The lecture was mainly about history v theory in IR, and that they are two distinct ideas. What are the ontological questions-how do we know about these entities? How do we know which approach is more useful. I'm not sure if its a question of either or; mabe just different perspectives. It's kind of a time or temporal aspect that's important and a conceptual approach-which concepts define history or theory. How does dialectics or historical manicheanism contrast functinoalist conceptualizations? The former explains the dynamics in IR, a synthesis of opposing forces; good and evil. This perspective has meaning and it's leading to somewhere (not sure where at the moment--it could mean that we are always experiencing history and waitng for the next thing to happen). The functionalist approach defines the world in universalist cateories (basic needs). It is the progressive or modernistic definition of IR. It identifies the challenges and major global problems and the best way to tackle them.
One thing to remember is that the origins of IR are in history.
We loked at a couple of different table of contents. One was an example of conceptualizing things in terms of space (here, 8 different chapters).
We looked at the idea of the subparts of the conceptual space of IR. Security, order, and justice are the starting points from every theory of IR. We also looked at Maslov's hierarchy of needs table and compared it to functionalism and also how it could be viewed as a map of the world.