Abstract
While the practice of reinventing realism is by no means novel, recent reinventions have taken a decidedly reflexive turn. This article examines how three particular scholars — Anthony Lang, Michael Williams, and Richard Ned Lebow — have revived some important and relatively obscured principles from classical realists, thereby recovering some practical ethics important for contemporary world politics. The article outlines the principles held in common by this scholarship. Reflexive realism has also resurrected and re-emphasized a once obscured critical voice of realists like Hans Morgenthau. In the process, it has served as a launching pad for a serious critique of eschatological-based philosophy, including neoconservatism. Several avenues for the future development of reflexive realism are also identified.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The quote in article title is Ashley's (1984: 265). Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2006 British International Studies Association (BISA) Annual Meeting in Cork, Ireland, and the 2007 International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, USA. I thank David Ryan for his comments as a discussant on the BISA version. I also thank Kate Schick and Michael C. Williams for their thorough comments on this topic. I am also grateful to the editors of the Journal of International Relations and Development, Stefano Guzzini, and Milan Brglez, and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments.
See for example Owens (2004), Barkin (2004), or Schweller (2006).
It should not be assumed that I am suggesting that these scholars are part of a coordinated effort. They have each produced unique works that when taken together panoramically suggests a trend. Thus stated, these scholars have come together with others to ‘reconsider’ realism at various recent conferences such as ISA San Diego (2006), BISA–Cork (2006), and ISA Chicago (2007).
For differences between neorealism (also termed ‘structural realism’) and neoclassical (the latter titled ‘postclassical’ realism by Brooks), see Brooks (1997), Rose (1998), and the various debates within the Frankel edited volume (1996). For an in-depth analysis of the ‘cottage industry of realist criticism’, see Sullivan (2005). See also Anders Wivel's (2005) article regarding the challenges both neorealism (indeterminacy) and neoclassical realism (context-specificity and ad hoc analysis) face and some proposed strategies for solving those challenges.
The phrase ‘reflexive realism’ is also used in a different context (referring to the work of Sigmund Freud) by literary theorist Perry Meisel (cf. 1984, 1987).
Of course, I acknowledge the internal irony here — Niebuhr, who I argue was one of the first ‘classical reflexive realists’, was a vibrant skeptic of Dewey.
For a comprehensive listing of polling on the Iraq War, see Newsweek Poll at http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm (7 July, 2007)
As noted by Lebow (2003: 55), Gadamer titles the same process the ‘hermaneutic circle’.
‘The standards which define “reliable knowledge” are dependent upon their acceptance and application by a research community’ (Neufeld 1995: 42).
This focus upon skepticism ‘is not blind to the wisdom of Enlightenment science’. Yet because it challenges the epistemic assumptions of positivism by taking what I have termed a ‘reflexive’ position, Wilful realism ‘fundamentally challeng[es] many of the core assumptions of rationalism, rationalist social science, and a “structural” theory of international politics’ (Williams 2005a: 13–14). Interestingly, Guzzini (2004: 548) takes a different reading on realism's view toward ‘science’. In order to resolve the ‘conservative dilemma’ realism faced, it cannot ‘simply rest on tradition; instead, it must argue with evidence which can be intersubjectively shared’. Thus, for Guzzini, ‘realism brought positivity to IR’.
Following Steve Smith's (2002: 77) succinct distinction, see also my recent explication (Steele 2007a) of the differences regarding reflexivity between Onufian and Kratochwilian constructivism, on the one hand, and Wendtian, on the other.
The second ‘preliminary article’ of the English School, according to Tim Dunne (1998: 7–9), is an ‘interpretive approach’.
Most feminist IR scholars are theoretically reflexive (Peterson 1992; Tickner 2005), with the exception being what Tickner (2001: 12–13) terms ‘liberal feminism’ that ‘has generally relied on positivist epistemologies’.
A fascinating proposal for a reflexive liberalism, one perhaps running parallel to my effort here regarding realism, has been constructed by critical theorist Jacque Amoureux (2005).
I am cautious here to not imply that all liberals are idealists let alone that all liberals supported the Iraq War. There exist many liberals, even American liberals, intensely opposed to this aggressive spread of liberal values (cf. Hoffmann 2004; Kupchan and Trubowitz 2007).
