Realism, disciplinary history and European Union studies

This thesis is a realist, disciplinary history of European Union Studies (EUS). It begins by examining a number of criticisms aimed at realist IR theory. By considering these criticisms it is possible to illustrate a more productive approach to realism. It will be shown that realism has two distinct uses, practical and hermeneutical, and that these are based on three core principles. These are the centrality of philosophical and ethical scepticism towards progress and naturalist epistemology; a belief in the centrality of power competition between all forms of social community; and a link to ‘reality’ as the foundation to any research. This part of the analysis is linked into a criticism of the dominance of unsuitable scientific divisions in IR Theory. Instead of the existing approach which assumes total explanatory power on the part of each theory, this research returned to the belief of many classical realists that realism alone was insufficient to understand and improve the practice of politics. Instead what is required is dialectic between realist and idealist modes of thought. This is argued to be the healthy condition of a discourse through the work of Karl Mannheim. Where this is not present, disciplinary history assists in understanding why this is the case. This realist disciplinary history framework deconstructs the development of EUS. Its Integration theory and politybuilding phases show that the discipline is hegemonised by liberal, modernist thought. The extent of this hegemony and the impact of previous debates on the structure of disciplines today is shown by an analysis of Ian Manners’ Normative Power Europe thesis. In keeping with the tradition of Carr and Herz, the utility of a realist approach is outlined to promote dialectic in this part of EUS at least.