_Explaining and Understanding International Relations, MARTIN HOLLIS AND STEVE SMITH CLARENDON PRESS » OXFORDviene tae” at err at saa oe op on m “madeeevtaentnone pees “Sorc eeaeeamat “paige gina natn td ti Preface Books which bring together Interntional Relations and philosophy are rare enough fo eal for comment. This ane has gz0wn out of joint teaching which began in 1984, and out of many lively discussions im consequence, We would like to thank all the Students who have taker Marti Hols Phiforaphy of Social Science cours in the period. both those also studying international elation with Steve Smith and those majering in other areas of Socal seience or in philosophy. Thoin keen interest and their comments, especialy those by Tim Dunne, have helped in many ‘ways, not eas by convincing us that issues which are ler forthe Social ssiences at large are well exemplified in the dscptine of International Relations “The book is aimed chielly st those engaged in reflesting theoretically on international relations. We hope to show how ‘many of the central questions in such reflection belong to wider debates in the theory and philosophy of the socal sciences, and bow the discipline ean gain from selting them inthis wider context. Very lita hap been written om this subject, the moot notable exception being Chats Reynolds's 1973, book Theory and Explanation ue uereational Polite.” Reynolis's absorbing tidy {snot undermined by mote recent developments i the philosophy fof science, and iis contrast hetween ‘sient’ and “stoned approaches remains insiructive. But whereas his “historical explanations are always particular, we have sought to establish 2 dimension of underscandine’ which permits range of hermeneutic Gsputes between indiiduslism and holism, Yet we ete not offering simple answers. Indeed, 8 we explin inte introduction and demonsrate in the dialogue of te final chapter, we are not ven offering agiced answers. The theme foreshadowed by our title is that Explaining and Understanding are alternative ways to analyse interastional relations, each persuasive hut not readily » Chae Rey, Thar an ExpaoeInonana oli (Ode Manin Robo)“ Preface combined, Although either ea allow some scope ta the other, one must predominate, We disagree about which “Ts will emerge only after We have agreed about a great eal on the way Ie is worth saying now, however, tat the argument isnot tne between our disiplines. Had one of us taken s diferent line Sn his side of th house, there would have Deen no need fora final tialogse, and if both of ws had, we would merely have ended on ‘opposite sides ofan argument sil structured in the Same manner ‘What follows is «joint exploration of a shared ine of thought for ost ofthe way ‘Our differences of intellectual background. ate, however reflected in the srating of the book. Hols wrote the Fst rafts of Chapters 3 4, and, where philosophy is uppermost, Smith those ‘of Chapters 1, 2, nd 8, whete International Relations is primary Chaptcr 6 started out inthe form of two separate contributions Chapter 7, which has a longer history than the fst, draws on our joint paper "Roles and. Reasons in Foreign Policy Decision Making’, which appeared in the Brisk Journal of Poitce Science in 198b and led us to Believe that We had more to say.” Although neither of us claims expertise in the other's discipline, both have hevertheless had a nege and i all chapters, and the final draft has invariably emerged very diffrent from the fist I is very rich a joint work and one for which we take joint responsibly Steve Smith would like to thank Marysia Zalewski for het stated comments, her trenchant criscsms and, above all, her fnvaluable support, Marin Holls wishes 10 acknowledge Blackwels permission co reprint the diagram on p, 51. We would ‘th like to thank Mary Rebiason and Carol Forwatd for sping the final drs of various chapters Marin Holts and Steve Smith School of Economie and Social Stadies ‘University of Bast Anglia ® Nan Ht and tere Sith, ‘Role ad Renu Fre Foy Deco ghar of Pol Sece oO), 28. SF Nv ten Pp (Ono Base, 8). Contents Introduction: ‘Twa Traditions ‘The Growth ofa Discipline Explaining Understanding The International System ‘The Games Nations Play (1) Roles and Reasons ‘The Games Nations Play (2) Explaining and Understanding Guide to Further Reading Index 16 45 68 2 19 43 m 196 217Introduction: Two Traditions “The social sciences thrive on twa intellectual trations. One is founded on the triumphant rise of natural science since the sinteenth century. The other is rooted in nineteenth-century ideas ‘of hisory andthe wniting of history from the inside This book is uided by our bei that both traditions are fertile forte study of international relations, despite a lively tension between them. 1a international aftairs, and throughout the social word, there are ‘wo sorts of story tetell and a range of theories to go with each ‘One sory isan outsiders, tld inthe manner ofa natural scientist secking to explain the workings of nature and treating the hursan alm as patt of nature, The other is an insiders, told 0 ae 0 ‘make us understand what the evens meaa, ina sense distinc from any meaning found in unearthing the laws of mature, Thus our ile dacs not use two words where ane would do “Fxplaining the Kev'ienm in one approach, “understanding” inthe other. “The ‘inside’ story isthe more farilia one. The media tll whenever they peesent international relations as a dramatic Encounter between world leaders who personify their countries ‘Think of the popular picture of US-Soviet celations as Bush: meets Gorbachev, or of the US-UK “spacial relationship in the 1880s asa special personal relationship between President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher. The air of human drama apd of history i the raking is especially potent in times of ers, when leaders can be shown locked! in combat, for example Reagan with Gadatli over ‘the US bombing of Libya in April 1986, Reporters ty to establish hat the unfolding events mean tothe principal acors concerned ‘They report their statements, analyse their actions, and cereate their thoughts, 50 as to convey the reasons which acount for why cach tep was taken rather than anyother. The actors themselves ate generally een to help, both in person and through the mouths2 Anurodueton: Two Traditions of oficial a the time, and (often teling a rather diferent tale) in ‘canguil autobiographies afterwards TNO one supposes that international relations can be fully ‘understood just by assembling a patchwork of what the ators say ‘vas i their minds Nor should the media habit of prsonatizing events and tends be taken too seriously. Drama is easier 0 convey than analy, rather asthe politcal decisions of kings and {queens make for more comprehensible history in the Schooltoom than do radial sifts in economic and social patterns. Al the same, the actors view i a starting point and, advocates of| Understanding wil sy, the only start point. We must know how the actors defined the ises and the alternatives, whet they believed about the situation and eachother, what they aimed to chive, and how. Only then can we ask more pointed questions bout thei clarity of vision thei uadetying reasons, and the rue ‘meaning ofthe episodes. “There is «distinction to be drawn here between simplifications and assumptions. TU a simplification to banish all bot the ‘rics actors ftom the international stage. The pretence i that the White House spokesperson is the voice ofthe President he reality is closer to Being tha the Presiden isthe voice of the White Howse and other agencies of decision-making, There ae a thousand other actors inthe wings and the offal ale about the Presidents intentions and reasons is never fll and rarely frank. [Everyone is well aware thi the considesed official record is 35 rach simplification (even if of diferent sot and for ditiesent reasons) ais the news sloy fled by reporters for press and Televisin—the actors, the reporters, the academic researchers, and, one hopes, the pubic 100. "The assumptions raise deeper questions. For instance, there is sully starting aesumption that ingividas make history atleast bythe sum of ther actions andeven if not quite 8 they tended it to be. In that case the simplification is warranted Because it feneapsolates a truth about what i going on But the general proposition thal human affairs must be undersood from within SSoer not require the essumption that individuale make history, ‘except perhaps a2 conveniem device for ieniying what cll for ‘deeper nderanding. individualism isa possible, indeed common. trump cit in the search forthe meaning and ue interpretation of fil events: ut we sll ind in later chapter, ts by 0 means Iniroduction: Two Traditions 3 the only possible one. Am “inside” story can also be tol in terms which sebordinate individuals to some larger social whole Atthisstage,thetelore, we shall say nothing about the range of thoories which canbe brought to hear on international eatons it ‘onebeleves in working rom the inside n pursuit of understanding [Butts worth pointing out one abviows hostage given by treating the ‘inside’ as 8 matter of the desires and Deis of individual sctos. Is thatthe actors’ desire, belt, and eeslting reasons for action may be generated in tarn by extemnalfecors. To the jargon of social science, they may be intervening and aot ‘independent variables, Although thre are inside’ ways of tying to rescue the hostage, a8 We shall see, the point will serve to Introduce the rival outside’ story ubout explanation. The “ouside’ way of accounting for behaviour is modeled on the methods of natural scence andi usually described as a search for causes, To explain an event or sate of ffis eo find another which caused i, This bal statement conceals much dispute about the exact relation berween a cause and its effect, about the right way to define cause’ and bout the nature of eusality, both as a ‘concept and inthe wold. So what follows very preliminary. But ‘he broad iden is that events are governed by laws of nature which apply whenever similar events occur in similar codons. Science progresses by learning which siiaiies sre the Key to which equences, That eafches the fami dictum that scence explains particular events by generalizing and by making them cases of laws at work. To this soften (bul not alvays}aclded an idea that @ ouse makes ils effect happen, implying perhaps that 10 (ind a ‘cause isto show Why the effec: had to happen as it id TT these ideas are taken Together, and if three centuries of physics and chemistry are taken ay the model to emulate, i tempting Wo suggest that it eeally does ot mater what the ators ‘om the infesnatonal seen have in their minds, In the siongest ‘version ofthis approach, behaviour is generated by a system of forees or stwtute, external not only tothe minds of each actor tut ako extemal even tothe minds of all actors, I hat ess itis a Ins mistake to reduce US-Soviet relations to dhe personalities of individuals. Bush aud Gorbachev merely represent the forces Ushich brought them to office and merely pursue an agenda so predetermined that i outcome covld have been predicted in fidvance. If either were ran over by the proverbial bus, ik4 Inroduction: Two Traditions replacement would catty on as before. Sinilany, the special felationship between Thatcher and Reagan was 4 meting of idcologies, which in tun expressed congruent interest within 3 larger sytem of forces. To call t a personal felatonsip oF 10 belive thatthe individuals contributed mote than is plesantries isan ilsion TY must be sid at once that nothing remotely a tong as this ‘required bythe proposition tht to explain an evento find is ‘cavse, That would mean crossing most brands of psychology and tconomics off the list of socialsciences, Theories east toms of ‘extemal strctures and syatematie forces are atthe “hos end of range of caus theories, just as theories which take actors asthe final autho ae al the ‘nscale end of» range o theories in Search of understanding, What marks the ‘explanation range is the ssertion of ony the weak determinism involved in csiming that similar eects always occur similar contons, The rest i matter of cisute, as we shall Find in Chapter 3, and there is no ‘objection inprincile toa psychological explanation otermtionst relations orto one cast in terms of individual behavi, All the same, thete is sill point in contrasting “nsder’ and ‘outsider accounts. The point could be simply mae ifpsychology modelled on the natural slences Were always “behanoural and oncerned with the actors trains rather than with their minds ‘But in international ralatione a in economies tore espe for appisng scientific meh tothe belies and deste ofindividual. ‘The eruial move i io insist that every individual woiks Basically inthe same law-like way, with individual variations depending 00 sjstomaticeliferencesin, for instance, prelerencosandinformation, for, more broadly, nature and nurture. Admittedly the diffrence between understanding from inside and explaining ffm outside wil Seem to be pretty thn, i€ beliefs and desires can appear in ‘sientific explanations. But we ask for patience ntl Chapter & “Meanwhile, the coneat fest made for introductory purposes by thinking about the midle ofthe range, where individuals tke the stage ina social capacity, a, for instance, Prime Miniter oF Secretary of Sate. Tn Figure 1-1 we have sepresented the hols ‘ndvidunism range on the vertical axis “and the explaining understanding conras on the horizontal, with the acors in thei ‘socal eapaetiesTocated on the dividing ine, where, one might sy, structure meets ation. X isan actor conccived inthe sii of Introduction: To Tradtions 5 I ® ® Prot the scinifc ration, the counterpart in the spirit of the interretative traction Fr bth there kw pl ino dietons, Onsheone had and ¥ ae burn beng wh bells dam ane are ered in what in ter heath On ie cher hand. ther station i structrcd and Chin hore sanding for Ne ies thal the pars whole bhane ete whole equa) we are intersted the sil eons on the acon. Both pus ae Song a teas which parpor fo recone them tend tte fragile, eventhough they eapare stot commonsense conviction that as Mars putt, Mon make thet own history ut they Jo not make i just as iey plesse: they dot make under {itcamsances chosen by themselves But let ws soppose that ere tne theories abot enough fold the tension The contrast shows pt heen notion of oeiat capaciy’ Being part ofthe nail world and proper objec of Sclnifc sty is predictable on the buss of Pe preterence Anntomatn, wih re ot te Fn of Xt tune. Thee «ited gueston bout the proportions af ature (sscolgs) our silo), bu to heep on te Border teen op and bottom oxen, beh ze important Stee soo mice Mani fet ane te aman beings replacing sould mae a diferens. Yt the station i fl f cots Ad the rene i not ns lng as Mr Thtcher she mee igh ike think. Soca capaci area seul Source of breton, since hey grey reece the range ofaemae that $n aco ily to puro The fabic of Ys soca worlds woven fom rules and panies, stich define reationshipe among the Inaba and pe mer Beton thy purpose Sokal eapaces are normative of prem Sve i hat they nla respons for whose dha he6 Introduction: Two Traditions actor can be praised or criticized. Other actors are ented t0 texpect ¥ 10 hive up to them, even if they would be wise not t0 {nun on it when emptations arise. In other words, Ys expected topickan neligent course through variety of social engagements, to which sefor bring something of themslves in exeresing their ‘social capacities. What this comes to wil be clearer by the end of the book, but we need o mention both a normative element and personal one, if Yis to be located neither above nor below the Alividing tine. The socal word must be seen through the actor tyes because i depends on how they see it and i€ works in ‘whatever way social capacities ae exerised, Tema sound a if ¥ fas ree will and X doesnot, But hats 190 simple. Some philosophers maintain that to act rely sw do what fone wots and 10 at rationally isto do what wil best satisfy one's Sesires. In that case iti no obstacle to freedom that actions are predictable; indeed, fee and rational action is posible only in predictable world. By this test Xa frce agent Other philosophers frgue that fre agents need to be seltirected (or ‘autonomous’ fn hence ned to choose ina sense not eashable asthe effective Satisfying of desires. In that case snot a fre agent, ut its not yet clear whether Y is one, So we canpot characterize the Aifference between inside tnd outside in Terms of freedom ¥s, ‘determinism “The crucat contrast Between X and ¥ les inthe stuff of their social words. For the social world, ike the rest ofthe natural ‘worl to which t belongs, san enronment, independent do ‘ome’ ertent predictable, For ¥ isa construction consisting of rules and meanings, This coatast brings with it dlferent theories ff social action and how to study it. Tt also implies slfferent Snalyes of human nature. Hence, to give warning, we shall find fo easy way fo combine a natural science approach with 20 terpretative one. For the moment, we tepeat that there are 1wo platsible tories #0 tell ome from outside about the human part of fhe natural world and the other from inside 4 separate socal "cal. One seeks toexptin, the other to undeestand. We are well ware that many have aempted to combine these two stories, for ‘example Anthony Giddens in his work on the concept of Seructuation.” However, we believe that readers will come 10 "A. Gide, oat mein Sec Ter (London: Masia, 1) h 2 Introduction: Too Traditions 7 understand by the end ofthe book that combining the 180 stories isnot as easy ast at first seems. Although ti appealing 1 believe that bit the two stories can beaded together, we maintain that there are always two stories to ell and that combinations 6o pot solve the problem, With this broad thome ia mind we tara to the subject of Ivemational Relations and then to an euline ofthe book The study of international relations deals with » peculiar azea of| polities, Whereas domestic polities occur within apolitical stem Uhich includes a government to make and enforce laws, the ‘ntemational system is auarehie, BY this we mean 90% that its chaotic hut simply that there is no government above the states ‘which comprise it. The individual nation stat i often therefore presented as self-contained uit, analytically prior to is ‘ternational relations, Tt may turn ou HOt to be the Fina or the ‘only unit of analysis but, even so, 10 contend that it were would rot beso willy weong 28 Heating America as fifty states without ‘mentioning the Federil Government ‘Our approach wo theories a international relations wil be based fn 4 distinction between system and units, and will make central ‘what the literature call “the levehofsnalssis problem. Tis Ws ‘originally posed by David Singer in 1961 ss the problem of ‘whether to account fo the behaviours ofthe international sistem in {erms of the behaviour of the nation States comprising it oF vice vers ® We propose ta extend the problem in two dimensions. One “dimension concerns the identities of s)stem and units For purpose fof what i, on reflection, a very general problem indeed. Singer's ‘question was about the international sSstem and national units ‘One answer to it might be that there are systemic forges song {enough wo prope she nation states through their obits, rather asi they were planets ina solar system in dyamic equilibrium. To that ease one might hope to account for the working of the system ‘sthout enquiring into the Internal orgonization ofthe wis Bt i 1X, Kaw tS. Deke et Bee erm Som Tarra aay (etc: Priston Unnerty Pre 0) pp 78 Introduction: Two Traions it urns out that dhe units make am independent contribution, then there is 2 further level-of-analysis problem. Are we to account for the behaviour of the state in tems of the behavour of its sonstituent bureaucracies (and other agencies), or vice