Thomas Smith (1999: 58) notes that ‘the most notorious passage which did not find its way into the 1946 edition’ of E. H. Carr's The Twenty Years Crisis was: ‘If the power relations of Europe in 1938 made it inevitable that Czecho-Slovakia should lose part of her territory, and eventually her independence, it was preferable (quite apart from any question of justice or injustice) that this should come about as the result of discussion round a table in Munich rather than as the result either of a war between Great Powers or of a local war between Germany and Czecho-Slovakia’.
In addition to the works cited on the following pages, on liberal intervention see especially Teson (1992, 1998).
John Ehrman reports that Niebuhr was a ‘continuing influence’ upon neoconservatives, at least into the 1990s (Ehrman 1995: 184–85). Yet Williams rightly points out that while ‘Ehrman argues for the influence of Niebuhr in neoconservatism, [he] fails to do so in any depth and without regard for the significant divergences between Niebuhr and neoconservatism’ (2005: 332, endnote 31).
‘Conflict is the fountainhead of progress […] conflict and its incumbent violence impel and justify both the emergence of republican governments and the greater peace necessary to their survival and improvement’ (Huntley 1996: 61, emphasis added).
The reverse is also true, whereby ‘Authors supporting the spread of liberal values, even through force, employ the imperial gesture of dismissing alternative viewpoints as not only unacceptable but deranged’ (Bishai 2004: 51).
This is the basis for Neta Crawford's (2000) seminal critique of neorealist and neoliberal approaches. Although relying heavily on Wendt's (1999) version as the basis for his critique, Andrew A.G. Ross (2006) explicates the same marginalization of emotion in constructivism.
‘Post-structuralism is a semio-critical activity, ever searching for and seeking to dismantle the empirco-rational positions where power fixes meaning’ (Der Derian 1990: 296, emphasis original). I note below the connections that exist between post-structuralism and especially Williams’ ‘reflexive’ or ‘Wilful’ realism.
This is an important distinction with structural realism — human behavior vs anarchy — that a reflexive understanding of realism takes regarding tragedy. As Daniel Warner observes in his review (2006: 226) of Mearsheimer's (2001) and Lebow's (2003) works: ‘Lebow's understanding of the tragic is inherent in human behavior and not in any system’. For more on Mearsheimer's contribution in Tragedy, see Schmidt (2004) and Toft (2005).
Nicholas Rengger (2005), however, challenges this interpretation, stating that tragedy for Morgenthau presupposed that in ‘the law of unintended consequences, human malfeasance and sheer brute luck would, more often than not, get in the way’ of the acknowledgement of the ‘limits’ of human action actually leading to a positive development of the human condition (2005: 324–25).
For the differences between paleoconservatism and neoconservatism, see Williams (2005b).
See Russett and Oneal (2001) for example: ‘as their number grows, democracies seem able to influence international norms and institutions, thereby affecting the probability that force will be used even by states that are not themselves particularly democratic. This influence is also plausible because democracies are more likely to win their wars than autocracies are … This systemic influence is another indirect benefit of democracy for peace’ (2001: 275).
Ron Suskind's (2004: 44) story about his conversation with a Bush administration aide demonstrates the tension that exists between scientific inquiry and neoconservative philosophy: ‘The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community”, which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality”. I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That's not the way the world really works anymore”, he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We’re history's actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do”’. See also Bruce Russett's (2005) recent critique of Bush's use of democratic peace to justify the Iraq War.
‘All efforts to discern […] patterns of development, in the fashion of Hegel, Spencer, or Comte, must do violence to the infinite variety in the strange configurations of history’ (Niebuhr 1959: 7).
It is important to note that, for some, Niebuhr's views on eschatology were suspended regarding the mission of the US, at least until the Vietnam War (Weaver 1995). I discuss this in more detail in the following sub-section.
See Schweller (1996) and Schmidt (2004: 435–36).
Such ‘big ideas’ can, again, be derived from all forms of idealism, including those with a ‘realist’ origin. Lebow (2003: 39) writes that by the middle of the 20th century, ‘To Morgenthau's consternation, prominent representatives of [the American foreign policy] establishment came away with more or less the same understanding of Politics Among Nations as had the idealists, only they endorsed its emphasis on power and alleged disparagement of ethics’.
Again, Niebuhr produced the same contrarian tone in his writings, using on one occasion the Book of Amos as a way to rail against ‘quasi-conformity’ of the Nixon administration: ‘I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies’ (1970: 47).
Weaver continues that in the Vietnam War, for Niebuhr ‘the United States looked less like a mature, responsible world power than it resembled a giant, deranged postal employee, who, having shot everyone in sight, turned the gun on itself as well’. This Indochinese adventure had wrought a change in Reinhold Niebuhr's thinking to a more critical posture (Weaver 1995: 242).
