THEME 4: INTEGRARTION OR DISPERSION?

4.1- THE FOURTH DEBATE: RATIONALIST VS REFLECTIVIST. THEORICAL APPROCHES

Epistemology and IR Theory IR theories can be roughly divided into one of two epistemological camps: "positivist" and "post-
positivist".

Positivist theories aim to replicate the ways of the natural sciences through analyzing the impact of material forces.

Post-positivist epistemology rejects the thought that the social world can be studied in an objective and value-free method.

Post-positivist focuses expanded meaning of security, ranging from class, gender to post-colonial security (Burchill et al 1996).

The "Fourth Great Debate" was a debate between positivist theories and post-positivist theories of international relations.

This debate is concerned with the underlying epistemology of international relations scholarship and is also described as a debate
between “Rationalists" and “Reflectivists".

The debate was started by Robert Keohane in an International Studies Association debate in 1988 and can be considered an
epistemological debate, about how we can know 'things'.

On one side Rationalists, inclusive of Realist and Liberalist positions, are positivistic in methodology.

The opposition Reflectivists reject these positivist methods of knowledge generation, preferring interpretive and subjective study
and a belief that values cannot be separate from observation.

RATIONALISM

•A theoretical qualification to the pessimism of realism and the idealism of liberal internationalism.

•Rationalists — including realists, neo-realists, liberals, neo-liberals, and scholars using game-theoretic or expected-utility models
— are theorists who adopt the broad theoretical commitments of rational- choice theory.

Keohane characterized Rationalism in the following fashion:

[Rationalists accept] what Herbert Simon has referred to a "substantive" conception of rationality, characterizing "behavior that can
be adjudged objectively to be optimally adapted to the situation“.

REFLECTIVISM

Reflectivism is a broad umbrella label, used primarily in International Relations theory, for a range of theoretical approaches which
oppose rational-choice accounts of social phenomena.

• In Reflectivists view, understanding how people think about institutional norms and rules, and the discourse they engage in, is as
important in evaluating the significance of these norms as measuring the behavior that changes in response to their invocation.

• Institutions do not merely reflect the preferences and power of the units constituting them; the institutions themselves shape those
preferences and that power.

• Who sets the international agenda? Who have decided that power or balance o power are the most important subjects to be
studied by IR?

• Keohane called them "reflectivists" since all of them emphasize the importance of human reflection for the nature of institutions
and ultimately for the character of world politics.

• Reflectivists emphasize the significance of human self- awareness: the ways people observe, imagine, describe, predict and
theorize about themselves and the social reality around them, and the recursive effect this "self-knowledge" or these "reflections"
have on that social reality itself.

• Reflectivism includes such alternative approaches to IR theory as post-modernism, feminism, constructivism and critical theory
(with emancipatory positions such as anti-colonialism capable of falling under the umbrella of the latter).
• One criticism levelled at Reflectivists, that they seek to tear down the established order but fail to suggest anything new of their
own, is unfair.

• Rationalists suggest that Reflectivists should move beyond criticism into actually testing the validity of their claims through some
form of research process though this of course is anathema to Reflectivists thus challenging them to a game they cannot participate
in.

Its alternative IR approaches

- Constructivism - Gender Theory

- Post-structuralism - Post colonialism

- Post-modernism - Post-realism

4.2- REFLECTIVIST THEORICAL APPROCHES

CONSTRUCTIVISM

 Constructivists derive their name from their belief that much of the environment in which we live is not objectively
fixed but rather is socially constructed. International actors are not mere puppets of the systems they inhabit, because
they themselves create and constitute those very systems.
 From a constructivist perspective, Realists are wrong if they believe that states have no alternative to mutual suspicion,
selfishness and the security dilemma.
 Likewise, Liberals are wrong if they believe that international anarchy generates any objective need to build a Liberal
order.
 The mainly well-known constructivist scholar, Alexander Wendt noted in a 1992 article in International System that
"anarchy is what states create of it".
 Anarchy is the result of a process that constructs the rules or norms that govern the interaction of states.
 For instance, if the system is dominated through states that see anarchy as a life or death situation then the system will be
characterized through warfare. If on the other hand anarchy is seen as restricted then a more peaceful system will exist.
 Anarchy in this view is constituted through state interaction.
 This is what Alexander Wendt meant when he said that ‘anarchy is what states make of it’.
 Constructivist theory holds that it is possible to change the anarchic nature of the system of states.

Constructivists tend to focus chiefly on two issues:

 First, there is the question of identity.

Constructivists believe that the way states define their interests is derived from the way that they see themselves. They
highlight key attributes and core values states imagine themselves to have.

 Second, there is the matter of intersubjective understandings.

If states construct a set of understandings to the effect that dialogue and cooperation will prevail in IR, they probably will.
If, on the other hand, states accept the Realist logic of conflicting interests and rivalry, that outcome will result (self-
fulfilling prophecy)
Some think that despite their socially constructed status, identities, interests and intersubjective understandings are deeply
engrained and therefore difficult to change.

More radical Constructivists believe that if the nature of the international system is a social construction, then we can and should
use that knowledge to pursue major changes.

Another important idea in constructivist thought is securitization.

