Talk:Functionalism (international relations)
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Does someone with more editing experience than I have want to clean up the citations/footnotes on this page? Seems like we're switching between several styles here.03:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Tjss, why did you delete a number of sourced sections of the article? That certainly extends beyond mere "clean up" as you put in your edit summary. —thames 16:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Might as well revert. Ksenon 05:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It is Functionalismi indeed.
Neoliberalism dates from the late 70s, whereas Functionalism dates from the 40s. Wallerstei´s theory is a structuralist one, on the other hand.
- Who wrote this? You're actually wrong about Wallerstein, it is a trademark example of functionalism. If you want an example of a structuralist argument, read Waltz. There's nothing of functionalism reflected in this article.
Almondwine 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're actually both wrong about different things. First of all, Functionalism dates from the inter-war period, the 1920s and 1930s. It was a response to the First World War (see the chapter on Functionalism in Long and Wilson (eds.), Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis. Also, both Wallerstein's and Waltz's theories of international politics are, generally speaking, structuralist--although the determinants of their particular structures are extremely different: the capitalist world system of Wallerstein and the anarchic structure of differently abled sovereign states for Waltz.
jakeweed 16:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wallertstein is NOT a structuralist. Structuralism as a paradigm requires agents responding to structural stimuli, and Wallerstein's is an agent-less theory. There are non to be found. The state system developed, according to W, because it was required by the global capitalist system. Definitionally, that makes him functionalist. Events, for W, are functions of systemic causes.
- Almondwine 19:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone actually have a source referring to Wallerstein as one or the other?—Perceval 02:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The current state of the article is correct about functionalism. There may be some missing information, but what ever caused the factual dispute has been excised. I'm going to remove the dispute tag. --Hedgeman 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Different section for functionalism
Would you move it under the umbrella of Idealism...In my view, you can relate functionalism more with the various liberal theories than with the marxist or realist family. I find it odd to find Functionalism as a family on it's own! Bhork (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Realism in international relations - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)