Walt (2006: 3) notes ‘anti-Americanism also increases the population of genuine extremists who use violent means (e.g., terrorism) against us’.
‘When responsibility for government is widely distributed among a great number of individuals with different conceptions as to what is morally required in international affairs […] international morality as an effective system of restraints upon international policy becomes impossible’ (Morgenthau 1948/2006: 257). The problem with the change from aristocracy to democracy was not just normative, but analytical as well. Guzzini writes: ‘Possible in an aristocratic political context, the increasing place of popular sovereignty makes the mere reference to policy elites as a shorthand for a state less convincing’ (1998: 26).
See Buckley (1980) and Kennan (1985/1986).
These two authors are acknowledged as well by Jim George and David Campbell (1990), as presenting realism ‘not as a cohesive, hermetically sealed theoretical tradition, but as the focus of major unresolved tensions in modern western theory’ (1990: 282).
Interestingly, Cox includes no examples from Morgenthau, only Waltz, regarding this issue of ‘ahistoricism’.
‘A realism stuck in the empirical prison of things as they really are encourages a denial and resentment toward things as they truly differ, for it is the will to reduce the other to the same and historical differences to objective laws that builds the traditionalist foundation of realism and divides the actual from the possible’ (Der Derian 1996: 296; see also Alker 1988).
The counter here could be that Lang, Lebow, and Williams may have chosen to pursue their insights through a reflexive reading of classical realists precisely because the field of IR is still a restricted one.
See Lapid (1989).
By 2000, Guzzini could open his seminal article by proclaiming: ‘What a success story! Hardly known a decade ago, constructivism has risen as the officially accredited contender to the established core of the discipline’ (2000: 147).
This ‘turn’ is generally attributed to several publications that appeared in the early 1990s, most notably Chris Brown (1992) and Smith (1992). As David Campbell (2000: 125, endnote 12) writes, there was an additional geographic–analytical component of the normative focus, more ‘self-consciously evident in the UK and Europe, [while] those writing in North America addressing “normative” through other frames of reference, especially the renewed focus on culture and identity’.
References
Alker, Hayward (1988) ‘The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue’, American Political Science Review 82 (3): 805–820.
Amoureux, Jacque L. (2005) ‘A Proposal for Reflexive Liberalism’, Honolulu: International Studies Association Annual Convention, 1–5 March.
Ashley, Richard K. (1981) ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly 25 (2): 204–236.
Ashley, Richard K. (1984) ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization 38 (2): 225–286.
Barkin, Samuel J. (2004) ‘The Tragedy of Realism: Morality, Power, and IR Theory’, International Studies Review 6 (3): 508–509.
Bishai, Linda S. (2004) ‘Liberal Empire’, Journal of International Relations and Development 7 (1): 48–72.
Brooks, Stephen (1997) ‘Dueling Realisms (Realism in International Relations)’, International Organization 51 (3): 445–477.
Brown, Charles C. (1992) A Reinhold Niebuhr Reader, Philadelphia: Trinity Press.
Brown, Chris (1992) International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches, New York: Columbia.
Buckley, William F. (1980) ‘Human Rights and Foreign Policy: A Proposal’, Foreign Affairs 53: 775–796.
Campbell, David (1998) National Deconstruction: Violence, Identity and Justice in Bosnia, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Campbell, David (2000) ‘Justice and International Order: The Case of Bosnia and Kosovo’, in Jean-Marc Coicaud and Daniel Warner, eds, Ethics and International Affairs: Extent and Limits, 103–127, Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Carr, E. H. (1981/2001) The Twenty Years’ Crisis, New York: Palgrave.
Cox, Robert (1981/1986) ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders’, in Robert O. Keohane, ed., Neorealism and its Critics, 204–254, New York: Columbia University Press.
Crawford, Neta (2000) ‘The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotions and Emotional Relationships’, International Security 24 (4): 116–156.
Der Derian, James (1990) ‘The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed’, International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 296–310.
Der Derian, James (1996) ‘A Reinterpretation of Realism’, in Francis A. Beer and Robert Harriman, eds, Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations, 277–304, East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Drulak, Petr (2006) ‘Reflexivity and Structural Change’, in Stefano Guzzini and Anna Leander, eds, Constructivism and International Relations: Alexander Wendt and his Critics, 140–159, London: Routledge.
Dunne, Timothy (1998) Inventing International Society: A History of the English School, Oxford: St. Antony's College.
