1. Post-Positivism in IR Shunji Cui Department of Political Science School of Public Affairs Zhejiang University Email: ssjcui@zju.edu.cn IPT, L14:

2. Contents 1.Understanding IR Debates 2.Post-Structuralism in IR

3. IR Debates The evolution of IR as an academic discipline has been marked by series of great debates. 1.Idealism v. Realism (in the 1940s) 2.Behaviouralism v. traditionalism (in the 1950s and 60s) 3.Inter-Paradigm Debates (in the 1980s) 4.Positivism v. Post-Positivism (in the 1990s-)

4. IR Debates and Different Schools 1940s Idealism v. Realism 1960s Behaviouralism Traditionalism 1980s Inter-paradigm debate Neorealism World systems Theory The ‘English school’ Constructivism 1990s- Alternative Approaches Critical Theory Post-Structuralism Post-Colonialism Feminist IR Theory Historical Sociology Normative Theory Neoliberalism

5. (1) Idealism v. Realism (1940s) When? Who? On what issues? Main Aim: to identify the causes of war and to discover prescriptions to prevent future conflicts. Liberal thinkers (Wilson) had clear ideas about how to achieve this objective: (1) by reforming the international system and (2) by replacing autocratic systems of government with Parliamentary and pluralist democracy. Idealism became the orthodoxy in IR thinking in the 1920s and 30s, the formative decades in the development of the discipline.

6. (1) Idealism v. Realism (1940s) Yet the ir in the 1930s: The relevance of liberal idealism???  the events leading to WWII,  esp. the failure of the collective security mechanisms embodied in the League of Nations. Realist Response: E. H. Carr (1939), Hans Morgenthau (1948) constituted a comprehensive critique of liberal idealism and replaced it with a new orthodoxy of realism that was to dominate IR through the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

7. (1) Idealism v. Realism (1940s) Debates: Idealists -- had been preoccupied with what the international system ought to be, Realists -- insisted on the need to study the system as it actually was. Realism presented power politics among states as the key to understanding the operation of the international system. After 1945, idealism was replaced by realism Realism, which arose in reaction both to ‘the practical and intellectual failures of the inter-war period, and to the experiences of the Second World War and the Cold War’ (Buzan 1996: 48).

8. (2) Behaviouralism in IR The second debate, in the 1950s and 60s, was between behaviouralism versus traditionalism. After WWII, the academic discipline of IR expanded rapidly, especially in the United States. There, ‘scientific’ IR research became fashionable and enjoyed much official sponsorship. A new generation of scholars emerged; their work was characterised by a rigorous methodological approach in marked contrast to that of first generation writers. For them, the idealists and even early realists such as Carr and Morgenbthau were simply not scientific enough.

9. (2) Behaviouralism in IR Most of the first generation scholars (Traditionalists) Had been trained as historians or academic lawyers; some were former diplomats. Their outlook was essentially holistic; they accepted the complexity of the human world and saw international relations as part of it. Thus they attempted to ‘get inside’ international relations by entering the mindsets of diplomats and foreign ministers, in order to understand the moral dilemmas of foreign policy and to comprehend the basic issues involved – such as security, order, freedom, and justice. This way of studying IR is usually described as the traditional, or classical, approach.

10. (2) Behaviouralism in IR The new generation of scholars were usually trained in political science, economics, or other social sciences.  had different ideas about how IR should be studied. Scientists seek to formulate objective and verifiable ‘laws’ to explain the physical world;  now IR to do the same ???? Their task: was to collect empirical data about ir, preferably in large amounts. The data could then be used for measurement, classification, generalisation, and, ultimately, for the validation of hypotheses, i.e. scientifically explained patterns of behaviour. == This approach known as behaviouralism. Thus, behaviouralism did have a lasting effect, particularly from the late 1950s through the 1970s.

11. The inter-paradigm debate The ‘inter-paradigm debate’ or the ‘third debate’. This embraced realism, liberalism or pluralism, and radicalism or Marxism and took place mainly in the 1970s and early 1980s. Especially the Noe-Neo Debates: On state cooperation Acceptance of Anarchy, rational actor assumption Acceptance of scientific enquiry,  the Neo-neo Debates == Neo-neo Synthesis

12. The fourth debate When? Who? Positivism v. Post-Positivism (in the 1990s-) On what issues? Explaining v. understanding Rationalism v. reflectivism Eg ： Scientific approach -- general causes, explanatory power Interpretive/hermeneutic 诠释 approach -- try to understand internal meanings, reasons and believes of actors.

13. Theoretical positions How scholars ‘see’ & analyze the world, they dependent upon particular assumptions about: Ontology: theory of being – what is the world made of? What objects do we study? -- see different object domains? Eg, Waltz & Wendt Epistemology: theory of knowledge – what do we come to have knowledge of the world? --accepting or rejecting particular knowledge claims Methodology: theory of methods – what methods do we use to unearth data and evidence. -- Choosing particular methods of study.

14. Meta-Theoretical Debates Meta-theoretical debates: Philosophical concerns of social science To explore the underlying assumptions of all theory,  attempt to understand the consequences of such assumptions on theorizing 即，反思你所用的假设、方法等对现实研究将带来什么样的影响 和后果 == 是对理论的哲学性反思,  theories about theories.

