Halliday Article

Halliday seems to understand that the study of international relations needs to shift to reflect the changing international system as well as the changes in society. His four tenets of what IR as a whole needs to be are a) a way to train one's mind, b) a way to organzie thoughts into coherent systems, c) a way for people to specialize in one area, such as foreign policy, and d) be a lense through which we can view contemporary issues. All of this needs to be able to adapt based on what social norms we have and via history.

I thought two things when he first said this, the first being "tell me something I don't know." He seems to take for granted that no one applies history lessons to IR, as if its only taught in schools as a discipline rather. He talks about its similarities to other social sciences but recognizes the need to have a real world application. History should be examined (such as the changes since the Pelopponesian Wars) and then extrapolated upon. I myself sort of thought that was the whole point to IR, but maybe it's just a way for teachers to get paid.

In his final paragraphs he mentions some of the things IR theory can help to understand, such as ethics. But I am starting to feel as though only constructivism answers all questions about the world at large. At first I'll admit I sort of regarded constructivism as some kind of joke as it gives very little boundries to what in entails. But now I begin to see it as a strength as we move along. My group presentation was based heavily on constructivism (Terrorism &"The Clash") and now I see that the other theories don't have any means of dealing with religion, terrorism, or ethics. It's as though Halliday is deep constructivist and doesn't really know it.