Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 July 2010
This article addresses the notion of reflexivity in international theory through an attempt to transcend the dichotomy between knowledge and judgement. It intends to demonstrate that neither ‘philosophical’ nor ‘scientific’ approaches to world politics can reconcile cognitive and evaluative claims, but that such an endeavour may be envisaged within a certain conception of knowledge, science and facts. A comparison of Morton Kaplan's approach with Hans Morgenthau's and Kenneth Waltz's suggests what kind of theoretical alternatives can bring together these two seemingly incommensurable orders of discourse under a unified, foundationally reflexive epistemology.
1 Weber, Max, ‘The Meaning of “Ethical Neutrality” in Sociology and Economics’ and ‘“Objectivity” in Social Science and Social Policy’, in Shils, E. A. and Finch, H. A. (eds), Max Weber on The Methodology of the Social Sciences (Glencoe: Free Press, 1949), pp. 1–47, 49–112Google Scholar .
3 I use the terms ‘reflective’ and ‘reflexive’ to convey the two meanings of ‘reflection’: the subject is reflective of external structures (like a mirror is of light) and is reflexive when she reflects on her own thought.
4 Bourdieu, Pierre, ‘l’objectivation du sujet de l'objectivation', Science de la science et réflexivité (Paris: Raisons d'Agir, 2001)Google Scholar .
6 Smith, Steve, ‘The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory’, in Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve (eds), International Relations Theory Today (Oxford: Polity Press, 1995), pp. 1–37Google Scholar .
7 Mark Neufeld, ‘The Reflexive Turn in International Relations Theory’, CISS Working Papers # 4 (1991); Onuf, Nicholas, ‘Worlds of our Making: The Strange Career of Constructivism in International Relations’, in Puchala, Donald J. (ed.), Visions of International Relations: Assessing an Academic Field (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2002), pp. 119–141Google Scholar ; Robert Cox, ‘Social Forces’; Steve Smith, ‘Self-Images’.
8 Smith, Steve, ‘The US and the Discipline of International Relations: “Hegemonic Country, Hegemonic Discipline”’, International Studies Review, 4:2 (2002), pp. 67–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Geller, Daniel S. and Vasquez, John A., ‘The Construction and Cumulation of Knowledge in International Relations: Introduction’, International Studies Review, 6 (2004), pp. 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Widmaier, Wesley W., ‘Theory as a Factor and the Theorist as an Actor: The “Pragmatist Constructivist” Lessons of John Dewey and John Kenneth Galbraith’, International Studies Review, 6 (2004), pp. 427–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Agnew, John, ‘Know-Where: Geographies of Knowledge of World Politics’, International Political Sociology, 1 (2007), pp. 130–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Pouliot, Vincent, ‘“Sobjectivism”: Toward a Constructivist Methodology’, International Studies Quarterly, 51 (2007), pp. 359–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar .
11 Ashley, Richard, ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, in Keohane, Robert O. (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 255–300Google Scholar ; Cox, Robert, (1985) ‘Realism, Positivism and Historicism’, in Cox, Robert with Sinclair, Timothy (eds), Approaches to World Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 49–59Google Scholar .
12 The author is aware of at least the following simplifications: that the opposition between science and philosophy cannot be asserted outside of a given philosophy of knowledge whereby these terms are defined; that the relationship between philosophy and sociology needs a similar epistemic qualification; that each discipline is characterised by a plethora of contending paradigms that prevents these naked terms from being self-explanatory; and that consequently these oppositions need a whole different inquiry, and another article, to be fully addressed.
13 Crawford, Robert M. A., Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline (London: Routledge, 2000), p. 10Google Scholar .
14 Williams, Michael C., ‘Introduction’, in Williams, Michael C. (ed.), Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans J. Morgenthau (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 1–17Google Scholar .
15 Hoffmann, Stanley, ‘Theory and International Relations’, in Hoffmann, Stanley (ed.), The State of War: Essays on the Theory and Practice of International Relations (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), p. 7Google Scholar .
17 Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: MacGraw Hill, 1993)Google Scholar .
18 Morgenthau, Hans, Scientific Man Versus Power Politics, 5th edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965)Google Scholar .
