Transcript Social Constructivism vs. Positivism

Social Constructivism vs.
Positivism
The most recent debate in IR
theory
Introduction
• Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism together
comprised the inter-paradigm debate of
the 1980s, with realism dominant amongst
the three grand theories.
• Despite promising intellectual openness at
the beginning, however, the interparadigm debate ended by shoring up the
dominance of realism; that there was real
contestation of paradigms is open to
question.
Introduction
• In recent years, the dominance of realism has
been undermined by three developments:
• first, neo-liberal institutionalism has become
increasingly important;
• second, globalization has brought a host of
other, non-theoretical features of world
politics to centre-stage;
• third, positivism, the underlying methodological assumption of realism, has been
significantly undermined by developments in
the social sciences and in philosophy.
Introduction
While neorealists – and also neoliberals – hold a
materialist view of international politics, other
theorists develop an ideational perspective:
At bottom, the difference is between the assumption
• that I.P. are driven by power and national
interest, with power in the end defined as military
capabilities supported by economic and other
resources, and national interest defined as a
state‘s desire for power, security, and wealth,
• that the material world is indeterminate & has to
be interpreted within a larger context of meaning
defined by ideas and expressed by (different)
language(s)
Theoretical developments I
• The main non-marxist theories comprising the
inter-paradigm debate were based on a set
of positivist assumptions, namely the idea
that social science theories can use the same
methodologies as theories of the natural
sciences, that facts and values can be
distinguished, that neutral facts can act as
arbiters between rival truth claims, and that
the social world has regularities which
theories can ‘discover’.
Positivism I
• Axioms: correspondence theory of
truth, methodological unity of
science, value-free scientific
knowledge
• Premisses: Division of Subject and
Object, Naturalism – deduction of all
phenomena from natural facts,
Division of statements of facts and
statements of values
Positivism II
• Consequences:
• Postulated existence of a „real“ world (Object) independent
from the theory-loaded grasp of the scientist (Subject);
• identification of facts in an intersubjectively valid observation
language independent from theories;
• methodological exclusion of idiosyncratic characteristics and/or
individual (subject) identities assures objective knowledge of an
intersubjectively transferable character
• Postulate of like regularities in the natural as well as the social
world, independent of time, place, and observer, enables the
transfer of analytic approaches and deductive-nomological
processes of theory formulation from the field of the natural to
the field of the social sciences & to the analysis of
social/societal problems
• Knowledge generated on the basis of positivist research
approaches and methodologies is limited to the objective (i.e.
empirical) world. Statements and decisions on values are
outside the sphere of competence of science.
Positivism III
• Further Consequences:
• Concept of Reason predicated on the purposeful rationality/rationality
of purpose of instrumental action aiding the actor to technically master
her/his environment
• Rationalisation of societal (inter-)action by its predication on planned/
plannable means-end-relationships, technical (or engineering)
knowledge, depersonalisation of relationships of power and
dominance, and extension of control over natural and social objects
(“rationalisation of the world we live in”)
• Theory regards itself as problem-solving theory, which accepts the
institutions and power/dominance relationships of a pre-given reality
as analytical and reference frameworks, and strives for the explanation
of causal relationships between societal phenomena; its aim is the
elimination of disturbances and/or their sources in order to insure
friction-less action/functioning of social actors
• International politics is regarded as the interaction of exogeneously
constituted actors under anarchy, the behaviour of which is as a rule
explained by recourse to the characteristics or parameters of the
international system (top-down explanation)
Theoretical Developments II
• Since the late 1980s there has been a rejection of
positivism,mainly due to the insight that its
stringent methodological criteria do not fit the
Social Sciences
• The current theoretical situation is one in which
there are three main positions:
• first, rationalist theories that are essentially the
latest versions of the realist and liberal theories;
second, alternative theories that are postpositivist;
• and thirdly social constructivist theories that try
to bridge the gap.
Theoretical Developments III
• Alternative approaches at once differ considerably
from one another, and at the same time overlap in
some important ways. One thing that they do share
is a rejection of the core assumptions of rationalist
theories:
• that there is indeed an outside world which can be
experienced and analyzed like natural phenomena,
• and that this world is materialist, that I.R. focuses on
how the distribution of material power, e.g. military
forces & economic capabilities, defines balances of
power between states & explains their behaviour
Theoretical Developments IV
„Constructivists, as a rule, cannot subscribe to
mechanical positivist conceptions of causality.
That is because the positivist do not probe the
intersubjective content of events and episodes.
For example, the well-known billiard ball image of
international relations is rejected by constructivists because it fails to reveal the thoughts,
ideas, beliefs and so on of the actors involved in
international conflicts. Constructivists want to
probe the inside of the billiard balls to arrive at a
deeper understanding of such conflicts.“
Jackson/Sorensen, Introduction to I.R. Theories and Approaches, 3e.,
p.166 (my emphasis)
Historical sociology
• Historical sociology has a long history,
having been a subject of study for
several centuries. Its central focus is on
how societies develop the forms that
they do.
