ABSTRACT OF “THINKING THEORY THROUGHLY”, BY ROSENAU AND DURFEE

ð International reality is very complex, with a large number of actors and most different variables which can’t be fully and definitely understandable.

ð Theory of international relations is similar to crating a map. It’ s a matter of consciously choosing which aspects should be highlighted according to the goals to be pursued.

ð Theory should not pledge for being the reality, but just an interpretation of such a reality.

ð Theory depends on the relation of concrete facts and abstraction, being more useful whenever favoring the abstraction equilibrium, because facts don’t talk by their selves.

ð Facts can be explained by abstractions which vary regarding their broadness. It can apply explanation to the most different categories and reach such conclusions also according to the amount of reality one chooses to take in consideration (some primitive origin of the levels of analysis).

ð The importance of concrete facts is given by their role in abstraction broader explanations.

ð Facts gain importance when used to explicit questions, which means, challenging theories with non-predictable realities as a way to highlight and develop the fragile aspects of one such theory.

ð All theory needs a starting hunch or personal impression, however, it depends on a sociable perceived background.

ð Theorizing is founded on rules. Rules for transforming raw observation into refined hypothesis and meaningful understanding.

ð Theories can be basically classified in two main types.

o The higher ones, which are more concerned about abstract comprehensive perspectives over the understanding of cause and effects.

o The lower ones, called all-emcompassing theory. It’s efforts are to try summarizing most aspects of human affairs

ð Very high theory, with a very general application, may also be called paradigms or models. They are sets of structural arguments which cannot be contested by particular cases of exception to the central tendencies.

“Systems of thought that can’t be broken by specific recitation of specific examples that run counter to their premises”.

ð E.g. Marxism and the denying of any criticism by simply pledging the false conscience and the class conditions. This way, the only possible critics would depend on refusing the basic principles of the paradigm.

ð International theorists INEVITABLY bring some paradigms which are merits and also a limitation to their comprehension of international reality.

ð Eventually resourcing to different paradigms does not mean that facts come before the abstraction in understanding world’s reality. It simply means that one chooses paradigms which offer better tools to each sort of reality, but, still, the reading to be made out of the use of such instruments reflects the original paradigm of the author.

ð There is no sense in saying that policymakers base their actions only in the practice, because what happens is that they may not be conscious of their broad abstract view over reality. For this, saying that theory drives one far from reality is not correct.

ð There is no paradigms hierarchy, and choosing one or another is just a matter of highlighting different features.