A Comparative Study of the Epistemological Foundations of Middle-Ground Approaches in International Relations

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors

1 PhD. of International Relations, Allameh Tabatabai University.

2 MA. of International Relations of Yazd University.

Abstract

Moderate approaches (social constructivism, critical theory, and the English School) emerged in international relations (IR) theory following intellectual developments and sociopolitical transformations in the second half of the 20th century. Setting the stage for new approaches to challenge positivists, these developments shaped the “Third Great Debate,” which fairly involved moderate approaches. Like post-structuralists, moderate theorists opposed rationalists and put forward their own distinct ontological and epistemological arguments against the mainstream. This comparative study sought to explore the epistemological basis of moderate approaches with regard to three epistemological concerns: the possibility, nature, and purpose of knowledge. Accordingly, the main question addressed by this study was: How do moderate approaches in IR regard the possibility, nature, and purpose of knowledge?

Highlights

Introduction

Social constructivism, the English School, and critical theory are often listed among the prominent moderate international relations (IR) theory approaches. On the one hand, they contest positivist views (neorealism, neoliberalism, neoclassical realism) and, on the other hand, challenge the theoretical basis of post-structuralism. Stemming from the latest “Great Debate” in IR, moderate approaches seek a “middle ground” solution that breaks away from the materialism of the mainstream theories and the radicalism and cognitive relativism of postmodernism. Accordingly, moderate approaches have developed a philosophical and metatheoretical basis (ontological, epistemological, and methodological) in IR distinct from those of positivists and radicals. This study aimed to comparatively analyze the epistemological basis of social constructivism, the English School, and critical theory based on three main epistemological principles, namely the possibility, nature, and purpose of knowledge. The main research question was: How do moderate approaches in IR regard the possibility, nature, and purpose of knowledge? The hypothesis was that none of the three moderate approaches in IR rejects the possibility of knowledge. In fact, they hold to reliable knowledge, emphasize schematic and non-material issues, and highlight the historicity and contextuality of knowledge. As regards the purpose of knowledge, constructivists focus on changes and transformations of global politics, critical theorists pursue the realization of better conditions, and the thinkers of the English School prioritize stabilizing international peace and cooperation. This comparative study aimed to test and prove the above hypothesis.

 

 Method

This study used comparative analysis and hypothesis testing to address the study question. It examined three main epistemological principles of the possibility, nature, and purpose of knowledge in social constructivism, the English School, and critical theory, delving into the similarities and differences.

 

 Findings

Moderate approaches in IR share a similar view on the subject of the possibility of knowledge. They accept reliable knowledge in IR and base their studies on this view, which is also acknowledged by positivists who build their analyses upon reliable knowledge and believe that political phenomena can be known. These theorists also share the belief in the historical-social and schematic nature of knowledge. They reject mere material knowledge about phenomena and argue that reality has various knowable aspects. Together with their dualistic ontology, they establish a dualistic epistemology encompassing the observable and the non-observable. Although moderate approaches and positivism have these principles in common, they diverge relatively in their understanding of the purpose of knowledge. Social constructivists set explaining developments and changes in IR as their ultimate goal. Critical theorists seek to realize better conditions through knowledge. The English School thinkers emphasize stabilizing international peace and cooperation as the main purpose of knowledge.

 

Conclusion

If we define the mainstream in IR as positivism and the radical theories (postmodernism, post-structuralism) as anti-positivism, the best descriptor for moderate approaches would be post-positivism. It is because while moderate approaches seek to go beyond the reductionism of positivists, they never reject reliable knowledge and are not anti-knowledge. This comparative study aimed to demonstrate how moderate theorists (social constructivists, critical theorists, and the English School thinkers) develop their epistemological basis to avoid both the positivists’ empiricist view and the anti-positivists’ radicalism. The study focused on epistemology; however, it is necessary to note that moderate approaches follow a similar route in ontology and methodology. In fact, moderate theorists’ epistemological view is primarily grounded on their ontological principles as they believe that social reality has different layers that cannot be reduced to merely empirical epistemology. Therefore, they argue that ontology should be the basis of epistemology. Similarly, they employ a syncretic methodology to know the world of politics. Their strive for finding a “middle ground” solution has also opened the way for the critique of positivism and radicalism. Mainstream theorists deem that moderate approaches lack empirical and observable justifications to support their arguments, and post-structuralists believe that moderate theorists who accept reliable knowledge follow the same epistemological path the positivists have trodden.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics