№ 3, 2018
The article is devoted to the reception of Thucydides in Political Science. On the basis of the comparative analysis of structural and constructive realism — two traditions in the theory of international relations — the author shows that they both treat the Athenian historian to some extent as a “godfather” and appeal to him as an authority. According to the author’s conclusion, neither structural, nor constructive realists need references to the “History of the Peloponnesian War” in order to substantiate their ideas. The key difference between structural and constructive realists is the problems that they are trying to resolve through the appeal to the heritage of Thucydides. If structural realists use selected excerpts from the text of the “History of the Peloponnesian War” to confirm and legitimize their own propositions, constructivists insist on the holistic reading of the text. In their interpretation of the text they give pride of place to the norms, values and political rhetoric as independent elements of international relations. The author thinks that the latter approach is both more adequate to interpreting the text and more productive in terms of science. Paying close attention to such phenomena as culture, law and rhetoric allows them to create a more complex, non-reductionist theory of international relations that better fits the realities of the era of mediatization of public policy and “new transparency”.
Main Page ~ Authors ~ Kucherenko Sergey