 Securitization theory argues that there is no objectively true answer to the question of whether an issue is or is not a
‘security’ issue. Rather, we use the language of security as a way of talking about certain issues in order to signal that they
are more important than ordinary political issues, and that extraordinary measures – outside the normal limits – are
permissible to address them.
 Political issues, such as immigration, infectious diseases or crime can potential be ‘securitized’. This can be achieved if
those with social power decide to apply the language of security to them, and manage to persuade the majority that this is
a legitimate move.
 Securitization bestows higher priority and attention upon an issue.
 This approach helps us to address more likely questions like why are issues securitized in some parts of the world and not
in others?

POST-STRUCTURALISM

 Poststructuralism is perhaps the most unconventional alternative approach in IR. It radically challenges the foundations of
the discipline, using ideas rooted in the work of French philosophers like Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.
 Its central purpose is to draw into question both the possibility of objective knowledge, and our ability to use language as
a reliable means of communication.
 Poststructuralists reject the possibility of imposing grand narratives on world events.
 For Poststructuralists, the narratives that we construct about the international system are merely products of our use of
language.
 The deconstruction of these narratives is the main goal of poststructuralism.
 By uncovering the power of discourse to create and recreate meanings, we can empower ourselves to challenge
established claims to knowledge and certainty.

POSTSTRUCTURALIST THEORIES

Post-structuralism explores the deconstruction of concepts traditionally not problematic in IR, such as 'power' and ´civilization´ and
examines how the construction of these concepts forms international relations.

Poststructuralist Theories Examples of post-positivist research contain:

 GENDER THEORY, ("GENDERING" WAR);

 POST-MODERNISM defined by an attitude of skepticism, or rejection toward grand narratives, ideologies and various
tenets of universalism The post-modernist Baudrilliard has spoken of the “death of politics” meaning the death of old
politics.
 POST COLONIALISM (challenges the Euro-centrism of IR) address the politics of knowledge—the matters that
constitute the postcolonial identity of a decolonized people.
 POST-REALISM focuses on IR theory as scientific and political rhetoric. It opens rather than closes a debate about what
is real and what is realistic in international relations.

This in IR approach helps us to address more likely questions like: Why is so much time in IR spent talking about the security of
the safest, richest countries on Earth?

IR is a discipline concentrated in the rich and privileged world, and that serves the interests of power and wealth accordingly by
helpfully focusing on their preferred problems and turning its eyes away from the suffering of the poor and the radical solutions
required to emancipate them.

In IR, poststructuralist work serves to draw into question the reality and stability of basic concepts such as the state, the nation and
the inside/outside distinction between domestic and foreign affairs.
Poststructuralism is often criticized, sometimes angrily, for destroying all existing routes to knowledge and truth without providing
an alternative. As such, it undermines the possibility for engaged political action, and reduces us to a position where ‘one story is
as good as any other’ when it comes to establishing truth.

One of the most well-known pieces of writing on foreign policy from this perspective is David Campbell’s Writing security, which
focuses on the construction of American national identity through discourses of danger, such as the construction of a sinister and
foreign ‘other’ against which an ideal American national character can be defined.

 Poststructuralists tell us that societies are fighting a constant battle to hold together in the face of an ever-changing world.
Part of how they achieve this is through the construction of ‘us versus them’ dynamics.
 It is actually the process whereby societies produce and reproduce their identities.

Gender theory

 It first came onto the International Relations agenda in the mid- 1980s.
 The invisibility of women in mainstream approaches and in many critical alternatives was one reason for the development
of the feminist literature. However, feminist perspectives have been no more homogeneous than other theoretical
standpoints.
 Some feminists, such as Christine Sylverster (1994,2000) have used post-structuralism approaches to question
‘essentialist’ accounts of women , their interests and rights.
 Other feminists, such as Stean (1995,2006) have been influenced by the Marxist tradition.
 The place of women in the global political and economic order.
 Constructions of masculinity, and with how they affect forms of power and inequality.

 The difference between sex and gender. Gender refers to the much wider and more complex set of socially constructed
ideas about the differences between what is ‘masculine’ and what is ‘feminine’.
 In the Western world, masculinity has long been associated with a set of idealized values including bravery, strength and
leadership. Classically imagined feminine virtues include tenderness, kindness and empathy.
 Society has tended to exclude and marginalize women when it comes to positions of political and military leadership.

 Gender theory suggests that war and high politics (diplomacy, treaty-making) have long been associated with ‘masculine’
values, making it more difficult for women to rise in these areas.
Unjustified exclusion of women from traditionally ‘masculine’ areas.
 Military service or tough political leadership. Victory can be declared when we achieve a world in which women are as
free as men to pursue jobs from which they are currently barred by unjustified assumptions about gender roles.

 Female heads of government such as Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi have demonstrated that women can be
successful war leaders.

 More radical gender theorists disagree.

 They want to stop privileging an idealized, outdated, and unhealthy idea of masculine virtue.
 The goal for radical gender theorists is a world where values currently associated with masculinity are no longer so
dominant in our thinking. It is a matter of overthrowing, rather than joining, the patriarchy.

 Another important part of this school’s study of IR is the often hidden role played by women in conflict.
 Women, meanwhile, play a supporting role: producing the soldiers of the future, maintaining life at home while men fight,
and representing ‘something to be protected’ in the minds of those at war.
 In reality, however, women have often suffered as badly as men in war, experiencing maltreatment and systematic sexual
abuse at the hands of enemy troops or their own compatriots.
 Many feminist such as Cynthia Enloe did set out to explain how women are affected by war and y developments in the
global economy, including structural adjustment policies (SAPs) in the 1980s and 1990s.