International Studies Journal (ISJ)

International Studies Journal (ISJ)

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

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors
Majid Dashtgerd 1
Fatemeh Sattar 2
1 PhD. of International Relations, Allameh Tabatabai University.
2 MA. of International Relations of Yazd University.
10.22034/isj.2023.374836.1937
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
Middle- Ground Approaches
Epistemology
English School
Critical Theory
Constructivism

Subjects

  1. Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the Middle Ground. European Journal of International Relations, 3(3), 319–363.
  2. Adler, E. (2002). Constructivism and International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes. Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publications.
  3. Beit Jam, R., Khosravi, M., Jalali, R., Sadeghi Haghighi, D. (2022). United States of America and the Iraq War According to Constructivism and Cultural Strategy. International Studies Journal, (18)4, 179-200. (In Persian)
  4. Bellamy, A. (2014). English school, In Martin Griffiths. International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century.Translated by Alireza Tayeb, Tehran: Ney. (In Persian)
  5. Booth, K. (2007). Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Bull, H. (1975). New Directions in the Theory of International Relations. International Studies, 14(2), 277-287.
  7. Buzan, B. (2009). From International to World Society?. Translated by Mohammad Ali Ghasemi, Tehran: Research Institute of Strategic Studies. (In Persian)
  8. Copeland, D. (2000) The Constructivist Challenge to Structural Realism: A Review Essay. International Security, 25(2), 187-212.
  9. Dunne, T. (2011). The English School.In Robert E. Goodin. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, Oxford: OUP Oxford.
  10. Gill, S. (1993). Epistemology, ontology, and the 'Italian School. In Stephen Gill, Gramsci, Historical Materialism and International Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Guzzini, S. (2000). A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147-182.
  12. Helleiner, G. (2001) Markets, Politics, and Globalization: Can the Global Economy Be Civilized?. Global Governance, 7(3), 243-263.
  13. Jeffrey, C. (1998). The Constructive Turn in International Relations Theory. World Politics, 50(02), 324-348.
  14. Klotz, A. Lynch, C. (2007). Strategies for research in constructivist international relations. New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
  15. Krasner, S. (2000). Wars, hotel fires, and plane crashes. Review of International Studies, 26(1), 131-136.
  16. Linklater, A. (1990). Critical Theory and International Relations. New York: St. Martin's Press.
  17. Linklater, A. (2007). Critical theory. In Martin Griffiths, International Relations Theory for the Twenty-First Century. New York: Routledge.
  18. Linklater, A. Suganami, H. (2006). The English School of International Relations: A Contemporary Reassessment. Cambridge: cambridge university press.
  19. Mearsheimer, J. (1995). The False Promise of International Institutions. International Security, 19(3), 5-49.
  20. Naghib Zadeh, A. (2008). The history of diplomacy and international relations from the Treaty of Westphalia to today, Tehran: Ghoumes. (In Persian)
  21. Navari, C. (2009). What the Classical English School was Trying to Explain and Why its Members Were not Interested in Causal Explanation. In Cornelia Navari. Theorising international society: English school methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  22. Onuf, N. (2013). Making sense, making worlds: constructivism in social theory and international relations. New York: Routledge.
  23. Outcomes on Food. (2019). United Nations , Retrieved October 20 2019,From https://b2n.ir/r37973
  24. Reus-Smi, C. (2021). Holding the Middle Ground. In Piki Ish-Shalom. Theorizing World Orders. Montréal: McGill University.
  25. Smith, S. (1996) Positivism and beyond. In Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Marysia Zalewski. International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. Sørensen, G. Jackson, R. (2014). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Translated by Mehdi Zakerian, Ahmad Taghizadeh and Hasan Saed Kolahi, Tehran: Ghoumes. (In Persian)
  27. Suganami, H. (2004). The English School and International Theory. In Alex J. Bellamy (ed.). International Society and its Critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Trade and Globalization. (2008). World Trade Report 2008, Retrieved October 20 2019, From https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/world_trade_report08_e.pdf
  29. True, J. (2014). Feminism, In Scott Burchill et.al.. Theories of International Relations. Translated by Homeira Moshirzadeh and Rohallah Talebi Arani, Tehran: Mizan. (In Persian)
  30. Wendt, A. (2003). Social Theory of International Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  31. Wight, C. (2002). Philosophy of Social Science and International Relations. In Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons. Handbook of International Relations. London: SAGE Publications.
  32. Yalvaç, F. (2017). Critical Theory: International Relations' Engagement with the Frankfurt School and Marxism. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Retrieved December 22 2022, from https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.001.0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-109