Alker Article Impressions. [Yoo, Week 1, Substantive & Dialogue]

Alker and Biersteker take a rather post-modern stance when it comes to studying IR theories. In the paper, the authors propose that there is no single IR research theory that has gained world-wide acceptance and hegemony.
Essentially, the world is a disorderly place, especially due to the "century of total war" in the 20th century. IR theories attempt to make sense of this disorder. Yet, these theories widely vary from national setting to setting. For example, in the United States IR debates have focused on traditional vs. behavior approaches, while dialectical approaches dominated the Soviet Union.
In class, we learned about how every day practices and IR theory are interconnected. I interpreted the lecture as being that every day practices can have a great impact on IR policies because the small things people do and feel mold their beliefs. It seems only natural that people's beliefs shape their view of the world, and exert influences on relationships between different states. Also, 'every day practices' are more than simply about 'small things'. I view every day practices as emcompassing a wide variety of human characteristics, as whether one is male or female, where one lives, whether one attends church or temple or not at all, etc. Cultural differences can have a huge impact on IR policy. I agree with Alker and Biersteker in that we need to take into account these variables in order to have a better understanding of IR policies internationally. We cannot assume our ideals are that of others, and that the world state system evolved into its current state due American-centric theories.
However, I agree with Dave that Marxism and communism take a less active role in world politics than it did in the past. Today's world is composed of centralized states with defined borders. There are only about a 190 'states' around the world, and diplomacy is handled between states and not 'nations'. With this in mind, I think the current debates between traditional and behavioral science approaches are more useful. There are still states that are stuck in the Soviet Union model, such as that of North Korea. I do not support ignoring these states, but they generally take a miniscule part in world politics. They are based on failed models of world order. Why focus on an outdated system?
In class, we learned about the evolution of how the modern state system became to be. Especially, the belief that modern states can more effectively deal with the world environment really appealed to me. I feel that if states adapted to become the most efficient system, than IR theories have to adapt to the times as well. As Dave pointed out, globalization is the standard in our state-centric world. Which theories are best at explaining the world? Not radical/Marxist dialectical approaches, I think.