SINGER

1) Bibliographic information

Singer, J. David. “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations.” World

Politics, vol. 14, no. 1, 1961, pp. 77–92. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2009557.
Accessed 15 Sep. 2022.

2) Summary of argument

In this article, the author abstracts from the issues of evaluating systems and
advocating for one or another level of analysis. Instead, by providing a thorough
modus scrutiny of the two most prominent of them, Singer advocates the very process
of evaluation of the analytical models. His utmost chagrin falls on the problem of the
lack of comprehension in the matter of level-of-analysis decisions per se: in
international relations, he says, it is a gray area, a donut hole. This vacuum is being
filled with pernicious confidence of the representatives of the field in the adequacy
(and completeness) of the established research tradition. It, thus, eradicates the
potential to thematic dispute, which is fundamental to secularization of the theoretical
base, and hinders important discoveries, resulting in some form of methodological
bias: instead of exercising a particular analytical model to its limits, there is a
tendency to juggle levels of analysis to meet the researcher's needs or expectations –
the vertical drift.
Singer's holistic critical perspective challenges those representatives of the
field who casually put the problem aside, while many, as it was mentioned above, fail
to recognize it at all. Like men from Plato's cave who got overly comfortable looking
at the shadows that objects cast and are unable of looking at their very essence, that is,
their ideas, the brightest minds of the discipline of international relations have
thoroughly applied every conceivable level of analysis in their studies, but fell into
stupor when the time came to make a quality step forward towards a strict approach
considerable of those levels' implicit analytic variations. Hence, the chaotic
wandering between various theoretical model is the main claim of Singer, who, in
search of a "stable point of focus", sorts through the two traditionally used levels of
analysis, demonstrating how and to what degree they fetter (or vice versa, free) the
flow of the theoretical thought, i.e., theorization.
Firstly, Singer sets out to examine the International System as a level of
analysis. Its explanatory power is characterized by an excessive emphasis on the
influence of the structure of the system on its elements. One might argue that the
actors, i.e., states are to some extent marginalized at this level of analysis, becoming
rather weak-willed hostages of the structures and processes characteristic of the
international system of relations. Moreover, the IS level is characterized by its
tendency to bring all actors to a common denominator. The national interest variable
is thus presented as universally homogeneous, which, according to the general
understanding, differs from reality, but continues to be assumed in order to achieve a
particular scientific goal. Singer sees the solution to be quite radical: he proposes to
change the functional orientation of this level of analysis as a whole, abandoning the
intra-state characteristics of motivation and national interest all together as something
of a small utility, instead focusing on processual issues as if with a "clear eye". This
model, developed by Hans J. Morgenthau and advocated by Singer, provides a much
more authentic view, if not of causation, then at least of the correlation between the
variables.
Secondly, he addresses the complexity of the mainstream National State level
of analysis. It compensates for a significant shortcoming of the systemic level,
allowing, due to its detail, to utilize a comparative approach to the study of inter-
country differences. However, it suffers from Ptolemaic parochialism, which stems
from scholars' aptness to exaggerate the inter-state differences and results in
prejudicial "us-them" dichotomies. This is followed by an important explanation of
the dilemma of Positivism vs Interpretivism and its implications for the theoretical
model. Is the purposefulness towards a certain final goal compromised by some
external forces that somehow influenced the mental, emotional or physical state of the
decision maker? This is an important reduction that allows one to analyze the
behavior of leaders who are in a position to extrapolate their aspirations to the whole
state as national goals. A plethora of internal and external factors influencing the
process of identifying those goals, Singer says, is not conducive to clarification.
Singer is also mindful of the fundamental, albeit subtle, issue of
constructivism in international relations, which he ascribes to the more general
phenomenological approach. What is primary - the sensual world alone or the
conscious imprint it leaves that makes us construe our perceptions in a specific way?
If we are to concentrate on decision making at the National State level, the response to
this question determines the starting point of our analysis. Can we properly
operationalize and systematize the phenomenal variables? If we recognize their
influence, then we must be able to do it somehow. As analysts, are we able to perceive
the nation as the sandbox of dynamic processes, individuals and their perceptions
rather than a personified abstraction? Then, the phenomenologically-oriented
methodology is the approach of our choice.
Overall, the professor concludes, any cynicism about these levels of analysis
cannot be ruled out completely, at least because their very examination raises a
number of pertinent questions about their functional orientation, relevance in
comparative disciplines, and generalizability. Nevertheless, as Singer himself admits,
the true value of his thoughts lies in conveying and, consequently, signifying the idea
of "analytical untidiness" existing in International Relations. As an advocate of
methodological sterility, he calls for a metaphorical "postponement" of the further
conglomeration of empirical data. Instead, he offers the scientists of the field to
finally put things in order in their own toolkit, bringing a share of precious order
necessary for the qualitative growth of social sciences.

