1. ¹Georgetown University
2. ²Montclair State University

^*We thank Gator J. Greenwill, Kimberly Hill, Robert Lieber, Gerald M. Mara, Elizabeth Mercurio, Joshua Mitchell, Jay M. Parker, Kenneth Pollack, Robert Purdy, the anonymous peer reviewers for Polity, and audience members at the Georgetown Working Group on International Security (2007), the New England Political Science Association (2008), and International Studies Association (2009) for their comments on successive versions of this effort.

Abstract

In this article we argue that in their quest for parsimony and through their denial of human agency, international relations scholars often endorse deterministic theories. The field of international relations suffers greatly for its devotion to excessive theoretical generalization. In rejecting the more pluralistic methodology of early international relations work, scholars may produce superficially valid predictive theories. Yet these theories rarely grant deep insight into why actual states behave as they do. Because of this, they provide little guidance for statesmen. While we do not advocate the complete rejection of any of the major approaches in the field, we argue that international relations scholars should reorient their work to account for the way leadership can overcome the constraints of structure. We suggest the field strive actively to embrace complexity and foster a greater epistemological modesty than it currently demonstrates.