No Alternative to "Isms"

In this thoughtful and well-intended essay, David Lake expresses a frustration with the sectarian debates among the "isms" of international relations and calls for a common lexicon or ''Rosetta stone'' that ''aims to facilitate conversation across research traditions by suggesting that all theories of international studies can be disaggregated into the basic and common concepts of interests, interactions, and institutions.'' But his lexicon inevitably privileges some concepts and theories over others-agency over structure, interests over identities, interactions over sovereignty, and institutions (hierarchy) over anarchy. A better way is to recognize that "isms" are inevitable, given the nature of social knowledge, and to encourage them to address one another more directly and jointly.