vers? ‘Then, ifthe answer requires us to take the bureaveracies as making an independent contribution, there will be yet another Tevelof-analysis problem. Ate we 10 account fr the behaviour of| «bureaucracy i term of the Behaviour of the hums individuals ‘comprising i, of vce versa? At each stage the “unit ofthe higher layer becomes the system’ of the Tower ayer. We shal dsingush the three layers just indicated, and on cach shall contrast an analysis which proceeds top-dows" from system (o.unt) with one which proceeds “bottom-up? (rom usit to sytem), "Thal way of deseribing the level-o- analysis problem s markedly sientific i tone. Our other dimension concerns the contrast between explaining and understanding. There is sso level-of ‘analysis problem for theories which try to work from the inside. ‘Again there ae thtee layers. The highest equires that we think of the international system a st of norm or purposes which shape the process of history. Ifa fully systemic answer to the roblem ‘wets 10 prevail, somthing very ambitious would be needed, for Jnstance the positing of « Worle Spirit to guide bums history. as Hiogelians and Abeolte Idealist have sometimes seemed (0 Sagrst Rot wr ourelers shallot tackle sich grand theories. ‘what follows the interpretative dimension wil come alive only on the next layer ofthe problem, whese we ask whether socal rules land institutions account forthe performance of soca oes oF vice versa. In other words, we think interationalinstkutions too fen o permit fully =pstemic answer onthe highest ayer and so incomplete that an answer which favours the intenaional nits rst Yield to curiosity about how these units work. But i is certainly possible to azgue fora systemic answer in which nations for cultures ort use a phrase from Witgenstein, forms of lf’, account for what goes om within them. Equally iti posible to ny it andthe lowes layer af the leel-ofanalysis problem is broached by aking whethor individual acorsconstuetmstittionsl rules and roles, of Nie versa ‘The thece layers of the leve-oF-analyss problem are set out systematically n Figure 1.2, withthe debate on each being & matter of whether to procced "top-down or “bottom-up, In the | eeeeerene | ee | se wo [ Seaman sane |e Po12 fist debate top-down’ makes the international system wholly dominant und bottom-up retorts that tis the sum of what nations Go. Tis possible 10 conduct this dehate without cither side ‘maintaining thatthe internal organization of the units mutters (witness what will be said about Game Theory in Chapter 8) In the second debate, top-down’ sees the site as a single agent responding rationally (0 its Station, whereas “hottom=up’ sees the state's behaviour as the outcome of bargtine (and other manoeuvres) among bureaucratic agencies. (t may be help #9 note a parallel dispte in economies about whether ems spond rationally to their market situation oF need 10 be analysed in terms of how they are organized internally.) In the thnd debate top-down contends that bureaucratic damanus dictate individual ‘hoiees, whereas bottom-up’ makes individual choices central to the analysis of collective dessions ‘Then thereis he other dimension, whether the aim iso explain ‘or tounderstan. Iwill be seen tit Figure 1.1, which introduced two individuals and Y, isa ease of the third debate, We began there, because the contrast between explaining and understanding islikely tobe less familar than the conleast between holm (top ‘dow and individualism Cortom-up'). Also it takes an austere ‘mind not to elieve thatthe scope and limits of individual human faction are an absolutely central theoretical crux for the social sciences. But, in principle, there are ways of understanding the soil world which dispense with individuals, atleast as prime movers, and ways of explaining it which rely on them,0 Iniroducton: Two Tradions Leaving the theme to develop as we goalong, we shall ext gpeciy four use of some key terms. Let us sart by saying that we shall never use “explaining” (or “explanation’) and “understanding interchangeahly. When we Want a neutral word it will be ‘analysing’ (or analysis). This, the Levelt analysis problem is conveniently neuttal between 4 level-of-explanation problem and a eveFoFundersanding problem, as we have just stated. The Senses which we attach to ‘explaining’ and "understanding! will ‘emerge more clear in Chapters 3and 4 Ih speaking of international relations, we shall sometimes be referring tothe incrnational world and sometimes 10 the theories fof that world which comprise the discipline called “Interuational Relations. To. avoid muddle we shall se inital eapitals— International Relations™-when we mean the later and small leuters—international relations’—vhen We mean the former ‘Ths, Intemational Relations is a discipline, where theories of incernationa) relations compete, These, for the most par are theories about intmational relations (uence the small eters), although we may oocasionally take note of theories about the fonduct of the discipline itself (Le. theories of International Relation). "There ate some key terms that are sure to cause wouble because they have different meanings in International Relations and in ‘hilosophy, The first Reais’, whic in International Relations refers ta school of thinking opposed 10 "Tels. Realism, piven Classic expression in Hans Morzenthau’s Policy among Nations.” calls for the explanation of international behasiour in terms of ‘ational interests and without raed forthe moral seamen and hopes whieh mations profes or which observers may have i their heart. Tes squately in the sGentfe wadtion ands a conscious attempt to apply scientific method to international relations. In pilosophy, realism” (usually with a small") is broadly the view That whether a thing exists is a question shout the word independent of questions about how we could know itor what Statements concerning the thing mean. Thus, on realist view. there af truths abot the post sich ae dint Som ll present 2H Mergent, fc omens Nason The Sago Power Fae, it Non one Rap Introduction: Tro Traiions u evidence and may therefore remain unknown to us. Similar, 2 fealit claim that electrons exist iss clim not about the Instrumental observations or theories! predictions of pies but about an independent world which physic investigates. Ths isthe broad definision of “realism” inthe philosophy of science, theory of knowledge, and metaphysics, adit hoenes talk of nerve Structures which cause observable behaviout. Sometimes, how ver, i has a more specific sense, when used by authors with a ‘materia view of nature and human histry.* But since this use imps the broader one, which isallwe need in this Book, we shal ot pursue it ‘Correspondingly, ‘Idealism’ in ternational Relations names an approach concerned with the human wil and. institutional progress. Arising in the aftermath of the Firs World War, it took the view that disasters are due party to fares of understanding aint putly to the lack of suitable insittions to enomurage co fperation, Hence it is often scen as primarily normative, in fepatant 0 8 more scientific Realm, Tit it also involves 3 descriptive account of human nature and institutions. Ii liberal hopes of progress are grounded inthe belts that human beings individually have reconeilble goals like peace, health, and Prosperity and than institutions are a humn conseuct, not always Seliberate and, once crested, having effects of their own on [people's thoughts and actions. Philosophical it inherited some: thing ftom the Absolute Téealism of the Hegelians and other nineteenth-ennury opponents of materialism, this refusing to think of ‘reality’ as distinct from seas of reality. Meanwhile, ‘idealism’ (with a small‘) is @ broad philosophical rm for theories which work in term of experience, conceved us deas'in the mind, Hence, athough the connections aze not automatic and fare not embraced by all who call themselves idealists, there is a9 fist between [dealin idealists and an interpretative approach, juss there hetween Resists, realists and @sslentifc one “The oter erm is ‘positivism’ In the social sciences a large the word has often been used very losely for any approach which applies scicalife method ta human sfairs, conceived of 28 part of the natusal order. Thus, it is not uncommon to find Comte Durkheim, Mary, and Weber all described as posits, even ee R.Br A Rr Der Some han Maes 178)2 Iniradustion: Two Traditions though from many points of view they make strange bedtetiows, Bur current wage tends 10 he more precise, perhaps irBuenced by the philosophical meaning For philosophers, the epitome of posits i "Logical Positivism’. the hatl-headed enpiricim of the Vienna Cirle populasized in English by A.J. Ayers Language, Path and Lope Here the stress on experience (on “observation and testing) a8 the only Way t0 justly claims 10 knowledge ofthe world, and hence on methods of vtifcation 28 the key to the meuning of scientifi tatements. When positivism’ isso construed, it opposed to realist and insists tit theory is {guide o predict rather than a source of substantive hypeteses sout what could not, even in principe, be observed. Ths makes it empiricist in avery sharp and disputable frm, which has lately ost allegiance even among mos other empiri, ‘But Logical Postivis has retained! more inlucncein the soil sciences, When economists speak of “Positive ecomsmis" they ‘mean a proiitive seine, governed solely by the test of ‘experience. The empiricism here is nos ight that al theoretical terms and assumpsions mst refer diedty to observable, fut all substantive hypotheses must be able tobe confirmed or fale. Notions of real steuctre ate at least suspect and fen rejected altogeter. In this, Positive eccnomies is Ipicl of other “Positive sciences, although perhaps cleater and tore deveoped in is 'pprosch In Tntermutional Relations, however, fther scp ie usualy taken, in that “Positivism” tends to be assciated with ‘quanstative analysis, The connecting