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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Review of international studies 1993-10, Vol.19 (4), p.401-408 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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 |