Talk:Critical international relations theory

Untitled
The 1st citation [1] is not visible -- [unsigned comment by User:69.181.40.182


 * Fixed now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Critical_international_relations_theory&diff=85537569&oldid=78219501  --mintchocicecream 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

These critical theories are often lumped together in lectures on international relations, but I see no compelling reason for them to be combined into one article here. They have little in common, besides being alternatives to mainstream international relations theory. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.159.31 (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Improvments
Suggestion.

I agreed with the last poster, could we give these headings seperate artciles and turn these mini-articles into short introductions?

Would a seprate c.t. box help (like the one for IR theroies already on the page? Johnny32 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Social Sctucturalism
>Social Constructivism is considered by many postpositivists as being positivist as the focus of analysis is the state (at the ignorance of other factors such as ethnicity, class, race or gender); and considered by many positivists as postpositivist, as it forgoes many positivist assumptions.

For those who have read Anarchy is What States Make of It, this is addressed- though not explicitly. Wendt arites about the formation of identity within an international framework. While the idea of agency and structure are two sides of the same coin, the manner in which states respond to the limits of anarchy and how they interpret structure is dependent upon identity formation- both with identity of the self, identity of the other, and other's identity of it. This quite clearly takes into account such identifying features such as ethnicity and class. 58.174.227.239 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)