Martin Hollis & Steve Smith,
Explaining and Understanding International Relations,
1990
[Summary]
* Social sciences thrive on 2 intellectual traditions: 1) national science and 2) history.
1) Natural science = Explaining = Quantitative methods = (Actor=system, structure) = Outside approach = Holist = causal theory = top-down(from system to unit) = Realism
2) History = Understanding = Qualitative methods = (Actor=individual) = Inside approach = individualist = Bottom-up(from unit to system)
* 3 layers of the level-of-analysis: (top-down or bottom-up)
a. International system
b. Nation state
c. Bureaucracy
d. Individual
a vs. b: 1st debate
b vs. c: 2nd debate
c vs. d: 3rd debate
* Approaches
a. Realism:
- Scientific, materialistic view of nature, national interest, (by Carr and Morgenthau),
- 'Teleology(notions of purpose; system as having a grand purpose built into it)': Notions of equilibrium (balance of power), patterns, self-interest...
- Causation: Causes compel their effects. David Hume in A Treatise of Human Nature lay the foundations for a complete system of the sciences relying only on 'experience and observation.' Events are regular and predictable, whenever the same conditions hold.
b. Idealism: Human will, institution, normative, idea, risen after WWI
c. Positivism: (by Comte, Durkheim, Marx, Weber)
- Can include Realist approach.
- Experience, observation, testing, justification, hypothesis, quantitiative analysis, behaviouralism
- To detect the regularities in nature, 1) propose generalization/hypotheses/assumptions, 2) deduce what it implies; 3) observe whether this prediction succeeds; 4) conclude that the theory is consistent or inconsistent (by R.E. Lipsey).
- Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations(추측과 논박)": on the logic of validation, what counts is not 'confirmation' but 'falsification.' True scientist would abandon his theory to accept a refutation.
("all swans are white" <> finding black swan instead of keep looking at white swans)
>> This "falsification" supplements the inductive method.
cf. inductive method: observe-pattern-generalize-test for new instances
deductive method:
- Analytic/synthetic distinction: logical positivists sees this distinction exclusive and exhaustive. (A statement si either analytic or synthetic)
E.g. James Rosenau's "Pre-theory": Facts do not speak for themselves, and analysts need a pre-theory or conceptual apparatus to articulate their significance. e.g. to define a matrix for FP, Rosenau uses 3 types of states, 2 analytical dimensions, etc.
E.g. Milton Friedman's "The Methodology of Positive Economics"
d. Refutation of Positivism I : Pragmatism (실용주의)
- Quine's article "Two Dogmas of Empiricism"
There is no "facts" prior to "interpretation." A test cannot be a pure empirical truth. Just as concepts are entwined with perception, so too theory is entwined with experiment.
(Scientist tries to find the result that he/she wants to see.)
e. Refutation of Positivism II : Paradigm
- Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"
a 'paradigm' is 1) a set of broad assumptions whose falsity is almost unthinkable and 2) a set of institutional practices governing the current conduct of science.This recalcitrancy has been built with examples and counter-examples, demanding the theory be amended or discarded.
But when many and large anomalies pile up that the paradigm suddenly collapses. (Einstein>Newtonian paradigm) == scientific revolution
Inter-paradigm debate (e.g. Realism, Structuralism...) is impossible, if we follow Kuhn, in casting doubt on the final scope of Popper's falsifiability criterion.
It is usually possible to live with awkward facts as anomalies awaiting further explanation.
* A theory
task of a theory are to 1) abstract, 2) generalize, and 3) connect. Connect the logic of model with reality.
>> There is no neat assumptions/theory that could explain the whole world. changing perceptions(pragmatism), changing paradigms(paradigm)! it would be more appropriate to say that we are finding a "temporary but long lasting, and well-applicable explanation for current issues"
* Understanding
- Max Weber, " the science of society attempts the interpretative understanding of social action." Distinguishes causal explanation with understanding.
- 2 hermeneutics(interpretation skills): Understanding individual actions through social rules(top-down) vs. understanding collective arrangements thru individual elements(bottom-up). Weber's critical suggestion is to take rationality. Rational actors make the same choices in the same situation.
- Morgenthau's Realism: decision makers act as if they were maximizing utility (maximizing power). international system is conceived along the lines of a market system whose moving force is maximization.
Irrationality is a defective information, defective processing, defective preference.
Value-rational action, where the goal is so dominant for the actor that it drives out all calculation or concern. (e.g. self-sacrifice, heroism)
>> Putting sanctions on Iran along with the US? Sending troops to Afghan at the US's request? Building houses in developing country? Are these altruism and value-rational action, or rational action?
- traditional vs. affective vs. rational actions (Max Weber)
affective action, prompted by instant desire (drinking water)
traditional action, governed by custom <> rational-legal actions (e.g. modern Islam)
- How 'meaning' relates to 'causation'? Weber says, "Without 'adequacy on the level of meaning', our generalizations remain mere statements of statistical probability...On the other hand, even the most certain 'adequacy on the level of meaning' signifies an acceptable causal proposition only to the extent that there is a probability"
* 'Idea' in Social Science
- Wittgenstein: As Wittgenstein put it in the “The Blue Book”: (outside source)
Our craving for generality has [as one] source … our preoccupation with the method of science. I mean the method of reducing the explanation of natural phenomena to the smallest possible number of primitive natural laws; and, in mathematics, of unifying the treatment of different topics by using a generalization. Philosophers constantly see the method of science before their eyes, and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer in the way science does. This tendency is the real source of metaphysics, and leads the philosopher into complete darkness. I want to say here that it can never be our job to reduce anything to anything, or to explain anything. Philosophy really is "purely descriptive."
- Peter Winch: Social relations are expressions of ideas about reality. To understand action we must begin by identifying the intention and motive involved in it.
-> applicable for different ideologies.
>> But, Hollis and Smith in 1990 describe that superpowers with diff. ideology makes impossible any long-term cooperation or peace, citing example of the US and Soviet Union! Which turned out to be false! Although idea matters, does different moral code necessarily give different guides for state action? (seeking for power, peace and wealth is common value!)
[Example]
[Critique]
[Example]
[Critique]