thought is th, since Only behaviour can be observed and messured, only behavioural dats ‘ean provide proper scientific bais. Hence Behavigrslis, the version of a more general ehaviourism specific to lateralis Relations, which we sll meet inthe next chapter, j commonly ‘spoken of as a Positive approach and often contrasted with Realism on this score, Certainly Realist are inclined ox belie in the stuctures which a Logical Postivst would reject. But, trom the standpoint of current usage in other social sciences andthe Dlilesophy of seience, Realism aspires tobe a Positive science ad Behaviouralism is particular version oft ith an austere view of what is testable, Since this rings cut what they have in common and shows them to be on the sume side, we teo shall use ‘Positivism’ to include the Realist approach SA. Aver, Langue, Truth and Lege Haran: Pegi, 91. Innouction: Pwo Traditions 8 ‘The book falls nto ao main parts The first, comprising Chapters 2-4, introduces the main debates in International Relations and {the philosophical considerations which hear on ther. Accordingly, (Chapter2 summarizes the erowth ofthe disspine of tncerationl Relations, fecusing on Idealism, Realism, and Behavioural a5 its principal phases. fe wll end with brief survey of contemporary debates, including thote revolving around the sue of whether the nation sae i sill the major actor on the international scene. But, ‘Without dismissing the elaims of other actors such 35 tansnational corporations or revolutionary groups, it will eonchade that dey do not atlect questions about explaining and understanding, which ane more clearly raised by considering better established theories {hat addres the sate, Chapters Sand 4 explore philosophically the ‘so tations with which we began. Chapter 3, Explaining’, asks ‘hat is involved in applying the philosophy of natural scence 10 ‘ieratonal relations and! Chapter 4, "Understanding asks a Similar question about international relations approached fom the inside. The whole frst part proves a framework for what We have just deseribed as fevel-oF analysis problem with three layers and two dimensions, "The second part, Chapters $8, conduets the three debates catalogued in Figure 1.2 Chapter 5 asks whether itis possibie 10 Gevelop a theory of international relations wholly at the level of| the international system. We look at some ofthe main attempts to 4050, spending most time on Kenneth Wait’ systems account” ‘Chapter 6 sets out the counter-ease for an analysis in terms of the slate. working ‘bottom-up’ fom slates 1p system, The vehicle chosen is Game Theory, which teats the state a6 a closed, uty ‘maximizing unit and so denis the aced 10 “open the box’ 1 se= how states are organized. Ip Chapter 7, however, we do “open the box’, by taking bureaucracy asa sival tothe state i what is thus the Second debate about the level of analysis We use Graham Allison’ Bureaucratic Politics model e see whether foreign policy can be convincingly portrayed as the result of bureaueratic Dorgaining” IF cannot, that might mean victory for the state in * Tye patos Wate, Peary of maton Pos Rea, Mi ngsao bey. 9) ic sce 1, Aion, Es of Deon Ben: ie, roe1“ Introduston: Two Traditions ‘he second debate. But, alternatively, it might mean that there fs a further debate to conduct, Accordingly, a Chapter 8 we ‘open the bor again and ask about the bureaveras, the men and women who do the bargening. Are they rational decision-makers of the [kind proposed in microeconomics and Game Theory? Or are they mere voies ofthe bureaucracy (which, inthis hid debate isthe “aystem’)? A possible reply i that they are neither. That leads vs to examine Wittgenstein ideas of action and meaning, and 10 consider very diferent notion of 2game' in soca fe, where the actos are players of roles, “The debates will tun out 19 be less clear and clean than they scom in thisoutine, Argument on each layer tends to have half an fe to what i at issue on the others. Thus, objections to a full= blown systems theory such as Walt’ come both from those who think of the state 46 rational closed unit and from those who think that its inernal ongenzation matters. Similarly, Game "Theory faces objections both from systems theonst and [rom those opposing @ Bureaucratic Politics model to every form of [Rational Actor model. When, in Chapter 8, we reach wht one might have boped was, so to speak, the basement, we shal ind ‘that some argumenis about the nature of role-play lead back upto the previous layer. To ths eXtent our framework is artical end ‘offered only as an aide-mémoire for theoretical intricacies richer ‘than we have mace them, But we stand by our contention thatthe fssucs which we simplify are genuine, very much alive, and itlaminated by philesophical treatment aswell asby reference tthe International Relations iteratare “That the sues are very much alive Becomes plainer il in the final chapter, Chapter 9, where we admit to disagreeing on them! ‘The chapter boyins by summariang the common grount—th analysis an proceed top-down or bottom-up on all hice layers tnd in the dimension either of Explaining’ o of ‘Understanding Bu, although the common ground is large and includes almost everything sid inthe fit eight chapters about how to fill inthe framework and conduct the disputes, unity then becomes too ‘uct for us. One ofthe pleasures of writing the book has been the attempt to seitle an amicable dete af our awn. We ae not sorry ‘hat it failed and tht, aevordingly, Chapter 9 Breas into dalogve Hollis (the philosopher) opts for "Understanding and a postion jst below the horwontal dividing line in Figure 1.15 Smith (he Inroducion: Two Traditions 8 International Relations scholar} for ‘Explaining’ and a postion just above the dividing ine. Stopping ony te emphasing that hiss not because we belong to different csciplines and that several ‘other final postions are open to anyone ftom ether discipline, we then leave feaders to make up their on minds, or ele 1 decide that there is no monopoly of wisdom #0 be had,2 The Growth of a Discipline Inxeratonat Restos emerged a separate dine the Msrmath of dhe Fst Word Wat, For eantres previo} the Subject wes a provines variously of aw, psopty histor, and Site dpc cach th sewn wap scr the mvt The Eanes of thse oi have prada there ha ever been agreement onthe nature of inkeratonal alas, othe Proper iethods Tor sudyng them, or on the ange of leven which theories of them tt ike into axoun.Tlerpations) Relations besanand,many wouldsy, remine—more of anime-iscpine {han dcpine Bui seventy ya" Moy bas inet pases nd has bee incewingy ene bys seltcomcon im onthe part of its pacdoners to make Tt selene’ Ths chapter will Tce the ee of ine ending aprosces snd show lew putes ‘hihi the dacipine have helped to eee 9 seis ramework Torin We sallend wah bs sey ofthe rapmented cue ‘Sint ands punted einer ht Iveta Reto Her Soon ot taion of wets explanation Dut ao fo One of Histol understanding The chapter ls seeming ethnocentric in is fc on British and thn, cea on Ameria works. We wi tess nO, thre thn eds te goth fae wih, Sihough helped by many sontbutions rom eewbee, bs taken Shape rgey tn Bran and Americ. Especial since 196, ‘Rmvrican orcign pole isues have wood highon the intentional Reston apr and ey dents ave ened frei thse thin the Amore academic Intemational Relations communi Sov although we have of couse faken a Now of wast hasbeen Suen we dony that we hive Bsn etheeise nou coe fan Angi American foes The focus the dine’ oma. “Tere aati of ming he ry to pat Meshal open wi ay eats phase, followed by Realamn Behaviours NECAUalim and some cure aemates. ht may take i The Growth ofa Discipline ” seem a if we thought each had specific dates and a definite Content. Ideas ean never be packaged x0 conveniently. Each School of thought has enjoyed constant internal debate about assumptions and methods. Each has always had porous boundaries, [Behaviouralism, for instance, has selconsciously hoisted iis own flag and been sharply crite of Realism, Yet it has influenced both Reslinm and Idealism, while seeming t0 commentators (including ourselves) to be at heat a stricter version of Realism well Moreover, a5 this remark implies, the phases ofthe story do rnotend withthe demise oftheir dominant school. Adherents of all, ff them are active in current debate, and the sory is one of| proliferation, New phases bring new dominant tendencies, but are not to be regarded as self-contained episodes. Ii perhaps worth suing that the phases we have identified are the ones which the ‘sfconscious discipline of International Relations itself epards as Significant. ‘The emergence of International Relations as a separate Fld of study was closely selsted to the approach that frst captured {thinking about the subject, To understand why Idealism became Sominant in the surly your: one only har to thik about the event that led to the establishment of the subject, namely, the Fist ‘World Wat. Two points aaed tobe kept in mind. Fis, there wis 3 widespread view thatthe overwhelming lesson ofthe wit Was that riltary force could no longer achieve its objectives I the reason for resorting to war had traditionally boen to achieve teritorial onguests, to obtain markets and raw materials, orto overthrow leaders of whom one didnot approve, then the evens of the Fi World War offered corrective. Public perception of the war in Europe was ofa senseless conflict fought out inthe mucl and ft of Flanders, with thousands killed each day forthe sake of only & few yards of terscory soon lost inthe next offensive. The wa, short, achieved litle tangible reward for cither side, invelved cath en mate, and was a war not of manaeuvte and conguest but ‘of stalemate with hie prospect of victory in Ue trasional sense. After this, what purpote could war ever serve agin? The likely ature of any unuee War would, it was fel, he one of atrition and18 ‘The Growth of Discipline massive deaths without the posibity of vietory, War seemed 10 have