Theorizing the Political Relevance of International Relations Theory

Two broad positions-the "gap-bridgers" and the "gap-minders"-dominate the current debate on the (lack of) political relevance of International Relations (IR) theory. Missing from this debate, however, is a broader theoretical framework for contextualizing-and moving beyond-their disagreements. Hence, this article provides a theoretical account of the relationship between politics and knowledge. It shows that, in the modern context, scientific knowledge achieves political relevance by distancing itself-through theorizing-from the particularities of politics. This paradoxical relationship gives rise to three different dimensions of political relevance, which operate at different levels of abstraction. Metatheory plays a crucial role in constituting the modern conception of politics; theories establish concrete political spaces; and empirical studies can influence specific policies. Taking this context into account, moreover, calls for a reassessment of core features of the discipline: its supposed poverty, fragmentation, and immaturity are common features of all modern sciences; they function as a driver of scientific progress; and metatheoretical debates address the political dimension of the modern sciences. Hence, the source of IR's political relevance lies in its theoretical foundations. Abandoning theory in favor of policy-oriented studies would simultaneously undermine the discipline's policy relevance and its standing as a modern science.