19 Morgenthau, Scientific Man.
20 Morgenthau, Hans, Dilemmas of Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958)Google Scholar .
22 Morgenthau, Scientific Man, pp. 154, 162.
23 Ibid., p. 123.
24 Ibid., p. 141.
25 Ibid., pp. 142–3.
26 Ibid., p. 144 (emphasis added).
27 Ibid., p. 161.
28 Ibid., p. 195.
29 Ibid., p. 167.
30 Weber, Max, The Vocation Lectures (edited by Owen, David and Strong, Tracy) (London: Hackett, 2004)Google Scholar .
31 Morgenthau, Dilemmas, pp. 51–2.
32 Morgenthau, Scientific Man, p. 165.
33 In Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau develops the notion of ‘ideology’ to account for the axiological, moral, and normative discourse that accompanies, serves, and sustains national foreign policies. He also considers ‘normative systems’ such as ‘morality, mores, and law’ as sociologically important manifestations of ‘restraints on power’, similar in function to the state-led mechanism of the ‘balance of power’. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, pp. 104–5.
34 Morgenthau, Scientific Man, p. 163.
35 Morgenthau, Dilemmas, pp. 27–8.
38 Waltz, Theory, p. 69.
39 Ibid., p. 8.
40 Waltz, Kenneth, Man, the State and War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959)Google Scholar .
41 Waltz, Theory, p. 6.
42 Waltz, Man.
44 Ashley, ‘Poverty’.
45 Kenneth Waltz, ‘Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics’, in Keohane (ed.), Neorealism, pp. 322–45.
46 Wendt, Alexander, ‘The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory’, International Organization, 41:7 (1987), pp. 338–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Griffiths, Martin, Realism, Idealism and International Politics: A Reinterpretation (London: Routledge, 1992), pp. 115–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Guzzini, Stefano, ‘A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 6:2 (2000), pp. 147–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar .
47 Waltz, ‘Reflections’ and ‘Origins’.
48 Waltz, Man.
49 Waltz, Theory, pp. 1–2.
50 Ibid., pp. 5–6.
51 Ibid., p. 91 (emphasis added).
54 Guzzini, Stefano, Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the Continuing Story of a Death Foretold (London: Routledge, 2002)Google Scholar .
55 Waltz, Theory, pp. 113–4.
58 Cox, ‘Realism’; Ashley, ‘Poverty’; Griffiths, Martin, Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations (London: Routledge, 1999)Google Scholar .
59 Bull, Hedley, ‘International Theory: the Case for a Classical Approach’, in Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James (eds), Contending Approaches to International Politics, 2nd edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), pp. 20–38Google Scholar ; Crawford, Robert M. A., and Jarvis, D. S. L., International Relations – Still an American Social Science? Toward Diversity in International Thought (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000)Google Scholar ; Jørgensen, Knud Erik, ‘Continental IR Theory: The Best Kept Secret’, European Journal of International Relationsm, 6:1 (2000), pp. 9–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Battistella, Dario, Théories des relations internationales (Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2003)Google Scholar .
60 Holsti, K. J., The Dividing Discipline: Hegemony and Diversity in International Theory (London: Allen and Unwin, 1985)Google Scholar ; Wæver, Ole, ‘The Sociology of a Not So International Discipline: American and European Developments in International Relations’, International Organization, 52 (1998), pp. 687–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Crawford and Jarvis, International Relations.
62 Crawford, Idealism and Realism, p. 28.
63 Kaplan, Morton, System and Process in International Politics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957)Google Scholar .
64 Vasquez, John A., The Power of Power Politics: A Critique (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1983)Google Scholar .
65 As illustrated by the re-publication of the book by the ECPR Press in 2005.
66 This could be explained by the combination of several factors: IR theorists' utilitarian focus on Kaplan's IR contribution, Kaplan's segregation of his philosophical writings from his IR publications, and the division of disciplinary labour in modern academia.
67 Kaplan, Morton, Macropolitics: Essays on the Philosophy and Science of Politics (Chicago: Aldine, 1969), p. ixGoogle Scholar .
68 This stand is anti-positivist insofar as it denies the existence of naked ‘facts’ and acknowledges the role of consciousness/judgment in the production of truth and accumulation of knowledge, even with respect to natural science.
69 Kaplan, Morton, ‘Evolving Human Nature and Objective Moral and Political Obligation’, International Journal on World Peace, 19:4 (2002), pp. 63–88Google Scholar .
71 Kaplan, System and Process, pp. 6–7.
73 A ‘multistable system’ is composed of more than one ‘ultrastable system’.
74 Kaplan, Macropolitics, p. 39.
75 Kaplan, ‘Post-postmodern’.
77 Kaplan, Macropolitics, p. 36.
78 Kaplan, System and Process, p. 218.
79 Kaplan, Macropolitics pp. 43–44.
80 Those that include states as unit-actors.
81 Agnew, ‘Know-Where’.
82 Guzzini, ‘Reconstruction’.
83 Smith, ‘Self-Images’.