3) Theoretical ‘school’/perspective (if applicable)

The writing of Singer here can be adequately assessed from the General
Systems Theory perspective. Systems theory is widely used across several fields of
study and is essentially a scientific and methodological approach to the gestalt
analysis of systems, their individual elements, structures, purposes and patterns, as
well as the general contextual facet of their interactions with each other. Singer,
referring to the work of Ludwig von Bertalanffy, reinforces the importance of the
conscious choice of the analytic level as a predicate of sophisticated research. He uses
its postulates to outline his course of thought in the article, emphasizing the delicacy
of this choice in view of the many subtleties that impinge on the design, composition,
and contextual environment of a particular analytical model. In tune with the general
disposition of Systems Theory, Singer argues that the decision to resort to the use of
one or another analytical model should not be forced by the methodological
constraints that research may impose, but rather deliberate, balanced and purposeful.
Hence, it contributes to the rigor of the scientific method and the evolution of the
discipline of International Relations.

4) Methodology (if applicable)

In the process of "theorizing about theory" Singer designates the basic

principles of a conditional sound theoretical model, focusing on and characterizing its
essential properties. In doing so, he aims at outlining the benchmark against which the
subsequent evaluation of two significant levels of analysis in the international
relations field takes place: the level of the International System and the level of
National State.

1) Descriptive capacity - here, to the regret of a scientific perfectionist, Singer

permits multiple distortions of the abstract descriptive model in relation to its real-life
prototype. He suggests putting up with its incompleteness and imperfection for the
sake of its implementation: in the end, it may take years to develop a thorough
description of a process within the field of social sciences, during which its main
utility value - explanation - will be lost.

2) Explanatory power - that which in a competent scientist and analyst causes

a direct association with parsimony (brevity is the soul of wit) and validity. Singer
postulates that it is more important to explain correctly than to describe correctly.
However, sacrificing soundness in both of these tropes should at the very least be
discouraged and only allowed in cases of descriptions perplexed with the inevitability
of such omissions. In turn, the theoretical explanations, in line with the core utility of
science, should be precise, accurate, and thorough.

3) Predictive power - here, as the author says, everything is somewhat simpler:

we can make quite bold predictions without fear of absolute failure, but only under
one condition that returns us to the same core utility of science - the validity of the
explanation multiplied by its brevity. As long as we have sufficient knowledge to
build the explanatory basis of the theory, the matter of further predictions remains
small.

5) Key concepts and their definitions

Vertical Drift - orderless, unregulated jumps in the levels of analysis that
Singer implies both in the field of international relations in general and within a single
study. In the first case, this refers to the lack of thoroughness in the process of
choosing an analytical model as the starting point of the entire study. The second
refers to a fallacy that occurs when the researcher switches back and forth between
levels of analysis in order to meet the needs of the research. This oversight, according
to Singer, has a much more detrimental effect on the generalization of the theory as
well as its explanatory capacity.

The International System level of analysis (Systemic level of analysis) - a

macro-level analytical model that takes a holistic approach to the consideration of
dynamics in the international arena, the focus of which is its structure, and the area of
interest is its influence on the actor-states within it.
 The State level of analysis (Sub-systemic level of analysis) – a macro-level
analytical model that is primarily concerned with the interaction of states through the
implementation of their foreign policy. Although states as a whole are actors in this
theoretical model, which implies its macro-orientation, the phenomenological method
that Singer proposes to consider as a tool of methodology allows us to scale to the
meso and micro levels of analysis of their behavior. Thus, instead of faceless states,
thanks to the introduction of perception variables, the mutual influence of people in
power and institutions that shape the scope of national goals and, consequently, the
relationship of states in the system become examinable.

Phenomenological issue – the problem of the researcher's conscious decision

in favor of or against the doctrine of phenomenological analysis within the sub-
systemic level. The phenomenological approach itself is concerned with the
operationalization of constructive variables – views, perceptions, beliefs (that is, those
that are in the actor's awareness zone in contrast to supersensory social influences).