• Contemporary historical sociology is
concerned above all with how the state
has developed since the Middle Ages. It
is basically a study of the interactions
between states, classes, capitalism,
and war.
Historical sociology
• Like realism, historical sociology is
interested in war. But it questions neorealism because it shows that the state
from a functional point of view is not all
the same or similar organization, but
instead has changed over time.
• Raymond Aron: Paix et guerre entre les
nations (1962)
Normative theory
• Normative theory was out of fashion
for decades because of the
dominance of positivism, which
portrayed it as ‘value-laden’ and
‘unscientific’.
• In the last twenty years or so there
has been a resurgence of interest in
normative theory. It is now more
widely accepted that all theories
have normative assumptions either
explicitly or implicitly.
Normative theory
• The key distinction in normative theory is
between cosmopolitanism and
communitarianism. The former sees the
bearers of rights and obligations as
individuals; the latter sees them as being
the community (usually the state).
• Main areas of debate in contemporary
normative theory include the autonomy of
the state, the ethics of the use of force,
and international justice.
Normative theory
• In the last two decades, normative issues have
become more relevant to debates about
foreign policy, for example in discussions of
how to respond to calls for humanitarian
intervention and whether war should be
interpreted in terms of a battle between good
and evil.
• F.H.Hinsley: Power and the Pursuit of Peace. Theory
and Practice in the History of Relations between
States (1967)
• Geoffrey Best: Humanity on Warfare. The Modern
History of the International Law of Armed Conflict
(1980)
Post- modernism I
• Lyotard defines post-modernism as
incredulity towards metanarratives,
meaning that it denies the possibility of
foundations for establishing the truth of
statements existing outside of discourse.
• Foucault focuses on the power-knowledge
relationship and sees the two as mutually
constituted. It implies that there can be no
truth outside of regimes of truth. How can
history have a truth if truth has a history?
Post- modernism II
• Foucault proposes a genealogical approach
to look at history, and this approach uncovers
how certain regimes of truth have dominated
others.
• Derrida argues that the world is like a text in
that it cannot simply be grasped, but has to
be interpreted. He looks at how texts are
constructed, and proposes two main tools to
enable us to see how arbitrary are the
seemingly ‘natural’ oppositions of language.
These are deconstruction and double
reading.
Post- modernism III
• Post-modern approaches have been
accused of being ‘too theoretical’ and not
concerned with the ‘real world’. They reply,
however, that in the social world there is no
such thing as the ‘real’ world in the sense of a
reality that is not interpreted by us. Despite
their methodological preoccupation, they
have done a great deal of work on important
empirical questions, e.g. the explanation of
the reasons for war.
• Cynthia Weber: International Relations Theory. A critical
introduction (2001)
• Jim George: Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical
(Re)Introduction to International Relations (1994)
More Literature
• Iver B. Neumann/Ole Waever (eds.): The Future of
International Relations. Masters in the Making
(1997)
• Gert Krell: Weltbilder und Weltordnung:
Einführung in die Theorie der Internationalen
Beziehungen (4th ed. 2009)
• Siegfried Schieder/Manuela Spindler (eds.):
Theorien der Internationalen Beziehungen (2003),
2nd ed.2006
The Rise of Constructivism I
• The end of the Cold War meant that there was a
new intellectual space for scholars to challenge
existing theories of international politics.
• The end of the Cold War also implied that the
prognostic value of neorealist theory was more
than questionable.
• Constructivists draw on established sociological
theory in order to demonstrate how social
science could help I.R. scholars understand the
role of ideas, and the importance of social
interaction between states as well as of
definitions of identity and norms in world politics.
The Rise of Constructivism II
• Constructivists demonstrated how attention to
norms and states’ identities could help uncover
important issues neglected by Neorealism and
Neoliberalism – i.e.
• the social construction of reality
• the relationship between actors and structures
• the content and importance of intersubjective
ideas and shared beliefs that define international
relations
• Yosef Lapid/Friedrich Kratochwil (eds.): The
Return of Culture and Identity in IR Theory (1996)
Precursors
Harold & Margaret Sprout: The Ecological Perspective
on Human Affairs. With Special Reference to
International Politics. Princeton, Princeton UP 1965
„…environmental factors (both nonhuman and social)
can affect human activities in only two ways. Such
factors can be perceived, reacted to, and taken into
account by the human individual…under consideration. In this way, and in this way only, environmental factors can be said to „influence“, or to
„condition“, or otherwise to „affect“ human values
and preferences, moods and attitudes, choices and
decisions.“
2nd option: environmental factors operate as a sort of
matrix which limit the execution of decisions or
undertakings
Constructivism I
•
•
•
•
Constructivists
are concerned with human consciousness,
treat ideas as structural factors,
consider the dynamic relationship between
ideas and material forces as a consequence of
actors’ interpretation of their material reality,
• and are interested in how agents produce
structures and how structures produce agents.
