Tag: irtheory

The A-bomb did not only decimate cities but also fundamentally changed the way we study International Relations. While the massive destruction of the bomb shocked masses, the scale of the destruction was also regarded as the pinnacle of the scientific method; the peak of mankind’s mastery over the nature, achieved by using science.

This awe-generating demonstration of the success of natural sciences (i.e. physics) triggered a search for applying its methodology to the study of the international. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, we witnessed the emergence of empricism, behavioralism, strategic studies and rational actor model, all of which strived to adopt the methods of the natural sciences. These methods can be summarized as “making observations, analyzing only the observable, making predictions with the aim of reaching generalizations.”

So far, I recited the dull story of how the A-bomb affected International Relations after WWII. However, the developments in the field of atomic physics have stayed relevant to the study of International Relations ever since. References to the study of atoms have been used for explaining ontological and epistemological debates in IR. Alexander Wendt, for example, compares social structures to “internal structures of atoms” while explaining a fundamental debate between empricists, who argue that only the observable count as valid objects to study, and scientific realists, who basically maintain that studying the unobservable also counts. In Wendt’s words: “… the fact that we can use theories about the (unobservable) internal structure of atoms to build nuclear weapons which can destroy cities is a good reason for the [scientific] realist to believe that such structures exist, as we understand them today” (Wendt 1987: 352).

Considering that recent theoretical debates in IR include a strand that applies aspects of quantum physics to the international, I evaluate this story of the interaction between natural and social science as a demonstration that the distinction between the two is indeed artificial. In fact, both interact frequently and both are shaped by the social and political context they operate in.

References:

Wendt, A. E. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory. International organization, 41(03), 335-370.

Once again, I am paying a visit to the two old schadenfreude in International Relations; positivism and postpositivism. To briefly introduce them, it would suffice to say that positivism strives for revealing timeless laws in international affairs, and postpositivism defends a more context-based approach, aiming to situate developments in time and place, along with the ideas behind them. So while positivism seems like a strict father who rejects everything that is not “his way”, postpositivism looks more like the wise person who would sincerely listen and try to understand if you opened up to (the intrinsic relationship between masculinity and positivism is indeed a classic feminist argument).

Yet, I have a question to the people who have been there with these two fellows. One of the classic textbooks for graduate-level IR theory courses maintain that positivists dig out causal relationships by observing behavior and unearthing repeated patterns. Thus, the book continues, “unobservable entities such as discourses or social structures” remain out of their agenda.

While I am not concerned with ontological choices of positivism, I am rather curious on why discourses are classified as “unobservable entities”. Can we not feel the existence of racist and sexist discourses with all our senses? Do we not read them, see them, hear them and be exposed to them on a daily basis?