Conclusion Hegemonic Globalisation: ‘The Highest Stage of Capitalism’?
I have tried, in this book, to understand, conceptualise, and re-analyse the nature of theory and practice in international relations and its 'reality'. I found that, instead of being confined to the rigidity of formal theory, a multiple combination of concepts may be required to capture the nuances of international 'reality'. From this standpoint, formal 'theories' of IR may not have been adequate (or were, perhaps, in some even manipulated or distorted by scholars) for understanding the nature of contemporary change in international affairs. It is noteworthy, however, that some theories do offer some form of guidance to decision-makers. In some cases, it should at least offer them a partial understanding of contemporary events, based upon past events (R. Cox and T. Sinclair, 1996: 144-73). What I have proposed is the 'alternating' of theories to solve conditions of reality and to condition how reality is to be perceived. How these theories are applied depends on the objective circumstances faced by the actor. It is the actors that make history, and scholars are there to learn, analyse and evaluate the perils and pitfalls of the decision-makers' political action. No theory has ever been capable of providing (an entirely) complete picture for 'The Prince', and it is probably never possible, given the infinite variables involved.