the-evolution-of-international-security-studies

conclusions 153‘Peace Research and its offshoots’, comprises all of the approaches shownin Figure 5.2. As laid out above, there were important differencesbetween the impact of the driving forces on each of these offshoots, andFigure5.3thereforeprovidesageneraloverviewofthemaindevelopment,not specific details.ConclusionsAs this chapter shows, there is quite strong evidence for seeing ColdWar Strategic Studies, Arms Control and Peace Research as a single conversationdespite their obvious political differences. There was a lot ofsubstantive overlap, very similar drivers, a parallel profile of institutionalisationand not much in the way of epistemological differences,at least not in ways that correlate with Strategic Studies and PeaceResearch orientations. There were certainly disagreements, borderingat times on overt antagonism and contempt, about preferred prioritiesand policies, and at the extremes there were different views of how todefine the problem. But across a broad middle range, both Strategistsand Peace Researchers were responding to the same problem: how topursue security in the context of a nuclear-armed bipolar superpowerconfrontation.The evolutionary story told in this chapter is in several ways a morecomplex one than that of chapter 4, which was concerned with the birthof ISS and its Strategic Studies core. This chapter has traced how ArmsControl to a lesser extent and Peace Research in more fundamentalways criticised Strategic Studies and how crucial political, normativeand epistemological divisions within Peace Research generated separateapproaches with distinct identities: negative versus positive peaceresearchers, and within the positive camp between the Liberal Deutschianapproach and the Critical Neo-Marxists, while bridging them a Galtungianposition incorporated Liberal as well as Marxist ideas. During the1980s, Common Security grew out of an Arms Control agenda that resonatedwith negative Peace Research, but it simultaneously opened thedoor to the wider agenda of positive Peace Research. In the same decade,two other approaches, Feminism and Poststructuralism, had their roots inpositive Peace Research, but they gained momentum and took directionsthat generated an understanding of them as being approaches in theirown right rather than sub-branches of Peace Research. Debates evolvedaround the fundamental questions at the heart of ISS: the possibility of