• Knowledge shapes how actors interpret and
construct their social reality.
Constructivism II
• Normative structures shape the identity and
interests of actors such as states.
• Social facts such as sovereignty and human
rights exist because of human agreement
while brute facts such as mountains are
independent of such agreements.
• Social rules are regulative, regulating
already existing activities, and constitutive,
making possible and defining those very
activities.
Constructivism III
• Social construction questions what is taken
for granted, asks questions about the origins
of what is now accepted as a fact of life and
considers the alternative pathways that might
have produced and can produce alternative
worlds.
• Power can be understood not only as the
ability of one actor to get another actor to do
what she/he would not do otherwise but also
as the production of identities and interests
that limit the ability to control their fate.
Constructivism IV
• Although the meanings that actors
bring to their activities are shaped by
the underlying culture, meanings are not
always fixed but are a central feature of
politics.
• Maja Zehfuss: Constructivism in International
Relations. The Politics of Reality (2002)
• Cornelia Ulbert/Christoph Weller (eds.):
Konstruktivistische Analysen der internationalen
Politik (2005)
Constructivism and Global
Change I
• The recognition that the world is socially
constructed means that constructivists
can investigate global change and
transformation.
• A key issue in any study of global change
is diffusion, captured by the concern with
institutional isomorphism and the life
cycle of norms.
Constructivism and Global
Change II
• Institutional isomorphism and the
internationalization of norms raise issues
of growing homogeneity in world politics,
assuming a deepening international
community, and intensifying international
socialization processes.
• Vendulka Kubalkova/Nicholas Onuf/Paul Kowert
(eds.): International Relations in a Constructed
World (1998)
Epistemological Background:
Constructivism - Resumé I
• Epistemological Premiss:
• Knowledge/Cognition is the result of a circular
gestalt formation process, which produces
„reality“ in perception and thinking
• „Die Umwelt, die wir wahrnehmen, ist unsere
Erfindung.“ [H.v.Foerster: Wissen u. Gewissen,
1993]
• Ontological Consequences:
• Social Phenomena or „facts“ are not simply
given, but they are generated or produced by
human beings, which hand them on over time,
explain them, justify them.
Epistemological Background:
Constructivism - Resumé II
Constructivists do not agree on the extent to which
it is possible to follow the explanatory model of
the natural sciences and produce scientific explanations based on hypotheses, data collection,
and generalizations.
On the one hand, they reject the notion of objective
truth: social scientists cannot discover a final
truth about the world which is true across time
and place.
On the other hand, constructivists too make truth
claims about the subjects they have investigated;
yet they admit that their claims are always
contingent and partial interpretations of a
complex world.
Constructivism Resumé III
• Processes & structures of IR are socially constructed, i.e. rather
social & intellectual than material phenomena. Structural
conditions of the international system are no given phenomena
external to the actors (as e.g. in Neorealism), but social constructs
intuitively understood by the actors and (re-)produced by their
interactions [A.Wendt: „Anarchy is what states make of it: the
Social Construction of Power Politics“, IO 46(2)],
• The behaviour of actors is not exclusively dominated by the
system [as in Neorealism], but it creates and changes the system
structure. Structure is (repeated) behaviour solidified over time:
• „...the structures of international politics are outcomes of social
interactions, ...states are not static subjects, but dynamic agents,
...state identities are not given, but (re)constituted through
complex, historical overlapping (often contradictory) practices –
and therefore variable, unstable, constantly changing; ...the
distinctions between domestic politics and international relations
are tenuous...“ [Knutsen 1997, 281ff]
• T.I. Knutsen: A History of International Relations Theory.
Manchester: Manchester UP 1997
Constructivism – Resumé IV
• New perspective on the agency – structure – problem:
• Neither structural determinism nor individual intentionalism are
acceptable starting points for theory formulation. [ Duality or even
Dialectics of agency and structure, Giddens 1984 ] Actors act
inside a framework of structures (and to that extent their actions
are influenced by structures), but actors can change structures by
their own actions. I.e. – actors and structures constitute each
other.
• „...points of departure are the rules, norms and patterns of
behaviour that govern social interaction. These are structures,
which are on the one hand, subject to change if and when the
practice of actors changes, but on the other hand structure
political life as actors re-produce them in their every day
actions...“ [Christiansen/Jorgensen 1999].
• Anthony Giddens: The Constitution of Society. Berkeley 1984
• Thomas Christiansen and Knud Erik Jørgensen: The Amsterdam
Process: A Structurationist Perspective on EU Treaty Reform, in:
http://www.eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-001a.htm
That‘s it – folks…