become an unusable too] of stlecratt. ut, secondly, hiss hy no means the only important lesson of| the war, The lack of tangible reward for ether seater the very heavy losses suffered by both was compouraed by the fact tha it twas seen as war that no ne ad actally wanted. This snot to ‘nim thatthe war was totally tnintended, bt that national leaders hha hesome caught in an irrational process which led inevitably to war, War had resulted from the separate ats of various leaders, none of whom Wanted war as the outcome, and these separate ae 0 reinforeed mutual fears and suspicions that war beeame, iM a ‘Sense, unavoidable, The implication was thatthe slaughter had ll heen in vn, The lesson ofthe casualties andthe lack of any real tins ven to the vitors was made hursher by this realization, that forfour years Burope had fought a war which noone had wanted, ‘The 1913 analogy remains poteat in @ nuclear age, where many ‘observers worry about a ditto war resulting fom the inteasing Sutomation of the batlefield and of command and control Systems “The legicy of the war was a powerful one, both for poiiians and forthe group of academics who were attempting to sty the Phenomena of international relations. Four main conclusions Were Ueawn’ fist, war was a senseless at, which eould never be a ‘ational oo! of state policy: secondly, the 191618 war had been {he result of leaders becoming caught Up in a set of processes that ho one could contro; thiedly, tho causes of the. war lay in Inisunderstandings between leaders and inthe lack of democratic fccounabilty within the states involved; and fourth, the Underlying tensions which had provided he rationale for the conflict could be removed by the spread of statehood and Semocracy, These views were expressed most suecinely by US President Woodow WiSon, in his famous Fourteen Points proposal of sary 1918 "The sujet of Intemational Relations grew outo thisinelestu snd political ting and it hore the birthmarks of is origins. Flr Of al, the discipline originated in two counteies. which were essentially sitisied powers following the First World War, This teant thi the subject wae developing in 2 specific type of state ith a specific view of the main featares of international society ‘The USA and the UK were, crac, status quo powers, with The Groweh of a Discipline » interests firmly committed to allowing litle change to the new international order as posible. One ofthe main problems for the subject in the inter-war petiod was that it became increasingly Hentified a 4 status quo subject. Secondly, the imprint ofthe Fest World War, with its wholesale struction and loss of life, stamped the survivors with a strong ‘conviction that sucha war mast never happen again, Thad heen a ‘war to end all wats. Accordingly, the subject that studied such phenomena took on a strongly normative, prescriptive character. International Relations had to be concerned with dovsing Was 10 prevent such wars from occutins, ‘Tardy, the way the war had broken out stamped the ssumptions of the subject. Just gunerals always seem to be Planning for better ways to Gght the last war, s0 the study of| International relations has often reflected the concerns of the previous generation. The aceepled view was that, since the war had occurred through misunderstanding the task of International Relations was to devise ways fo reduce misunderstandings inthe future. This had implications fr the oryanization ofboth domestic tnd international societies. Domestically, it-was novessary to prevent sinister interests’ from dominating the pote process fhe worl that had heen mide safe for democracy had to be hep site hy democracy. Inlernationaly, the emphasis wis on develop- Ing meiation processes and organizational strctares within which leaders could perceive more aevarately the (non-aggressive) aims of their potemial adversaries, Together these alterations in domestic and international societies would make Wars like the Fint World War impossible Underlying this approach was liberal view of human nacre: good men and women would never Want wat, which must ‘hereforeresull only from either mul misunderstanding othe dominance of unedvested oF uncivilized minds in the political proces. Inaviduals were rational, and war was nota rational too! Of foreign policy, since i could no longer be used to achieve the foals ditionally associated witht. Hence, the First World War had simply been dysfunctional, The new subject of Intemational Relations must find the best ways of making faders aware ofthe Ayshuncional nature of war, ori fled i this, appeal directs to the populations concerned. The subject had a mision, just 38 the interationaloxpanization that was created bythe peacemakers,” ‘The Growth of o Disipine ‘the League of Nations hada mission tothe intetnationl politica sytem This first approsch to sudying international relations has become known as Idealism, although this Was not arm that the scadmcy working in the subject a the time used Ghmselves, As eeley Bull has commented “The dint charset of these writes wat thei bln proses the belt inpaicaa, that the stem of ntcrntonal rel that at Sven seo the Fat World War wat cable of beng ratormed ino 8 Funcamently more peatland jas world des tha ander he mp ofthe avakening of mocacy the growth ofthe aerators Pind the development ofthe Lea of Neone, the good works of men of [pace oF the emghtement spread By thr hn echigs, wath fst bring ansormed and tht heresy a stacens eration Felton was to ait hn mates of proses to overcame e Senorance, the pejutes th wl the sr sere tha tay Accordingly, the subject during the interwar period concentrated fon issues ike the outlawing of war and the esublisament of an international ple fore, until the events ofthe 193 challenged its basc assumptions. Is response to these events was 1 see the sinister interests represented bythe challenge to the international ‘onder ax being peculiar tothe revisionist states, Tal, Japan, and Germany At his point the interests of powers such as Britain, France, and the United States were identified wth those of humanity asa whote. Thus, in the mid-100s, the dscipline was ‘once again identified with representing the interests af the satus ‘quo powers in the international system ‘This identification was one factor which provoked a major attack ‘on the practice of International Relations which helped ther ina new way of thinking about the subject, This attack was mounted by the Bris histonan E. H. Cate in a book pablisted in 1939-° relies aetna Pat 0 (nO TEM, Car Tae Toney You” Cr 11518, nen (end: The Growth of a Discipline a ‘The Twenty Years’ Crs was a sustained critique of the way in Which utopian thought had dominated international relations i the inter-war yeas. As Caer commented, utopitnism took its wie fom a great and esstous wat; and the overwhelning pss which dominated and inspire the pioners ofthe new sence ‘Nas f0 obviate a recurence of thi case ofthe Hnterntinsl body pole. The passione dive to prevent wir dtemined the whale ini use and dietion ofthe stad. Like other infant scence, the sone ‘oF iteration pois hasbeen markedly ad frankly spin, ie hat been inthe inal sage in which wuhingpevaih ever thinking {eneraaton ovr bssratin, andi which ile emp made at & ‘Sita ana of existing acs oavase means In hi age tention 5 concentrated almost exclusively om the end to be chives» The fourse of evens ater TSB) cea revesed the inadequacy of pe om the bass fora sence of ternational pf, an! made pose for the Ast time to embark om serious seal and soya "houpt shout international problems Wealism, then, simply didnot look as ft had mich to say aboot fhe major events in international relations ia the 1930, Tn ts Place, Carr proposed an approach that saw iterations relations 4 they were, rather than a they might be. This approach had to he ble to explain the way in which events since 1930 had unfolded —a maiter, said Carr of analysis ather thay normative ‘commitment, He wrote ‘The impact oF thinking ypos wishing whieh, i the dewcepment of 2 science. follows the breakdown of i Sst sonar projets. ane marke the end of i specifically utopian period, ommenly aed realm Represeating 2 reaction agains oe wash-cam Of the inital sane eal i ile to ss a etc and somewhat ena apect it loss is emphasis on the accepans of fas anon the any of ee fuses nd consequenes ttn dared the ole of purpose ant ‘mani, explicitly or implicily thatthe fnction of tanking to sto 8 Squence of event which Is poweres fluence tose” "The approach becsme known by the term coined by Cat in the ‘quotation: Realism. He was cleat that International Relations was a science, brought into existence by a perecived ced t0 rid the international system ofan evil~warbut dominated by a concern ‘with eradicating the evil before it had been properly understood.2 The Growth of Discipline ‘What was needed was a dispassionate focus on the root of the problem, and this mest thatthe subject had to lose is normative haraeter Realism, clsime Carr, is @ well-established way of thinking shout the world: witnes, for instance, Machiavelli, ‘the firs ‘important politial realist ® He argued that Realism is based on three foundation stones, all w be found in the writings of Machiavel They ae, fist hat history ia sequence of cause and effect, hore course is Wo be grasped not By imagination but by intellectual effort: secondly, that theory does not create practice bts eeate by practice nd thirdly, that politics snot a funtion fof eics, but rather, tha ethics is a function of polis, and morality is the product of power" Carr used these thee foundation stones 10 construct an attack on the utopian, fcntending that their faith in a timeless moral code merely fefleced the specific interests of one set of satistied powers later the Fist World Wa. In ths light, Tdealism embaies only 4 paricular notion of morality, reflecting not evea the interests ‘of particalar nations, but more specifically che interests of a particular class within the nates