International relations at the end of the millennium

Contemporary theorists of international politics do not see the world in the same ways nor do they agree on what is important to know, or how to know it. Disagreements are partly due to the increasing complexity of the world, but also derive from the development of many different viewing points. Som...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Review of international studies 1993-10, Vol.19 (4), p.401-408
1. Verfasser: Holsti, K. J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 408
container_issue 4
container_start_page 401
container_title Review of international studies
container_volume 19
creator Holsti, K. J.
description Contemporary theorists of international politics do not see the world in the same ways nor do they agree on what is important to know, or how to know it. Disagreements are partly due to the increasing complexity of the world, but also derive from the development of many different viewing points. Some are geographic and cultural (Americans often view the world differently than, say, Japanese), but other perspectives come from different epistemological starting points and from different assumptions as to what constitutes reliable or useful knowledge, and how to create it. Debates in the 1960s revolved around problems of methodology. Today, we see in addition arguments over metaphysics, the purposes of theoretical activity (understanding versus praxis, for example), and a whole host of other divisive questions.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0260210500118285
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60868535</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0260210500118285</cupid><jstor_id>20097349</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20097349</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-4504b78a3884ba77973cd73aff62082548f0639bb6c520fff2f8c95da876671f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1LAzEURYMoWKs_wIUwK3Ez-jL5XmrVWqmoqOuQmSY6dT5qMgP67512pBuhXeXBOffxyEXoGMM5BiwuXiDhkGBgABjLRLIdNMCUq1gBpbtosMTxku-jgxDmACAZpQNEJ1VjfWWavK5MEXlbrMYQmSZqPmxkq1lUu9VY5kVhqypvy0O050wR7NHfO0Rvtzevo7t4-jiejC6ncUYUNDFlQFMhDZGSpkYIJUg2E8Q4xxOQCaPSAScqTXnGEnDOJU5mis2MFJwL7MgQnfZ7F77-am1odJmHzBaFqWzdBs1BcskI2yoypVS3Um4ViaRYYsI78WyjiIFwinGv4l7NfB2Ct04vfF4a_9NJelmO_ldOlznpM_PQ1H4dSAC6T6Kq43HP89DY7zU3_lNzQQTTfPyssbi6nt5Pn_RD55O_G0yZ-nz2bvW8brtei7Dhil-mqKa2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1036411136</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>International relations at the end of the millennium</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>Cambridge Journals</source><creator>Holsti, K. J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Holsti, K. J.</creatorcontrib><description>Contemporary theorists of international politics do not see the world in the same ways nor do they agree on what is important to know, or how to know it. Disagreements are partly due to the increasing complexity of the world, but also derive from the development of many different viewing points. Some are geographic and cultural (Americans often view the world differently than, say, Japanese), but other perspectives come from different epistemological starting points and from different assumptions as to what constitutes reliable or useful knowledge, and how to create it. Debates in the 1960s revolved around problems of methodology. Today, we see in addition arguments over metaphysics, the purposes of theoretical activity (understanding versus praxis, for example), and a whole host of other divisive questions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0260-2105</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-9044</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0260210500118285</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>History ; International Relations ; Marxism ; Realism ; Review Article</subject><ispartof>Review of international studies, 1993-10, Vol.19 (4), p.401-408</ispartof><rights>Copyright © British International Studies Association 1993</rights><rights>Copyright 1993 British International Studies Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-4504b78a3884ba77973cd73aff62082548f0639bb6c520fff2f8c95da876671f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-4504b78a3884ba77973cd73aff62082548f0639bb6c520fff2f8c95da876671f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20097349$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0260210500118285/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,313,314,776,780,788,799,27899,27901,27902,55603,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Holsti, K. J.