15. Positivism and post-positivism 1.Systematic observation 2.Sufficient data (but there nothing more going on behind the date) 3.Avoid non-observable reality (discourses, and social structure) 1.All committed to reject positivism as a valid approach to the study of social science 2.Importance of meanings, beliefs and language 3.Skeptical of the validity of all knowledge claims

16. Post-Structuralism Stance: critical of social science, and IR – bcs they are based on positivist methodology. Q: How to study IR, who and what shall we focus, and through what kinds of method….? Positivism in IR There can be a cumulative science of IR of increasing sophistication, precision, parsimony, and predictive and explanatory power. Believe in the unity of science (social science == natural science), and that the same analytical methods (including quantitative methods) that can be applied in both areas. == Behaviouralism

17. Post-Structuralism Are not at all happy about positivist approach to IR. Esp. rejecting its empiricism – the view that science is based merely on observation of facts.  Pure ‘objective’ observation is not possible. It requires previous ideas about what to observe and how to go about it. Steve Smith (1996:20) “There can be no ‘objective’ observation, nor any ‘brute experience’. Observation and perception are always affected by prior theoretical and conceptual commitments. … to describe what we experience we have to use concepts, and these are not dictated by what we observe; they are either a priori in the mind, or they are the result of a prior theoretical language … Our senses can not give us access to ‘the truth’ since there is no way of describing experience independently of its interpretation. There are, therefore, no brute facts without interpretation and interpretation always involves theory.

18. Post-Structuralism Post-structuralist rejection of three basic postulates of positivism: 1. An objective external reality 2. The subjective/objective distinction 3. Value-free social science. The social world is a construction of time and place == the ISy is a specific construction of the most powerful states. Since WP is constructed rather than discovered, there is no fundamental distinction b/t subject (the analyst) and object (the focus of analysis).

19. Post-Structuralism Knowledge and Power (Robert Cox 1981) Knowledge is not and cannot be neutral, either morally, or politically, or ideologically. How to look at the world – a thousand ways: Then, which distinctions and concepts are the more important and which are less important? Dominant theories underpin and inform practice; that makes them hugely powerful. Defining common sense is therefore the ultimate act of political power (Smith 1996) All knowledge == reflects the interests of the observer.

20. Post-Structuralism Knowledge and Power (Robert Cox 1981) Knowledge is always biased bcs it is produced from the social perspective of the analyst. Thus, Knowledge discloses an inclination 倾向性 towards certain interests, values, groups, parties, classes, nations, and so an. == In this sense, all IR theories are biased, too, == ‘Theory is always for someone and for some purpose’ (Cox 1981).

21. Problem-solving knowledge v. Critical/Emancipatory Knowledge Problem-solving knowledge: eg, neorealism, Is conservative in that it seeks to know what is already exist; it takes the ISy of sovereign states for granted. Thus, biased towards an international status quo, which is biased on inequality of power and excludes many people.  Thus, cannot lead to knowledge of human progress and emancipation ( 理论的目的 ). Critical/Emancipatory Knowledge (Critical Theory): By contrast, is not confined to an examination of states and the state system ( 批 判国家中心主义 ), but focuses more widely on power and domination in the world. Critical Theory -- Knowledge for a larger purpose: -- to liberate humanity from the oppressive structures of WP and WE which are controlled by hegemonic powers (capitalist US). -- seek to unmask the global domination of the rich North over the poor South == Neo-Marxist analysis.

22. Language and Discourse Analysis Inspired by French philosophers, such as, Foucault, Derrida… Language is much more than a means of communication; It is a process intrinsic to human social activity; to engage in a speech act is to give meaning to the activities, which make up social reality. Thus, language no longer describes some essential hidden reality; it is inseparable from the necessarily social construction of that reality. == Texts are instruments of power. Eg, when we critically analyse the established theories of IR, we can learn how they privilege certain understandings of global politics and marginalize and exclude others. (George and Campbell 1990)

23. Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis Davis Campbell (1998): FP is not a given activity concerning relations b/t states. It is an ongoing process of producing boundaries b/t ‘us’ and ‘them’. FP is a continuing power game on many different levels of society where the exact definition of the danger stemming from anarchy can take many different forms, be it international terrorism, illegal immigrants, or anything else. Our focus should be on the discursive ( 话语的, 建构的 ) practice that establishes such boundaries because they also have consequences for identities (who ‘we’ are) and the domestic social order ‘we’ entertain.

24. Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis Lene Hansen (2006) Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War Hansen, one of the new generation of post-structuralist scholars – more focus on substantial analysis of ir, solid case studies. Western decision making in relation to the war in Bosnia; The relationship b/t identity and FP. The formulation of FP is not merely about taking concrete measures, policy is ‘performatively linked’ to identity. Facts and events are constituted by the discourses through which they are presented.

25. Foreign Policy and Discourse Analysis Hansen identifies two discourses in the Western debates: A ‘Balkan discourse’ and a ‘Genocide discourse’, and to traces the role of these discourses in an American and British setting. Through the ‘Balkan discourse’— non-intervention Through ‘Genocide discourse’ — intervention In this way, the study throws new light on the ways in which discourse and the formulation of national identity are linked.