concerned. Carr commented that "ne so0n a the attempt is made to appy these supposedly abstract principles to a concrete pots situation, they ae revealed asthe transparent disguises of selsh vested interest ‘Although Carr produced the most sustained attack on the assumptions of Ideaism, i was Hans Morgenthau who did mest (0 popularize the new approach of Realism. In his textbook, Poli faniong Nation, fist published in 1S48,° Morgenthan proposed that international relations be studied by means of @ Realist ‘sientife approach. He reduced this approach 0 six principles, Which make 2 good surnmary of the essentials of poiieal Realism Although here age many other strands involved in Realism feneraly, Morgenthau’s work has been so influential that it scoms sensible to start with i ‘Morgenthau bogins witha sentence worth pausing 1 consider: “This book purports to present & theory of interational plies." For Morgenthau there are two ways in which polis can be approached. One strstes that a rational and moral order can be 2 ip. tis pt > tp 8 San, Pinar Ros Te Seago Pon Ps shen ee an: Roop. ip The Growth of @ Discipline 2 created fom 4 universally valid se of mora principles. This view 's premised om the esental goodness of human nature, sezing all fares to live upto this goodness as aterbutableto defects in the way that international society’ iv ranged. ‘The second and ‘opposing vew teas politica evens asthe esult of forces inherent ‘im homen nature, ‘To understand international relations i is necessiy to work with these foxes, no aginst them, Monge argues, a id|Car in his eitique of Idealism, that universal moral panies do not apply to the analysis and pete of international {elatons. The Realist approach, he rematks, gts is name fom rectly this poi: that it deals with human nature a8 it band not sit ought tobe, and with historical evens as thay have oceureed, fot as they should have occurred, Moreover, the approach was "ying 1 ereateaseienceofiteraatigna eltios. This made it an essentially Posvistic way of analysing evens, sce it relied on a notion of underlying forces producing. behaviour. Although somewhathazy bout the precientureof thes forces, Morgenthat was clear that the subject needed to be elevated to a science; otherwise is radical message for American policy would be ‘undermined by the wishful thinking of those wanting fo eturn toa pre-war policy of ioltions Hier we must pause 10 acknowledge that Morgenthau does not always advocate a scientific approach as he id in Polis among. ‘Nations. Flsewhere he writes ofthe need to oppose those who see police as a science, which would let Reason transcend the politcal. This has led some writers to place him within the Intogpretative tation, Yet Polites among Nations i the book ‘which made him a major Figure iu the disciple and ts message is as we have descrip i, Hts core isa claim that there are forees Getermining international relations, and his thesis falls apart if this claims removed. Although he relies om assumptions about human ature, he seeks to treat its inherent tendencies scietitically Meanwhile, the discipline isell, especialy in the United States, has resobed to regird him as a leading advocate of sienifc method an by subscribing to this interpretation we have atleast voided causing confusion. Bul renders may wish tobe aware that {here is more room for dispute than our sketch sugeests ‘Morgenthau's sence of international pois reflected three {actors historically specific tothe USA jus aftr the Second World War. Fist, there was the emergence of the USA as the major% The Growth of a Discipline ‘world power, American politicians were turning to the academe ‘community to provide the intellectual justification fr confronting Soviet poner. This was no easy tsk, given Amric's recent history of noninvolvement in international afars. Seaondy, there was the general reverence for science inthe USA, especialy in the academic community. Seience had guided the USA in ‘conquering’ ature; so why could not scientific method lp it conizol international society? ‘The socialsciences took up the Challenge and, importanly for the development of Inteastional Relations, paraded economics as an exemplary application of scientific method to human aff. Third, it Rappened. tat ‘rtally al ofthe Reais inthe early years were immigrants fom urope. They shared a common concern to explain the event that had changed the Tives of themselves and thei ames, and came from am intlleeeval uation tht stressed causes and the analysis ‘of socal events at the macro level. The time wa ripe for an Bpprench at promised 1 apy he methods oat cine to the international environment “Morgenthau's Reals theory was, as we have sid, based on ix principles, outlined in an introductory chapter added ony inthe ‘second edition of the book; this fact may explain why the six ‘rincpls do aot deal explicitly with two of the three concepts that sare central tthe remainder ofthe book, namely natn interest Bl the *alance of power” The xx prncipor, ough 60 outline the basis of his theory. The frst of these was that polis ‘was govertad by “ahjectve laws that have their raat in human nature... The operation ofthese laws being impervious 19 out preferences, men wil challenge them only a the tof aii." ‘This implied that it was possible to construct a rion theory based on these objective laws. As Morgenthau putt “Reali believes. in the possiblity of distinguishing in poitics between, truth and opinion batwoen what iste objective snd rationally, supported hy evidence and uinated by reason, and what ison) 4 Subjective judgment, divorced from the fas #8 they are and informed by prejudice and wishful hinking."™ The ews oveming politi, says Morgemhaa, have ot changed throuyh the years, land they enable the Reals to ascertain the rational thing or | national leader todo any ireumstances. shor, cbjectve laws The Growth of @ Discipline 2s Cf human nature, combined with an assumption that actors are rational, cam give us a map for explaining international relations ‘Secondly, Morgenthau says thst what is needed to ind our way by this map is the concept of interest, defined in terms of the ‘concent of power. The concept of international power demarctes imermatinal polities as an autonomous sphere of action, and implies that ethical considerations are of itle use in understanding {he actions of states ‘We asm that aesen thik and fers of interest defined in terms of power. =. That asumption aows us to retrace and antat, sritwern the tops. statesman pos, poset, ftro—ha ken oF ‘wi take onthe pital scene. We lok vor his shouier when be wre Fis dates we fen inom bis coneraton wih other sateen: We ‘eal and atcipste ht very thoughts Tinting interme Fetes ‘etre at power we think he door, andar dnlesred orerer we Understand his houphs and action peop Het Han he, he actor 08 the pltcat sme, cous Rint “The concept of power, then, enables usta understand the actions of| all statesmen und women, eegardess of hei views and intentions. with ideological preferences."" Motives are very dificult 10 Uncover, and, even f we could know them, they would reveal tle about the likely course of foreign policy. Ideological preferences fare similarly of ite we, since they may simply be the Wa in ‘which politicians present their views in order to gain pubic acceptance. Yet Mongenthaw grants that actual foreign policy behaviour wil not always be as rational, in the sense of sel interested, asthe second principle assumes. This does not worry im, sinar he takes political Realism to be a limiting ese whose tscfulness has less fo do with describing the actual conduct of foreign policy than with providing a way of explaining. Far trom ‘being invalidated by the fact that, fr istance, a perect balance of poster policy will scaesly be found im realty it assumes that realty being deficient in this respect, must be understood and ‘evaluated as an approximation tovan ideal system of halance of power." He thusseemsto doubt the realism of his owa Realisn— An apparent qutk which we shal turn to in Chapler 4, when26 The Grows of « Discipline iscussing the relation of realistic description to methods of understaraing by means of ideal types. ‘Thraly, Morgenthau contends that the form and nature of power are not fied but vary with tbe envizoament in which power Isexercised. The Ley concep, then, i reall interest, the perennial component of polities, and the one which s unaffected by time and Place. Treating power as a uid category allows Realsts (0 “envisage diferent forms of intemational reations, and even the Ukimate transformation ofthe sates-system. The objectivity of interest can serve as universal stating point for understanding vents, Here too there are suppressed assimptions shout the Proper methods of science which wil concern us in the next chapter. Fourthly, Realism scepts that political ects have moral signifi ance, but only im a sense which elas to the interests of the political agent and which has mote todo with prudence than with ‘aditional ethics, "Realism maintain that universal moral principles anno be applied tothe setione of tates nthe abstract nivel formulation.” White an individual may have a duty to act in the ‘defence of mori principle, the same cannot apps 10 the sate, Since the state's action has to be judged by a different eriteron that of national sori There can be no pliial morality without prudence: that i. wibout omiderton ofthe piel coseqooncs of seemingly moa acon ealom, ten, considers pradence—the weighing of the consequenacs oF sileratv oie! ataons—o eth supreme vitae pelts Eth the act des ton by sonny i the mora I pote dc judges action bys poli consequences ™ Fifty, Realism denies that thee isa sugle shared morality applicable to all states, as Ideas had maintained, States formulate their policies in a moral language only when i sis them and only in whatever form best cloaks and serves their interests. Behaviour which is hard to explain, one is looking for ‘orl consistency, makes