three paradigms treat the international system as an objective, external reality governed by observable regularities - This reframes what the real divisions in the field are - Rather than accepting the IPD as a sign of openness or pluralism, Smith shows that the field has been epistemologically narrow, marginalising post-positivist voices - This matters because it shapes what counts as valid knowledge and which voices are legitimised in theory-making - Most mainstream theories focus on solving problems within the existing system - Smith’s critique stands apart by shifting the focus to how knowledge itself is produced and constrained - Offers a meta-theoretical lens that challenges the disciplinary foundations of IRT

Question 28

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith Strength - The argument challenges disciplinary power and opens space for alternative voices

Answer 28

- Smith’s analysis shows that positivist gatekeeping within the IPD has excluded non-conforming perspectives - He illustrates how power operates within the discipline itself, through control over what is considered legitimate theory - This strength is crucial because it expands the field’s self-understanding by showing that epistemology is not neutral, but deeply political - By exposing how mainstream paradigms reproduce dominant forms of knowledge, Smith’s argument pushes IRT to become more inclusive

Question 29

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith Weaknesses

Answer 29

1. Overemphasis on epistemology risks neglecting explanatory power and empirical usefulness 2. Neglect of ontology and material structure in favour of epistemological critique

Question 30

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith Weakness - Overemphasis on epistemology risks neglecting explanatory power and empirical usefulness

Answer 30

- Smith’s argument centres heavily on epistemological critique, which can undermine the practical utility of IR theory by deprioritising explanation, prediction, and policy relevance - EG, by dismissing realism, liberalism, and Marxism as three “versions of one world”, Smith risks ignoring the substantive differences in how these theories explain phenomena like war, cooperation, or global inequality - This weakness is exposed through neorealism and neoliberalism, both of which maintain that theories must offer falsifiable, empirically grounded insights if they are to be useful - Smith overlooks the practical benefits of positivist-informed theories, especially in analysing state behaviour and institutional design - Smith’s emphasis on reflexivity and pluralism, while valuable, can render IR too abstract and detached from real-world application if not balanced with empirical analysis. It risks trading explanation for critique, weakening the field’s relevance to practitioners

Question 31

“Positivism and Beyond” - Steve Smith Weakness - Neglect of ontology and material structure in favour of epistemological critique

Answer 31

- While Smith thoroughly critiques how knowledge is produced in IR, he pays less attention to ontological debates - such as the nature of the international system, the material basis of power, or the role of structural constraints in shaping state behaviour - This leaves his critique somewhat epistemologically top-heavy: rich in methodological reflection but light on engagement with the actual substance of international politics - Marxism argues that IR cannot be fully understood without analysing the material structures of power - capital accumulation, class relations, imperialism - which are ontologically prior to how knowledge is framed - Smith overlooks the structural logic of global capitalism (Wallerstein, Cox).