Positivist Approaches To International Relations
Positivist Approaches To International Relations
Positivist Approaches To International Relations
, SCIENTIFIC METHODS) TO
STUDYING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
International Relations is not methodologically specific in the sense of raising issues of
theories. The classical approaches to international relations were informed more by
history and law than by natural science. It seems that the initial stage of the study of
International Relations has seen too much of the conceptual dimensions rather than the
explanatory ones. Thus, it would be fair to claim that positivist approaches opened the
floodgate of scientific method of explanation in International Relations, where the
success or failure of predictions was the key to identifying the causal correlation
between variables. Here we may perforce encounter a question: is positivism the
legitimate method of explanation in International Relations?
On this basis, finding an answer for the foregoing question, this paper seeks to assess
the positivism to the field by examining its implications for scientific methodology of
International Relations. The structure of the argument is to assess both positive and
negative aspects of positivist approaches taking classical and normative approach into
account following brief elucidation of the notion of positivism. It would be cardinal to
note that positivism has enormously influenced the field primarily because it has
impinged upon what the discipline could talk about. However, my argument would be
that it is not less important to highlight the normative aspects of International Relations
that have been marginalized by positivism.
1
Second, there is a distinction between facts and values. It was thought that the positivist
should approach the facts in an unprejudiced frame of mind and that the facts would
present themselves to the viewer in an uncomplicated way. Third, there has been a
powerful belief in the existence of regularities in the social as well as the natural world.
Finally, there has been a reliance on the belief in empirical validation or falsification.
Thus, positivism in International Relations has tended to involve a commitment to a
natural science methodology, tied to an empiricist epistemology. In other words, it is a
methodological view that combines naturalism with a belief in regularities, just in
contrast with the classical approaches that see the subject as akin to history by taking
notice of the actors motivation or intention in the social and institutional framework.
2
be inferred that the positivist task is to provide a system of generalization which can be
used to make correct predictions about the consequences of any change in international
circumstances. In this sense, positivism provided International Relations with scientific
approaches that aimed to uncover general patterns of international affairs through
observation of facts and validation by the test. Third, this logical positivism has been
extended to some more moderate ways of approach in International Relations. Some
positivists also permit perceptions and other psychological states such as hostility that
are not directly observable. Especially in the field of International Relations, even
observation need interpreting before it can be counted on. On this view, positivist
approach requires that we specify and differentiate the sources of our explanation. In
other words, positivism in international relations has permitted some considerable
measure of interpretation into international events. Moreover, some would even argue
that intuition would convey a sense of the unobservable relations of the subject
Positivism characterized International Relations theories that saw the world as a set of
ready-made facts awaiting discovery through the application of scientific methodology.
Especially for the logical positivist, perception of the facts is quite independent of the
specific social framework in which it takes place. In other words, positivists normally
work within communities with common sets of premises, assumptions, criteria and
techniques. They are all premised on a strong distinction between facts and values. On
this view, scientific judgments are to be understood in contrast with value judgments
3
that are held to be subjective, relative or conventional. There is no possible verification
for value judgments for positivists. As is argued by critical theorists, however, facts in
International Relations are social and historical products partly determined by the
human actions and ideas and therefore cannot confirm or falsify our theories in the way
that positivism maintains. In this context, facts have to be interpreted. We have to
determine what is to count as a relevant fact in the light of the concepts we use.
positivists argue in favor of a value-free, neutral and objective science, they do not
necessarily mean that values play no role in motivating research. What they mean is that
scientist should act as an impartial judge in terms of which specific theories and
explanations are accepted. In my view, however, value orientations might influence the
way in which the facts are perceived. Value helps to build structures that support some
lifestyles and kills other forms of life. For example, rational-choice analysis will depend
much on the extent to which people accept its rules to guide their behavior.
Then to what extent are value orientations important in International Relations? First of
all, what are dealing with in the first place in international relations are actions in the
arena of world politics. While actors perceptions are not completely determined, this
does not mean that perceptions are not caused. They would be best understood as
conditional to a large extent. Actors inhabit a world in which their interpretations and
assessments based on the language they use are largely socially constructed. Hence, the
investigator must understand the language of the actors. We experience the world only
through languages that are already theoretical. In order to do this, he must understand as
a whole the social practice within which the actions take place. This in turn requires that
he learn what would count as a mistake within the practice and therefore understand the
value systems of those actions in the practice. This values underlying the practice is
often highly contested. Hence, the investigator must become involved in substantive
normative approach.
A few words should be added about the positivists limitation. Since International
Relations theory is involved in deciding what the facts are, there is room for choice
when we decide whether the theory at stake is consistent with them. While positivist
believes in the possibility of generalization, its methodology does not necessarily
4
guarantee a coherent basis for theorization. In fact, the generalization about human
behavior may be unstable and the patterns of behavior may be fluid. Thus, if we
excessively persist in adopting positivist approaches, we may run the risk of fettering
our perspectives to analyze the international events.
5. Conclusion
a limited sense that we can recognize a pattern within international relations and to
formulate a general proposition. The possibility of prediction of actual human behavior
by theories, which is a starting point in examining international relations, is fairly
limited, much less of control of the action. In this regard, I assume that classical
approaches are more suitable in raising a theory by adapting the complicated
international phenomena with flexibility and grasp the core factors of them.
In addition, positivism implies an image of the world in which some things are regarded
as central in relation to international events whereas others are seen as specific and as
such irrelevant. As a result, it becomes virtually impossible to think of a way in which
any International Relations paradigms could be tested against one another. It is not
simply because they have different views of the world but because they define what is
the evidence in a different way.
5
provide the basis for determining what is just or unjust on human behavior in the
context of international relations. Therefore, it is crucial to have a comprehensive
International Relations theory which incorporate the normative aspects with the
positivist approaches.
[Bibliography]
Booth, Ken and Smith, Steve eds, International Relations Theory Today (Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1995)
Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Explaining and Understanding International Relations
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990)
Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia eds., International theory: positivism
and beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)
Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
1979)