underiing seis fone thinks in terms (of power: Questions shout the distribution and change of power ‘en be answered abjesely by zeference to a model of power relationships, which also has implications fr the rational choice of Foreign policies Soahly, Morgenthau is adamant about the autonomy of the The Growth of a Dissipline 7 politcal sphere, By defining intrest in terms of power, Realism [Eves primacy o potical considerations, Economists may think of the interests of nations in terms of wealth, and lawyer in fem of Adherence 10 legal rules working 1 one's advantage. Soch apprcaches have their wes, Indeed, even a morals approach as in Idealism, may have something to contribute. But ip Realism all ‘must Be subordinate to 4 political analysis, Just as an economist, ‘an grant that religious beefs haves bearing on markel behaviour ‘ut wil no allow that they ae a primary force, so Realism isis that power i the Key. Aecording to this view, Idealism had made the mistake of subordinating political considerations to mora ‘considerations ‘Overal, the rux ofthis sicpoint prograsmme isthe claim tha Realism ia scienaife way of thinking about intemation relations, The second chapter of Politics among Nation is devoted to explainivg snd sting ths cain, Realism ams to “detect and Uundetstand the foees that determine politi relations among, ratios, and to comprehend the ways In which these forces act upon eich other and upon international poitial relations" Tis worth distinguishing between Morgeuthau's general view of the Proper conduct of asclence ad hs specific account of international Felatons, conceived scientifically. There has teen much ciism fof Mocgcathau on the later score, as we shall point out in 3 ‘moment. But his general view of scence is also open to challenge nd, in aur view, any student of international relations needs to think very deeply about the nature of science, as we shall make ‘leat in later chapters, Realism ea fairly he called the dominant theory inthe history of| International Relations, It became known as “the power-polics model’, because of is tess on the power-poltical stustion of 3 State a the central determinant of is interests. Ts dominance was not confined to the academic word: indeed, st became the iwellectual creed of US foreign poi in the late 19405 and 1950s. [As Rober Rorhstein hss commented, Realism was popular with politicians bacause it ‘encapsulated what they took for granted, especialy aftr the failures of the 1980s and dusing the helht of the cold war" Crucially, Realism provided a justification forthe 2 i, p16 «Ri Rltnin "On the Cons of Resi’, Poi Scone Quay, 172 sigh2% The Growth of @ Discipline kindof foreign policy which the leaders ofthe USA ‘et that they dud to undertake in the period immediately after the Second World War, There was a need to keep the US publi involved in reat power polit, in marked contrast to whit haypened after the Fuse World War, Realism offered a way of shoving why the USA had to be so involved. To quote Rothstein apain, Realism became "the doctrine which provided the intellectal frame of reference forthe foreign policy establishment for semething Ike tenty yeas it did determine the categories bv which they assessed the external world and te state of mind wih which the approached prevalin problem’ The great advantage of Rela ‘was thu it coud jst both accommodation and the bung up ‘of armaments in the nie ofa balance of power. As such i was claims Stanley Hoffmann, “nothing but 2 sationaiztion of cold ‘war politics 2 Realism has held sway in International Relations forthe last forty years. This remark ill seem preposterous to many who Work i the subject, because Reais has been the tart of severe item and most scholars now clin io be working with another approach alogether. Before justifying our claim, nowever, we Sth to say something about the main chtciem lvaled a Realism, To understand them itis necesrary to reeest tht he petiod immediately after the publication of Morgenthau’ book tras one im which @ ew behaviourist wave of thinking about the Social seienoes was sweeping the US academic community. When {e sarfaced. iv International Relations in the mid-1050s, its advocates called themselves Behavioural Realis was anathema to Behavioural, hecasetheir view of| hhow to excate teary brake wit he particular brand of Postivsm that underlay Morgenthau's Realism, For Behavioural, the path to knowledge was vis the collection of observable dat egulartes within the data were to lead tothe framing od testing of iypothess, from which theories would he constricted, These theories were to be constructed inductively, without relying, as Dandie 1 9 The Growth of « Disipine » Realism did, on & prow! assumptions. Specialy, Realist relied ‘ona prior assumptions ahout human nature, and human nature was beyond all possible observation, Por Behavioural, the path to theory started with what was observable, and strict Behav. ‘uraliss held that there should be no non-abservable elements in ‘he theory at all. The guiding light in the search for theory was the methods of natural science (usually equated. with physis), construed in strictly observational ters, The social sciences were sonceived as a realm of enquiry 1o which the transfer of these methods was essentially unproblematic. Embarrassment at the lack of results was brushed off by pointing out that the social sciences were new, and therefore could no be expected to achieve the theoretical power of the natura sciences straight aay Behavionralism itiized not only the role. of nestle assumptions inthe Realist view ofthe worl, but alsa the Reais esire to make normative statements abot the ‘nlemationa! scene. Behaviouralists drew a sharp distinction between normative and scientific statements, and made i the hallmark of scince to avoid the normative. Ie thus seemed a i there was & significant spate between the Realist and Bchaviouralis camps, and for ‘uch of the 1950s and 1960s this eispute was catred om in the pages of the profesional journals. Indeed, those in the Behav- ‘ural camp saw themselves as working within an itelectial framework sltogetheriferent irom thet sahabited by te Rel ‘The central criticisms levelled aguinst Realism toated to ite efiniton of terms, especially the three terms that Jkt most ‘work—power, the balance of power, and the national interest. In essence, the problem was that none of these terms could be defined “objectively. The debate on the definition of power i 4 Jong-ruuning ne in the socal seiences, and we shall not go int in detail here. The points that Morgenthau needed tobe abl 10 efne the terms ‘objectively’ otherwise there was no way in whish the power-poities model could be appied. It power was defined ‘atthe observer Ha a subjective lattude in applying the concept, fen there could be ao neutral standard whereby the observer ould judge the actions of staleamen and women. Morgenthat ‘ould not est content with dafining power ina way caisent wit the Test of his theory, because the theory needed anchoring by means of an objective definition of sts key concepts. Sitar arguments apply to the other terms and, at bottom, unless there30 The Growth of « Discipline is w way of uncovering the objective Inws of oman nature Morgenthau’s approach lores the essential scientific quality which he claims fori Morgenthau’s approach was also crtcie fr ignoring the domestic environment of states, for fling t0 specify whether human nature was the determining ox merely one potential cause ‘of political actin, and for being unable to actouot for mistakes (i hhoman nature is based on objective laws, then how can individuals take mistakes?) An caly challenge tothe Realist view came i 1957 from Morton Kaplan. Kaplan offered an alternative coneep ‘ulization of he intermatonal system, ove without Morgenthau's reliance on the unobservable but crucial aoton ofa fxed human hature. This might be ead constructive attack, since it implied that Morgenthau’s notion of a determining system might be strengthened by dropping the contentious and unprovable notion ff human notre. A more radical attack came with the work of| Snyder, Brack, ané Sapin, who claimed that Morgenthau had ‘adopted in overly rational account of human bekaviou.”” To Snderstind the behaviour of states, they contended, it was recessiy f0 recreate the views of those who 1ook the decisions Reconstructing the participants’ definition of the situation would allow the analyst io explain thee reasons fraction, and this would be far moze realistic than an assumption thatthe actors acted rationally In fact this ritciom, which was very poxterful in Undermine the elms of Realism, was open toa tor that it rmissed the point, since Morgenthau caimed only that rationality ‘ssumplions were being used as evonomsts use them, t establish 2 Timing case or ideal type by which etual behaviour could Be evaluated Critics such as these were so widely deemed effective that by the midale ofthe 1940s Realism was popularly held to have been | superseded as the dominant approach in the discipline. Yet the atfcks conflated a difference in methodology with difference in ‘thcorsticl assumptions. Thus Realism was strongly attacked by Sc for example. ong), Cononpray They i ations ‘elton (agin Gate NF Pie a apa Cae Power on Iron ans he Yo Rano Howe, Ye Soyer, H.W Rash a6. Sa ed), eregn Poly Dein eng Now Yo Fre Pr, 1 ‘The Growth of a Discipline u the Behaviouralss, but almost exclusively on methodological rounds. For example, @ famous debate, which started with an Exchange in the pages of the scholarly journal World Poi in 1046, Was ostensibly an aczos-the-board one between Behavi- uralists and Realise (or Tragitionalists as they were there called) ‘Yet, although both sets of protagonists had mvc to say about how ascent thea should Be consrvcted, neither std much about ‘he substantive assumptions that onderiy inuiry or the types of| tqestions with which the study of infemationaleelations in praricular should be