{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026477236034872457, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032289312237649337, 'mean_word_length': 5.245967741935484, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Political Economy of U.S. Policy Toward South Africa Kevin Danaher Boulder: Westview Press, 1985, pp. xi, 231

Nevertheless. Holsti thinks that the diversity in international theory has reached dismaying proportions: it is impossible for individual scholars to master the literature much less teach it. The discipline, he concludes, is in need of clarification of priorities. While the •"paradigm" that has guided research in international politics for three centuries, the nation-state tradition, is being challenged by those who conceptualize world politics as a global society and by neo-Marxists. Holsti thinks that paradigmatic shifts are justified only when they help to see and explain more. He maintains that the challengers have not displaced the state-system ""paradigm'" although each has contributions to make. In the second part of this scholarly book Holsti turns to a consideration of whether there is an international discipline of international politics. After an examination of references in American. British. Indian, French, Japanese, Korean, Canadian, and Australian textbooks, he concludes that with the relative exception of Japan, the international literature is still dominated, on the one hand, by the nation-state "paradigm" and the British-American literature, while often exhibiting, on the other hand, a good deal of insularity. Yet it is worth reflecting on the approach to theory-building implicit in Holsti's book. In the more exact sciences a large coherent and systematic body of theory characteristically preceded the identification of a paradigm. In international politics scholars suppose it possible to choose a paradigm on the basis of its intrinsic interest, compatibility with values, or comprehensiveness, and expect the development of theory will more or less mechanically ensue. But inasmuch as the intrinsically most interesting questions seem to achieve the least precise theoretical formulations, this tack does not seem promising. Holsti maintains that "[investigating) phenomena just because they are there will lead to mindless empiricism..." (140). This is not necessarily so. To the contrary, insisting on casting our observations Procrustes-like into the framework of some predetermined problematic seems to increase the probability of producing theory likely to be disappointing in quality. The structures of argument associated with paradigms and theories have not served us well in international politics. In practice their use has tended to be surrounded by a certain intellectual hypocrisy. On the one hand, we invoke them honorifically to confer significance on our research and when we inevitably fall short of the standards they imply, we insist on the essentially philosophical character of the discipline or its immaturity. The Dividing Discipline is an admirably current and broadminded account of contemporary trends in international scholarship. In this respect it will, as Holsti intends, be of value to teaching and research. But to succeed as criticism its terms of reference would have had to have been broader and deeper.