Ehrman, John (1995) The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and foreign Affairs 1945–1994, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Finnemore, Martha (1996a) National Interests in International Society, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Finnemore, Martha (1996b) ‘Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention’, in Peter Katzenstein, ed., Cultures of National Security, 153–185, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Finnemore, Martha (2003) The Purpose of Intervention, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Frankel, Benjamin, ed. (1996) Realism: Restatements and Renewals, New York: Frank Cass.
George, Jim and David Campbell (1990) ‘Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 34 (3): 269–293.
Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giddens, Anthony (1989) ‘A Reply to My Critics’, in David Held and John B. Thompson, eds, Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his Critics, 249–301, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gilpin, Robert (1981) War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guzzini, Stefano (1998) Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: The Continuing of a Death Foretold, London: Routledge.
Guzzini, Stefano (2000) ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 6 (2): 147–182.
Guzzini, Stefano (2004) ‘The Enduring Dilemmas of Realism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations 10 (4): 533–568.
Hayman, Paul D. (2006) ‘Theoretical Territory: Constructivism and the Consequences of Division’, British International Studies Association Annual Meeting, Cork, December.
Hoffmann, Stanley (2004) America Goes Backward, New York: New York Review of Books.
Huntley, Wade (1996) ‘Kant's Third Image: Systemic Sources of the Liberal Peace’, International Studies Quarterly 40 (1): 45–76.
Ikenberry, John G. (2006) ‘The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations’ (Book Review), Foreign Affairs 85 (1): 145.
Isaacson, Walter (2006) ‘The Return of the Realists’, Time (12 November): available at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1558325-2,00.html (7 July, 2007).
Ish-Shalom, Piki (2006) ‘Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic-Peace Thesis and the Politics of Decentralization’, European Journal of International Relations 12 (4): 565–598.
Kennan, George F. (1985/1986) ‘Morality and Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs 64 (2): 205–218.
Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence, New York: Harper Collins.
Kristol, William and Robert Kagan (1996) ‘Toward and Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy’, Foreign Affairs 75 (4): 18–32.
Kupchan, Charles and Peter Trubowitz (2007) ‘A Grand Strategy for a Divided America’, Foreign Affairs 86 (4): 71–83.
Lang, Anthony D. (2002) Agency and Ethics: The Politics of Military Intervention, Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Lapid, Yosef (1989) ‘The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’, International Studies Quarterly 33 (3): 235–254.
Lebow, Richard Ned (2003) The Tragic Vision of Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linklater, Andrew (1986) ‘Realism, Marxism and Critical International Theory’, Review of International Studies 12 (4): 301–312.
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York: W.W. Norton.
Meisel, Perry (1984) ‘Freud's Reflexive Realism’, October 28:43–57.
Meisel, Perry (1987) The Myth of the Modern, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Moravcsik, Andrew (1997) ‘Taking Preferences Seriously: A Liberal Theory of International Politics’, International Organization 51 (4): 513–553.
Morgenthau, Hans (1948/2006) Politics Among Nations, 6th edn., London: McGraw Hill.
Morgenthau, Hans (1969) A New Foreign Policy for the United States, New York: Frederick A. Prager.
Neufeld, Mark (1995) The Restructuring of International Relations Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1932) Moral Man and Immoral Society, New York: Scribner.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1943) Human Destiny, New York: Scribner.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1959) The Structure of Nations and Empires: A Study of the Recurring Patterns and Problems of the Political Order in Relation to the Unique Problems of the Nuclear Age, New York: Scribner.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1968) ‘Fighting an Intractable Dwarf’, The New Leader 51, reprinted in Charles C. Brown (1992) A Reinhold Niebuhr Reader, 11–12, Philadelphia: Trinity Press.
Niebuhr, Reinhold (1970) ‘Redeemer Nation to Superpower’, The New York Times (4 December): 47.
Nye, Joseph S. (2006) Understanding International Conflict, London: Pearson Longman.
Owens, Patricia (2004) ‘Theorizing Military Intervention’, International Affairs 80 (2): 355–365.
Peterson, V. Spike (1992) ‘Transgressing Boundaries: Theories of Knowledge, Gender, and International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21 (2): 183–206.
Rawls, John (1999) Law of Peoples, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Reinitz, Richard (1980) Irony and Consciousness, Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
Rengger, Nicholas (2005) ‘Tragedy or Skepticism? Defending the Anti-Pelagian Mind in World Politics’, International Relations 19 (3): 321–328.