6) Potential solutions related to war prevention/conflict resolution (if

applicable)

The article does not bear any significant meaning in direct relation to war
prevention or conflict resolution per se. However, the issue Singer raises here is of
particular interest to each and every scholar concerned with these problems: taking
into account his criticism, comments and recommendations, academicians of the field
of international relations take on the previously seemingly unbearable work of
qualitative improvement and empowerment of their discipline , thus acquiring a much
more integral apprehension of IR processes and contributing to its ultimate goals - be
it war prevention, conflict resolution, law change or power protection.
For instance, applying the phenomenological approach proposed by Singer to
the analysis of the conflict (as one of the stages of its mediation) at the sub-systematic
level, conflictologists are able to better understand the genuine stances of both parties
not only from the standpoint of statements and actions emanating from them de facto,
but also from the point of view of symbolic meaning they bear for them in their own
perception. Being able to operationalize them as discernible variables is itself a big
step forward in terms of the field’s sophistication that would allow for the
improvement of its practical utility.
Thoughtful use of the Systemic level of analysis, in turn, would be better
suited to addressing more global, overarching processes as related to war prevention.
Hence, the issues of power, its polarization, state interdependence, deterrence tools
etc. would be subjected to scrutiny. The macrolevel here may not provide us decent
descriptions or explanations of the behavior of particular states in these terms.
However, its “crudeness” and methodological parsimony may well be a blessing in
disguise: given the high degree of predictive power it allows for, the aforementioned
qualities are to be desired to be put in place.

7) Questions/comments about concepts and/or argument

Singer laments the lack of a rationally based approach to the analytical models
discussed in the article. However, he continues to encounter exceptions, as in the case
of the national goal variable at the National State level of analysis, in the form of
studies that have successfully implemented its meticulous deliberation (rather than
mere postulation). Thus, the case of criticism by Singer flows into a different plane -
this is no longer a question of lack of knowledge (the gray area of knowledge referred
to earlier), but a kind of claim to the level of qualification of scholars in the field of
international relations. Hence, one can treat the article as a sort of wake-up call or call
to action rather than a guideline set out to direct the researchers through the abyss of
intricate intra-level implications. This is undoubtedly a thorn in the side of both the
academic and the scientific community, which at one time was obsessed with what is
convenient rather than what is necessary. The staleness in the discipline of
international relations is equal to its stagnation: the complexity of sociopolitical
institutions and interactions between them is growing exponentially, while
inactivity/hesitance makes science simply unable to keep up with it.

8) Links to other texts 1: Theoretical ‘allies’ – within and outside course

readings

Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. General System Theory: Foundations, Development,

Applications. George Braziller, 1968. - has at its core a set of principles and ideas
intertwined with Singer's work, which in a sense is its spiritual heir (systematized
approach to the study of the systems).

Lewin, Kurt, and Dorwin Cartwright. Field Theory in Social Science. Harper
and Row, 1951. - one of the key tasks of this writing is the conveyance of thought,
which is closely intertwined with the leitmotif of Singer's article - for the social
sciences, competent recognition and certainty in choosing the level of analysis is a
primary step in any inquiry.

Homer, Steven, and Alan L. Selman. Complexity Theory. Dep. of Computer

Science, Univ. of New York, 1991. - an analytic theory that sheds light on the
functional potential of various systems, including systems of analysis. Valuable in
that, being the ideological successor of GST, it takes on the task of explaining the
growth (the expansion) of systems (in a level-of-analysis sense, it may mean the
introduction of tools into methodology, akin to what Singer did with the
phenomenological approach), and their adaptation in various contexts.

9) Links to other texts 2: Theoretical ‘opponents’ – within and outside course

readings
The Traditional Scientific Approach - an overly reductionist approach to scientific
inquiry (Hammond, 2002). It is based on the reduction of complex phenomena
characteristic of the social sciences by isolating its components and limiting it to a
purely mechanical principle. In essence, it is a theoretical opponent of an ecological
and systematized analysis of phenomena based on the essential for the field of
international relations (and Singer in particular) interconnection and interdependence
of all its elements.

Lake, David A. “Why ‘‘Isms’’ Are Evil: Theory, Epistemology, and Academic
Sects as Impediments to Understanding and Progress.” International Studies
Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 2, 2011, pp. 465–480., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2478.2011.00661.x. - contrasts with the idea outlined by Singer. Instead of the strict
inviolability of analytical systems, the consistent use of the methods of analysis that
are subject to them, and the general opposition of the mixing of theoretical models,
Lake develops the idea of the expediency of decomposing existing paradigms and
theories into separate concepts and elements, the synthesis of which in a different
order (analytic eclecticism) can be of great use in the diversified study of phenomena.