QUESTION 1 PART A TAKE1 Presentism Encourages a forward looking contemporary approach to the study of IR largely reversing the suggestion of using the past to understand the present As a consequence the few historical times and places that resemble the international anarchy of modern Europe namely Greece Renaissance Italy warring states period in China receive a disproportionate amount of attention Ahistoricism Encompasses the desire to find universal laws much like those applying to natural sciences that are immune to historical variation Ahistoricism is heavily reliant on the widely held belief that the texture of international politics does not change over time and events repeat themselves in patterns a concept that until recently has been increasingly challenged Seeking to compare the conflicts between Athens and Sparta and the United States and the USSR for example would require distortion beyond recognition of underlying social structures forming early city states Eurocentrism Provides an account of history and IR that focuses mainly on aspects of the European model and the global international system they initially created Addressing the whole of classical history in terms of the international system however requires looking at the origins of other kinds of systems that existed before the Europeans subordinated everything to their own anarchic model Afro Eurasian systems for instance have largely been overlooked in spite of its earlier existence s Anarchophilia As a consequence of Ahistoric and Eurocentric perceptions this normative assumption gives unnecessary attention to the virtues of anarchy a concept that Liberals have conversely seen as the main cause of war and disorder It is argued that anarchy is actually just one extreme in a spectrum ranging across international history one in which other conditions such as suzerainty dominion hegemony and empire have also existed State Centrism Explains attempts of theorists to conceptualize IR and the international system by focusing overwhelmingly on the military political dimension s of the state Describing the international system as more than just a synonym for the state however requires the integration of social economic and environmental developments all of which occur on a transnational level TAKE2 Presentism concerned with contemporary history expertise needed on current events Calls for forward thinking rather than backward thinking Insisting or assuming that what prevails today also prevailed in every other time and place Ahistorisim the search for general laws that apply to the past as well as the present Theorists seek to identify laws that are immune to historical variation Studying the past but only to discover general laws to apply to all times and places Eurocentrism Brought 1st international system together through colonialism and those not with Euro stamp were forced to conform for example Japan May be true but the history can be told by ignoring and distorting info Eurocentric accounts invariably ignore Afro Eurasian system that evolved long before the Euros began to extend across the globe Very closely related to Edward Said s Orientalism IR is too commonly studied from this very Eurocentric perspective w a co commitment failure to come to terms w how non euros others understand IR and organize their world assuming that what happened in Europe and the broader West is a microcosm of what happened everywhere Anarchophilia IR for the past 5000 years has not been anarchic but arranged on a spectrum anarchy at one end and empire at the other with hegemony suzerainty and dominion in between Assuming that anarchy is natural and at its root eternal in International Relations State centrism almost inseparable from anarchophilia Big reason for underdeveloped conceptualization of the international system Assuming that states are always and forever the dominant actors in International Relations TAKE3 Ahistoricism implies that specialists should be searching for general laws that apply to the past as well as the present Euro centrism traces the origins of Europe and their anarchic model rather than tracing the whole sweep of ancient and classical history in terms of the international system Euro centric accounts invariably ignore the Afro Eurasian system that existed long before the Europeans began to extend across the globe State centrism is the assumption that states are always and forever dominant actors in the realm of IR Presentism is the idea that a few specialists consider the historical knowledge within a discipline and focus on a forward rather than backward looking perspective Anarchophilia is the assumption that anarchy is natural rather than an extreme on the spectrum hegemony suzerainty and dominion are in between TAKE4 Presentism A tendency to look into the past through a contemporary modern present lens Analysts will occasionally look into the past and study history but only for the purpose of uncovering parallels to the modern European experience They don t take in the full scope of the international system in history overall 19 Focus tends to be placed on events that were only important in Western society s history Ahistoricism implies that social scientists need to search for laws that apply across time Eurocentrism a strong force in IR IR theory was initially introduced by European states so it is the generally accepted theory States were infused bwith such European concepts as territorial boundaries and colonial administration Eurocentrism ignores Afro Eurasian history that had occurred previously Anarchophilia Classical realists express mixed feelings about anarchy liberals see it as a cause for war and disorder Strongest in neorealism Anarchophilia is a tendency to lean towards anarchy State Centrism Similar to Anarchophilia It brings about the underdeveloped conceptualization of the international system TAKE5 1 Presentism focuses on contemporary history or present history and current policy issues forward looking perspective rather than backward looking perspective to explain the reason why states behave the way they do using present history to explain past actions by states and other actors What is true today is always was true in the past Critic presentism or present history is generally viewed in the perspective of Western countries like the Europe nations and the United States and ignores the perspective of other non Western countries almost sounds like Eurocentrism However the result of