The Benefits Of Theories In International Relations

The benefits of using theories outweigh the drawbacks because, without theories to break down information, it is difficult to understand international relations. Theories are blueprints that help us to understand our changing world in any possible way. They lend out a helping hand in seeing the larger picture that makes up international relations. The benefits of theories are the clear plans they present of what is to be expected, having an organization of their ideas, and presenting more than one hypothesis; however, the drawbacks are finding flaws within a theory, ignorance of different levels of analysis, and the possibility of finding useless information. Theories have clear, thoughtful ideas which are important when it comes to a plan.

One way that theories show organization is by having subtopics or subdivisions within their broad topic. Organization boosts the understanding of an idea, with out it and clarity, it would be more difficult to explain international relations—a broad term. Constructivism is a perfect example of having subdivisions. Constructivism is split into consistent constructivism and constructivism as a “ 'middle ground ' between rationalist and poststructuralist approaches to IR” (Fierke 193). Within consistent constructivism, one can find language, rules, reasons, and causes, according to Fierke (196-7). Under the middle ground constructivism is deciding whether constructivism is an approach or a theory. Fierke states: “[o]n the one hand, if constructivism and positivism rely on differing assumptions about the nature of 'reality ' then building a constructivist theory on a positivist epistemology is inconsistent” (194). However, he continues: “[o]n the other hand, to treat constructivism as a theory in the same sense as realism is misleading” (194). Fierke questions whether or not one could consider constructivism as a theory or an approach, but ultimately constructivism is a theory—just different from theories such as realism, in his opinion. If Fierke did not organize constructivism into two different categories, the ideas would mix and be hard to understand. Organization of ideas are not just for pretty looks, but

First, theories can have flaws. Theories are blueprints after all; they are not the finalized plan. Theories could be seen as papers that never seem to leave the drafting stage. Not much is constantly changing, but minor changes are being made. DPT—democratic peace theory—within liberalism has inconsistencies, but overall these inconsistencies are not common. One could find many flaws in owning an Android or an iPhone, but that does not stop people from buying them and using them because their flaws are not entirely significant; they are both phones that work how they were designed to just like theories. Second, theories can be ignorant to other levels of analysis. Classical realism, for example, focuses on the first level of analysis—the individual—and overall ignores the state and international level. However, trying to cover the bases of every single level of analysis is not a theory 's intention. It is supposed to be specific and trying to appeal to every level would be near impossible; that is why we have multiple theories to explain international relations. Theories are there to break down each level of analysis. Lastly, theories may seem to have useless information if not analyzed carefully. Detailed information is important and can be significantly useful, but those details could also be unnecessary depending on what an