by Hunter Kendrick
What am I Missing?
Let’s face it: there is no such thing as a perfect speech. Competing in an innumerable amount of rounds has taught me one thing – the winner isn’t the immaculate speaker, but the speaker who makes the fewest mistakes. Of course, you can always “cover-up” what mistakes you do make by wowing the judges in other areas. And, perhaps the easiest way to wow your audience is to have complex analysis.
Whether you’re a seasoned champion or someone completely new to the event, it’s clear to all that extemp gets “deep.” What I mean is that a speech is not just a collection of random facts, it is the weaving of those facts together into a cohesive answer to the question. Competitors and audience members are often looking for the “deeper meaning” or the “connection.” Sometimes it is easy to find the connection, other times it takes more effort. But, when discussing international relations, it is actually easier to find that deeper meaning than most people seem to believe at first. And, successfully finding those themes (and incorporating them correctly into a speech) can be the jumpstart a speaker needs to propel them towards success.
What is International Relations Theory?
NFL Debate Champion Steve Mancuso and former University of Michigan debater Jason Hernandez wrote in the October 1998 edition of the Rostrum that, “IR theorists take what they know about the world and create theories that rationalize the phenomenon known as world politics… (IR theorists) explain past and current events based on the data they can assemble.” IR theories are reductive and rely on different sets of assumptions. IR theories provide REASON for ACTION (like, why did Country X attack Country Y?).
As Duke professor Ole Holsti once warned, IR theories can be comparable to putting on “colored glasses,” and focusing only on events salient to that particular theory. For example, an historic event of great importance to a realist may be completely irrelevant to a constructionist, and vice versa.
When Should I Use IR Theory?
To be perfectly honest, international extemp – even USX in foreign policy rounds – is a seven minute explication on IR theory, to an extent. (Disregarding economics questions, of course.) After all, extempers are most often called upon to analyze and interpret global events, and they then predict the future based on their interpretation of the events’ meaning for global societal trends.
A WORD OF CAUTION – Extempers should not use IR Theory, especially in big rounds, carelessly. While it is impressive when an extemper successfully weaves an IR discussion into a speech, it is also dangerous to try said weave in the first place. Even in rounds with an experienced judging panel (say, in NFL out-rounds), IR theories require meticulous explanation when being applied to a particular scenario. Remember Mr. Holsti’s warning: different people will interpret different events in very misaligned ways. Thus, it is important for any extemper to explain any assertion to the point that his/her audience will interpret the data in the way the speaker wants, not in the way the audience is naturally inclined to do (don’t give them the chance to interpret the data in way that would be destructive to your reasoning!). So, before a speaker knows it, he/she may be bogged down in a topic area longer than intended – which can ultimately derail an entire speech.
Speaking as a former competitor who suffered with this problem his entire career, let me say this, DO NOT LET HISTORICAL EXPLANATION AND THE EXPLORATION FOR OVERARCHING THEMES PREVENT YOU FROM ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION IN A FULL AND TIMELY MANNER! After all, as extemp guru Jason Warren is fond of saying, “The first rule of extemp is ‘answer the question!'”
What Are the Different IR Theories?
There are many, many different IR theories, and the list grows as the complexity of the international community grows. But, here is an oversimplified list of – arguably – the most important IR theories. Also, I have included examples of how/where the theories could be utilized in extemp.
Balance of Power – Predicts that rapid changes in international power and status – especially attempts by one country to control a region – will provoke counterbalancing actions. Thus, the balancing process helps to maintain stability between states. This theory comes into play most effectively when alliances between states are fluid and countries are not fearful of “double-crossing” each other, so to speak. Sometimes a single state can play the role of “balancer,” switching its allegiance from one side to another.
Ex: Europe during the Napoleonic Era and – as some (including Rachel Bronson of the Brookings Institution) believe – the Middle East today.
Collective Defense – A group of nations agree to protect one another against a traditional threat from an identifiable, external adversary.
Ex: Article V of the NATO Charter provides for the mutual defense of the member states.
Collective Security – This theory goes beyond the previous theory because, in the words of Inis Claude, because it creates “arrangements for facilitating peaceful settlement of disputes,” assuming that the mechanisms of preventing war and defending states under armed attack will “supplement and reinforce each other.” It is applicable to discussions of widely inclusive international organizations. It hinges on preventing conflict, but it threatens retaliation should peace be broken.
