Mark
Neufeld
“Interpretation
and the science of IR”
1993
1)
Theory
Distinguish ‘interpretive’ approach from
traditional, positivist approach and find their common ground
2)
Method
3)
Evidence
l
2 camps in positivist social
scientists: 1) strict behavioralism 2) meaning-oriented behavioralism
-
‘subjective meanings’ by Weber
1.
Strict behavioralists hold that
subjective meanings is not sufficien for scientific validation nor scientific
accounts. Because it is not empirical eidnee.
-
‘Verstehen’ == a technique
oriented toward ‘empathetic identification’ (이해, 양해, 공감능력) or
interpretive skills. Strict behavioralist does not employ such interpretive techniques
to the logic of social inquiry.
-
2. Meaning-oriented
behavioralists: importance of subjective
meanings and social action can
be accommodated when having ‘causal
adequacy’.
l
Beyond Positivism – interpretive
theorists
Interpretive
theorists contest that behavioral regularities exist independently of time and
place. ‘Subjective meanings’ is an adequate conceptualization of human consciousness
in social life.
l
‘web of meaning’ and the
sum-total of individual ‘subjective meanings’
-
Meaning-oriented: web of meaning
= sum of individual subjective meanings
-
Interpretive: Not, web of meaning
= ‘intersubjective meanings’, product of the collective self-interpretations
and self-definitions.
l Interpretive:
international politics is a realm which is not ‘given’ but ‘made’. Therefore,
capable of being ‘remade.’ It allows to change both ‘within the form of life’
(institutions) and ‘of the form of life’ (global order itself).
-
4)
Conclusion
Given the predominance of positivist approaches,
alternative provided by interpretive social science is given serious attention.
The combination of two needed!
5)
Critique
