Abstract
In a recent article in International Affairs Duncan Bell argued that the work of Peter Galison in the history of science could be usefully applied to the study of the history of International Relations (IR). In this article I take up Bell’s challenge, claiming that Galison’s post-Kuhnian history of science approach can be used both to understand the history of IR and to replace the ultimately confusing notion of ‘paradigm’ in the study of IR theory. Galison’s method of using ‘microhistories’ to explore the workings of ‘subcultures’ in science is applied to the case study of liberal socialism in interwar IR. Through this case I argue that microhistories can help us understand why certain subcultures in IR theory thrive, and others decline. This understanding in turn could help us comprehend the state of currently active subcultures in IR, and give us an alternative to the intellectually unhelpful concept of ‘paradigm’.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
