Steven E.Miller Traditional Strategic Studies In Context 641 Buzan Hansen identify eleven schools of thought within international security studies.Only one-neorealism-resonates with traditional strate- gic studies.The other nine represent alternatives to the traditional approach and indeed are defined collectively as challengers to it (Buzan Hansen, 2009:101).As Buzan Hansen describe in detail,the challengers are well established and have long histories-some nearly as long as strategic studies itself.They are well populated with scholars,have extensive literatures,and along the way have collected their own set of journals and institutes and net- works.These alternative schools of thought appear to be particularly deeply entrenched in European universities and seem to have long been the preferred and prevalent approaches to the study of international security studies.After reading Buzan Hansen's account of these alternative approaches,it is not obvious why the traditionalists are regarded as dominant and hegemonic, because in the academic context they do not appear to warrant singular status or to possess any commanding comparative advantage. To Buzan Hansen,the hegemonic dominance of the traditionalists is obvious and unquestioned.There is no demonstration that it is true on the basis of some clear metric.What accounts for the authors'deeply rooted perception?There are at least four mutually reinforcing answers.First,tra- ditional strategic studies has always been linked to the world of power and policy,whereas the challengers to it generally stand apart from and offer a critique of that world.Hence,traditionalists look like,and often are, players in the policy process,prominent voices in the policy debate.Those who operate in alternative schools of thought are less policy-driven or more oppositional to structures of power.They are critics of the establishment, outsiders whose normative objections to the character of the system and the content of national policy can make them seem or cause them to be more distant from the policy action.The greater proximity of the traditionalists to power leads to an image of dominance,but this should not be confused with a position of intellectual hegemony.Within the academic realm,as Buzan Hansen's book shows,traditionalists share the terrain with many other schools of thought,the methods and substantive orientations of tradition- al security studies are much criticized and heavily contested,and in many scholarly settings it is not the most popular or influential approach to the field of international security studies. A second,related,point is that the security policymaking community that so dominates the public debate is generally viewed as operating in the tradi- tionalist mode.If one regards the national security bureaucracy of the state as part of the traditionalist coalition,then it will indeed seem vastly larger, vastly richer,vastly more powerful,and vastly more influential than any other scholarly tradition.However,studying the powerful does not make a scholarly grouping dominant or hegemonic in the intellectual life of the academy.As Buzan Hansen illustrate,the traditionalist orientation is often Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on March 12,2012Steven E. Miller Traditional Strategic Studies In Context 641 Buzan & Hansen identify eleven schools of thought within international security studies. Only one – neorealism – resonates with traditional strate￾gic studies. The other nine represent alternatives to the traditional approach and indeed are defined collectively as challengers to it (Buzan & Hansen, 2009: 101). As Buzan & Hansen describe in detail, the challengers are well established and have long histories – some nearly as long as strategic studies itself. They are well populated with scholars, have extensive literatures, and along the way have collected their own set of journals and institutes and net￾works. These alternative schools of thought appear to be particularly deeply entrenched in European universities and seem to have long been the preferred and prevalent approaches to the study of international security studies. After reading Buzan & Hansen’s account of these alternative approaches, it is not obvious why the traditionalists are regarded as dominant and hegemonic, because in the academic context they do not appear to warrant singular status or to possess any commanding comparative advantage. To Buzan & Hansen, the hegemonic dominance of the traditionalists is obvious and unquestioned. There is no demonstration that it is true on the basis of some clear metric. What accounts for the authors’ deeply rooted perception? There are at least four mutually reinforcing answers. First, tra￾ditional strategic studies has always been linked to the world of power and policy, whereas the challengers to it generally stand apart from and offer a critique of that world. Hence, traditionalists look like, and often are, players in the policy process, prominent voices in the policy debate. Those who operate in alternative schools of thought are less policy-driven or more opposi­tional to structures of power. They are critics of the establishment, outsiders whose normative objections to the character of the system and the content of national policy can make them seem or cause them to be more distant from the policy action. The greater proximity of the traditionalists to power leads to an image of dominance, but this should not be confused with a position of intellectual hegemony. Within the academic realm, as Buzan & Hansen’s book shows, traditionalists share the terrain with many other schools of thought, the methods and substantive orientations of tradition￾al security studies are much criticized and heavily contested, and in many scholarly settings it is not the most popular or influential approach to the field of international security studies. A second, related, point is that the security policymaking community that so dominates the public debate is generally viewed as operating in the tradi￾tionalist mode. If one regards the national security bureaucracy of the state as part of the traditionalist coalition, then it will indeed seem vastly larger, vastly richer, vastly more powerful, and vastly more influential than any other scholarly tradition. However, studying the powerful does not make a scholarly grouping dominant or hegemonic in the intellectual life of the academy. As Buzan & Hansen illustrate, the traditionalist orientation is often Downloaded from sdi.sagepub.com at LIB SHANGHAI JIAOTONG UNIV on March 12, 2012