Ex: The League of Nations and the United Nations.
Complex Interdependence – A theory developed by Joseph Nye of the American Enterprise Institute. It argues that there are complex “transnational” connections between states and societies. According to the theory, such relationships – often driven by economics – are increasing, which is causing a decrease in militarism. So, cooperation amongst states – if the theory holds true – should increase.
Ex: Latin America today. (Special Hint: this theory can be particularly useful when discussing Israel and Palestine).
Constructivism – Rejects the anarchist stances of other theories (which will be discussed later), while holding that anarchy is not the inherent global system, but, rather, what states have chosen to make with the global system. So, constructivists hold that it is possible to change, or “construct,” a new global make-up.
Ex: Discussions of groups like the EU.
Democratic Peace – Argues, empirically, that two liberal, constitutional democracies have never gone to war with one another in recent history (post 1816). It rests on one hypothesis: relations between democracies are naturally more peaceful than the relations between other regime pairings.
Ex: Discussions on the stability (or, rather, the potential stability) of regions like Africa and Asia.
Dependency – Asserts that the 3rd world countries were not always impoverished. Rather, they became impoverished through the domineering attitudes of and the forced incorporation into the world economy by, the 1st world powers. So, ultimately, the economies of the 3rd world became geared more towards the needs of their colonial masters, than the needs of their own societies.
Ex: Discussions on globalization.
Golden Arches and Conflict Prevention – In his 2000 book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman supposed that no two countries that both had a McDonald’s had ever fought a war since both opened their McDonald’s. As he states in chapter 12, “when a country reached the level of economic development where it had a middle class big enough to support a McDonald’s network, it became a McDonald’s country. And people in McDonald’s countries didn’t like to fight wars anymore, they preferred to wait in line for burgers.”
Ex: Discussions on the decline of militancy in the face of development.
Hegemonic Stability – Argues that the stability of the global community depends on one dominant world power to provide said stability by enforcing the rules of the international community on other states. To be a “hegemon” in this sense a country must meet three requirements: 1.) it must have the capability to enforce the rules, 2.) it must have the desire to enforce the rules, and 3.) it must be committed to the ideal that the international community’s maintenance benefits all states.
Ex: Discussions on the role of the US (or, maybe in the future, China) in the global community.
Idealism – This is the strong belief in the effective nature of ideas. Idealists believe that baser human emotions and tendencies can be overcome by ideology, and they thus believe that societies – both national and international – can be based on morality. Morality, they argue, can be used to foment peace, justice, and stability. Idealists are incredibly reformist and even believe that war can be phased out of human interaction.
Ex: Discussions about disarmament/the United Nations
Realism – Realists believe that the world is anarchic and consists of is made up of sovereign political units called states. States inherently possess some offensive military capability or power which makes them potentially dangerous to each other; states can never be sure about the intentions of other states; the basic motive driving states is survival or the maintenance of sovereignty; states are instrumentally rational and think strategically about how to survive.
Ex: Any discussion of war.
Referenced/Recommended Works
Beavis, Mark. “The IR Theory Knowledge Base.” The IR Theory Website. <http://www.irtheory.com>
Hernandez, Jason and Mancuso, Steve. “Critical International Relations Theories: Applications to the Russia Topic.” Rostrum. October 1998.
<http://www.nflonline.org/rostrum>
Rockwell, Spencer. “Get IR Done.” Rostrum. February 2007.
Hunter Kendrick is a 2008 graduate of Danville High School in Danville, KY. He competed in speech and debate for four years, and over that period of time he amassed fourteen different state championships in six different individual events – including eight different titles in Extemporaneous Speaking. Nationally, Hunter is most notable as a two-time finalist at the Barkley Forum of Emory University, the 3rd place finisher at the 2007 NCFL National Championships, the 3rd place finisher at the 2008 MBA Southern-Bell Round Robin, and as the 4th place finisher in International Extemp at the 2008 NFL National Championships. In the summer of 2007 Hunter was named an NFL “Academic All-American,” and by the end of his forensics career he had earned the degree of “Premier Distinction” from the NFL. Hunter is a freshman at the University of Kentucky where he is pursuing degrees in History and English.