The Concept Of Change And James N. Rosenau: Still International Relations

African Journal of Political Science and International Relations Vol. 3 (5), pp. 199-207, May 2009 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJPSIR ISSN 1996-0832 © 2009 Academic Journals

Full Length Research Paper

The concept of change and James N. Rosenau: Still international relations?
Murat Gül
E-mail: mgul@metu.edu.tr.
Accepted 8 May, 2009.

This article aims to studyissue of ‘change and continuity’ in the field of international relations and the capability of mainstream approaches of international relations and history to cover the issue of change from perspective of James N. Rosenau. The dynamics of change and statics of continuity, at micro and macro levels and interaction between two levels will be analyzed, with the aim of designing a theoretical frameworkfor the issue of ‘change and continuity’. Methodologically, conceptual framework Rosenau uses to explain dynamics of change will be given priority and primacy he attaches to improvement in micro phenomena will be explained. It is argued in this article that even it is far from clear whether global turbulence is a temporary or a permanent condition, change is in progress and is altering theparameters of world politics. Thus, the mainstream conceptual framework and history understanding is incapable to approach the issue of change and there is the need of a jail-breaking process that is to consider new concepts, new actors and new types of relationships. Key words: Postinternational politics, turbulent change, micro and macro phenomena, parametric transformation, multi-centric world.INTRODUCTION The discipline of international relations entails the development of conceptual frameworks and theories to facilitate the understanding and explanation of events and phenomena in world politics, as well as the analysis and informing of associated policies and practices. Regarding the inter-disciplinary character of social sciences and as complementary in the study of internationalrelations, history can be defined as a discipline that gives us knowledge about the conditions of the lives of the past communities, their traditions, the politics and states of the governors. The most beneficial part of history is reflected as its ability to set models for the worldly and religious events and let the people make use of these models and knowledge, to enable them understand and explain theongoing events in world politics. This comprehensive interaction between international relations and history is well defined by Barry Buzan and Richard Little. Buzan and Little insist on three themes to characterize the conceptions in the field of international relations, in analyzing the international system: It is argued that although the concept is central to the discipline, there is nostandard definition of it and no agreed chronology for the emergence of a global international system. Second, for them, conceptions of international system are overwhelmingly biased by the European experience. Third, they think that international relations theory and history need each other; a comprehensive understanding of history is necessary for a well-constructed theory, whereas history cannot bewritten without some organizing principles (Buzan and Little, 1994). Buzan and Little correctly point out the necessity of a strong correlation between the disciplines of international relations and history, with which I agree. It is also an inevitable fact that some organizing principles become prerequisites for study areas to become disciplines and pave the way for academic studies within thefield. However, the problem is what are the organizing principles characterizing international relations and the principles history uses for perceiving international relations. The positivist methodology in these disciplines that seems to be biased by the Westphalian states system, and thus the European experience, leaving very small room, or even no room, for the actors other than the nation...