Rose, Gideon (1998) ‘Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy’, World Politics 51 (1): 144–172.
Rosen, Gary (2005) ‘Bush and the Realists’, Commentary 120 (2): 31–37.
Ross, Andrew A.G. (2006) ‘Coming in from the Cold: Constructivism and Emotion’, European Journal of International Relations 12 (2): 197–222.
Russett, Bruce (2005) ‘Bushwhacking the Democratic Peace’, International Studies Perspectives 6 (4): 395–408.
Russett, Bruce and John Oneal (2001) Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence and International Organizations, London: W.W. Norton.
Schmidt, Brian C. (2004) ‘Realism as Tragedy’, Review of International Studies 30 (3): 427–441.
Schweller, Randall (1996) ‘Neorealism's Status-Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?’, Security Studies 5 (3): 90–121.
Schweller, Randall (2004) ‘Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing’, International Security 29 (2): 159–201.
Schweller, Randall (2006) ‘The Ethical and Political Construction of Action’, International Studies Review 8 (2): 297–299.
Smith, Steve (1992) ‘The Forty Years Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations’, Millennium 21 (3): 489–506.
Smith, Steve (2002) ‘The United States and the Discipline of International Relations: “Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline”’, International Studies Review 4 (2): 67–86.
Smith, Thomas W. (1999) History and International Relations, London: Routledge.
Steele, Brent J. (2007a) ‘Liberal–Idealism: A Constructivist Critique’, International Studies Review 9 (1): 23–52.
Steele, Brent J. (2007b) Ontological Security in International Relations, London: Routledge.
Stone, Ronald H. (1969) ‘An Interview with Reinhold Niebuhr’, Christianity and Crisis 29 (17 March): 50.
Sullivan, Michael P. (2005) ‘‘That Dog Won’t Hunt’: The Cottage Industry of Realist Criticism, or Must you Play that Waltz Again?’, Journal of International Relations and Development 8 (4): 327–354.
Suskind, Ron (2004) ‘Without a Doubt’, The New York Times (17 October): 44.
Teson, Fernando R. (1992) ‘The Kantian Theory of International Law’, Columbia Law Review 53: 53–102.
Teson, Fernando R. (1998) ‘Kantian International Liberalism, in David R. Mapel and Terry Nardin, eds, International Society: Diverse Ethical Perspectives, 103–113, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tickner, J. Ann (2001) Gendering World Politics, New York: Columbia University Press.
Tickner, J. Ann (2005) ‘What Is Your Research Program? Some Feminist Answers to International Relations Methodological Questions’, International Studies Quarterly 49 (1): 1–22.
Toft, Peter (2005) ‘John J. Mearsheimer: An Offensive Realist Between Geopolitics and Power’, Journal of International Relations and Development 8 (4): 381–408.
Vertzberger, Yaacov (2005) ‘The Practice and Power of Collective Memory’ (review of Trauma and the Memory of Politics), International Studies Review 7 (1): 117–120.
Walt, Stephen M. (2006) ‘‘Realpolitik’ Letter to the Editor’, Commentary 121 (1): 3–4.
Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Warner, Daniel (2006) ‘Two Realist Readings of the Tragic in International Relations’, International Relations 20 (2): 225–230.
Weaver, Jace (1995) ‘Original Simplicities and Present Complexities: Reinhold Niebuhr, Ethnocentrism, and the Myth of American Exceptionalism’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 63 (2): 231–247.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1966) Springfield, MA: Merriam.
Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Westbrook, Robert B. (1991) John Dewey and American Democracy, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Wheeler, Nicholas (2000) Saving Strangers: Humanitarian Intervention in International Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Michael C. (2005a) The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Michael C. (2005b) ‘What is the National Interest? The Neoconservative Challenge in IR Theory’, European Journal of International Relations 11 (3): 307–338.
Williams, Michael C., ed. (forthcoming) Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in International Relations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wivel, Anders (2005) ‘Explaining Why State X Made a Certain Move Last Tuesday: The Promise and Limitations of Realist Foreign Policy Analysis’, Journal of International Relations and Development 8 (4): 355–380.
Wohlforth, William (1993) The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions During the Cold War, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Youde, Jeremy (2005) ‘The Development of a Counter-Epistemic Community: AIDS, South Africa, and International Regimes’, International Relations 19 (4): 421–440.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steele, B. ‘Eavesdropping on honored ghosts’: from classical to reflexive realism. J Int Relat Dev 10, 272–300 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800130
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jird.1800130