</creatorcontrib><title>International relations at the end of the millennium</title><title>Review of international studies</title><addtitle>Rev. Int. Stud</addtitle><description>Contemporary theorists of international politics do not see the world in the same ways nor do they agree on what is important to know, or how to know it. Disagreements are partly due to the increasing complexity of the world, but also derive from the development of many different viewing points. Some are geographic and cultural (Americans often view the world differently than, say, Japanese), but other perspectives come from different epistemological starting points and from different assumptions as to what constitutes reliable or useful knowledge, and how to create it. Debates in the 1960s revolved around problems of methodology. Today, we see in addition arguments over metaphysics, the purposes of theoretical activity (understanding versus praxis, for example), and a whole host of other divisive questions.</description><subject>History</subject><subject>International Relations</subject><subject>Marxism</subject><subject>Realism</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><issn>0260-2105</issn><issn>1469-9044</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1993</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1LAzEURYMoWKs_wIUwK3Ez-jL5XmrVWqmoqOuQmSY6dT5qMgP67512pBuhXeXBOffxyEXoGMM5BiwuXiDhkGBgABjLRLIdNMCUq1gBpbtosMTxku-jgxDmACAZpQNEJ1VjfWWavK5MEXlbrMYQmSZqPmxkq1lUu9VY5kVhqypvy0O050wR7NHfO0Rvtzevo7t4-jiejC6ncUYUNDFlQFMhDZGSpkYIJUg2E8Q4xxOQCaPSAScqTXnGEnDOJU5mis2MFJwL7MgQnfZ7F77-am1odJmHzBaFqWzdBs1BcskI2yoypVS3Um4ViaRYYsI78WyjiIFwinGv4l7NfB2Ct04vfF4a_9NJelmO_ldOlznpM_PQ1H4dSAC6T6Kq43HP89DY7zU3_lNzQQTTfPyssbi6nt5Pn_RD55O_G0yZ-nz2bvW8brtei7Dhil-mqKa2</recordid><startdate>19931001</startdate><enddate>19931001</enddate><creator>Holsti, K. J.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>C18</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19931001</creationdate><title>International relations at the end of the millennium</title><author>Holsti, K. J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c390t-4504b78a3884ba77973cd73aff62082548f0639bb6c520fff2f8c95da876671f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1993</creationdate><topic>History</topic><topic>International Relations</topic><topic>Marxism</topic><topic>Realism</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Holsti, K. J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Humanities Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Review of international studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Holsti, K. J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>International relations at the end of the millennium</atitle><jtitle>Review of international studies</jtitle><addtitle>Rev. Int. Stud</addtitle><date>1993-10-01</date><risdate>1993</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>401</spage><epage>408</epage><pages>401-408</pages><issn>0260-2105</issn><eissn>1469-9044</eissn><abstract>Contemporary theorists of international politics do not see the world in the same ways nor do they agree on what is important to know, or how to know it. Disagreements are partly due to the increasing complexity of the world, but also derive from the development of many different viewing points. Some are geographic and cultural (Americans often view the world differently than, say, Japanese), but other perspectives come from different epistemological starting points and from different assumptions as to what constitutes reliable or useful knowledge, and how to create it. Debates in the 1960s revolved around problems of methodology. Today, we see in addition arguments over metaphysics, the purposes of theoretical activity (understanding versus praxis, for example), and a whole host of other divisive questions.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0260210500118285</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0260-2105
ispartof Review of international studies, 1993-10, Vol.19 (4), p.401-408
issn 0260-2105
1469-9044
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_60868535
source Jstor Complete Legacy; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; Cambridge Journals
subjects History
International Relations
Marxism
Realism
Review Article
title International relations at the end of the millennium
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T23%3A09%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=International%20relations%20at%20the%20end%20of%20the%20millennium&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20international%20studies&rft.au=Holsti,%20K.%20J.&rft.date=1993-10-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=401&rft.epage=408&rft.pages=401-408&rft.issn=0260-2105&rft.eissn=1469-9044&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0260210500118285&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E20097349%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1036411136&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0260210500118285&rft_jstor_id=20097349&rfr_iscdi=true