concerned. This wis hot & debate berween ‘heories, but one within a single theoretical orientation and about how to ‘conduct enguiry within that approach. The two main protagonists, Hedley Bull and Morton Kaplan, shared a more Similar view ofthe international postal sytem than ther location fo the two opposing sides of the debate would sapget “This confusion has been examined by Zohn Vasquez in 2 book emtted The Power of Power Foes, in which he claims thatthe chiviouralsts never eally challenged the theoretical ssirptions| of Realism. Vasquez argues that the work carried out by Tchaviooraits wis based on threc central assumptions of| Realism, which together put them inthe same broad camp (2) Nationstates or hee decisonmakes ae he mort important ates for nerstandins international relton. (@) There is sharp dtineton fetmecn dome plies and ine aoa! polis. (© International relation ic the stuggle for power snd peace. Unde Sanding how and’ why that stugle oeursand suggesting ways for ‘eguling isthe purpose ofthe dipine All estar that Pot Fist indies elaod to this purpose tial” Vasquer looked at a large sample of Behaviouralist work in Intemational Relations arw found that the vast majority of worked within these three key assumptions. AS was argued in an elie research report by Vasquez and others Sahat Ci tt ml ita MD gla a tM2 ‘The Growth of a Discipline Reviewing he erature of he 196, we find numb of kool wich ype to ealege the Morgrthas paradigm Besa they diferent ince Home als mst be conadered elaborations ofthe ‘ital poratigm nelle te international relatons tet ofthe Bets as a Se of vatatons on the Morgantha paadm * For this reason, Vasquer called his angument the coloring it Morgemthat” thesis, ‘Even if Bchaviouralim in tah attacked Realism fis method rather than its assumptions, the attack did neverdeless have ferious consequences forthe development ofthe subject, making fits practioner a least much more conscious of the importance of methodological isues; and this has been reflected in continuing debates about methodology since the mid-I9S0s, Tre focus on ‘Sudbing haviour also led to much dispute over the sppropriate level at which to cyt explain that bekaviou. Tc was one hing to accept the assumption thatthe state was the dominalksctor, but {quite another to spree to how best to explain tha units behaviour ‘This was most famously pointed out in an article by David Singer, ‘The Levelof-Analysis. Problem in Soterational Relations pblished in 1962." Singer introduced nverational Relations to 2 Yexed topic, familiar to other socal scenes, to do with relating ‘explanation couched at the systemic level (the international System) to explanation couched at the uit level (naion states. "Tho will be a conttal conoorn of Chapter 5. Mewubile, the general point stands that Behaviourals, forall thir dramatic {atk of a ehavioural Revolution’, were really arguing only about method within 2 basic theoretical approach shared wth Realism ‘That ie why we fel justified in saying tht Realism ns beld way for the lst forty year. Up to the stat of the 197s, there had really been ony two approaches: Ideas and Reals ‘The 197s, however, produced a third approach: Transnationaism. which eaimed thatthe state was no longer the dominant actor it 4, Haan 3. Vang M.O'eary, and W. Caplin Cle Morgen ‘hn: ss Assn hut neon Rls Resa in Rot ind S Wet te The fam Se Three ‘The Growth of a Discipline 3 had once been. This challenge tothe state-centrc outlook shared bby des and Realism (and Behaviouralism) was nota novelone, hut the world ofthe 1970 gave ta new strenith Before the 1970s, the dominance of the state had wodergone tree distinct challenges, Fist, there hed heen the challenge posed by the calls for an international working-class opposition to the First World War. According to this view, the working lasses had more to unite them than divide them, and the separateness of slates was a piece of mystifction which helped to perpetuate ‘capitals. This claim was thorough undermined bythe ents of 19, however, ain state afer state the working clas rallied ois national flag and volunteered to fight the Great War. Incr nationalists had their explanations for that, of course, but these failed to carsy comvetion inthe face of the facts ‘The second challenge came in the 10506, when it became fashionable to speak of the demise of the nation state as ares of| the development of nuclear Weapons. These, it was argued, had ‘exploded the sate's claim to be able to protect ste popoltion According 10 the leading proponent of this view, John Herz, the nation ate was being undermined by four factors itssusteptiility to economic warfare the rise of international communication ‘the consequent permeability of atonal frontiers; the development fof air warfare, which could take war diecly (0 4 nation’s population: and nuclear weapons. which threatened the very ‘Survival of states and their populations" The state was therfore, hhe argued, unlikely co remain the dominant nit of international society fo the fue ‘Yet in an aticie published a decade later, Herz reassessed his claims and retracted his thesis thatthe state was onthe way out." "The increasing numberof states, andthe rsing Leitimaey of sates resulting rom the increasing democratization of governments (as ‘appeared in 1968) were important reasons for ths development bout the major reason was tho new impossibility of actually using forcein international relations. Nuslear weapons were so destruct ive that those states which possessed them had toe very ccf about getting involved in any confics, whether with other nuclear weal Pater ne Ami Ae (Sem Yor: Cet CES Rec ig Ter te Reyitd-Retsis on th Foe of heu The Growth of a Discipline stats or withthe. Fore, which ha ong eon se 9 ongu torr anf an mares an aw materials, oud no fimace be aed for tse purposes, With for becoming Is ‘Munete, te sateen ne ily Yo ty in pae, ice the Ihab means io retvow were too desete fo we “The thd challenge was posed by moves tomas economic integration, eekly in Ease tom the aly 18, There hal eb cricrtmoves tows itematonintepration, ut the {9sty saw t-now amet and tae soho! of thought rang o cm thatthe sovereignty Of the sat was Dein odad st ciew wae most cach nocd ith the work a Enna Haus who proposed a "neocons apron 10 Shfersandng ternal nesatin Essent states tal fo tong enue economic growth unless they interated ith SMher ater emotes, Suess non area of eration woul Spi over nto oir and renal there would ea ned to ‘Muinte and solely gover the hitherto separate economic Sraunatons: so cconomienegration wold Teal (0 poli imcuraon. Ths view hd cea impctions fo the sate ts 2cer. Sirine evens of Be ole showed that i had made a ase Sssumpsin, Leaders tuned oat not 10 De wing 10 Ep Shetty over lowleve pois ess nr, when he diy Sere they they move stings to iterate in “ighteel ii. r ‘The challenge of the 1970s, then, had its precedents; and it too fae to prove te acer dee of the tate the doa Stor, ny vate in the immediate frre Bt fer a her Sitrem sew of intcratoal elton, sed onthe fo Felted themcoftrarsationatm andintersepsoense, Transtonlsh ime pin thatthe arc actors ter han tts whch pla Chal toe in nero event the obs examples Dink trltinationl coporatons. and evoaonsry soups. Inter {pendence meth pon that the neTeasig UnKages 2mONE nati ecomons hve made fem more hen eer ssi 8 Tuinerabie te eva in her counties Together, these two ~The of re Sn Surat Ps 83) Cotte ie yar ely foe En eee’ Mere Hel ee Tefen of Pat tipndere Sa Yore Mero ti a ‘The Growah of a Discipline 8 points suggest that the state & losing its contol over events Furthermore, the sateas-actor view of international relations is taled into question by the involvement of other actors in the ‘onfics of the 1970s, The international envionment therefore ‘sanot be explained by looking at states alone. Transationaism tnd interdependence challenge the theee assumptions of Realism) hated by Vasguer, Sates are not the only actors; the distinction between domestic and international societies less sear-eut than belore and international polities looks to besnfluenced aeresingly less by military Tactors and more and more by evogomicissbes Some suthors writing io this vein have spakea of a fundamental shange in internatanal polities resulting from the rise of these “now fores in world polities. 'Not surprisingly, # counterattack has come from those who believe thatthe state iy sil the domingnt actor ia international ‘lations, Northedge claims that the transnationlist proach is Simply an “American usin’, the eesult of developments in the USA's international situation." tp the crucial areas of iner~ ational relations the state still dominates and will comtinae to do 0 for the foreseeable fture. Hedley Bul argues thatthe sae has ‘demonstrated a formidable capacity to withstand callenzes from ‘other types of actors, and that it will catinue to be able 10 ‘withstand them.» Theis because the tate i expanding asthe wt ‘ofinternational society, nds being called onto take tesponsbiiy for the welfare of iis clizens ina wider range of areas Furthermore, the state can sil rely on the loyalty of its population, and wil possesses the monopoly of legitimate force ia Intemational society. Finally, the stale sets the rules of the international system, and all other actors have to work within them. “There has thus been «significant debate about the extent to hie the state si dominates in international relations. We shal Not lake sides hete. But we do wish o point out how sharply the Transnational challenge breaks with the other approaches that have dominated! the subject. It introduces nonstate actors and eit mes oh i Bras ho, Nr ae Wal I Noredss. rawmatonalen The Amc ison, Memon, SOME? ic The Aci! Soi Les: Maio, 17% The Growth of a Discipline belongs tos new pluralism in International Relations. Amite, the events ofthe 1980s have renewed a concern withthe miitary aspects of interstate relations and so re-emphasized the sate None the les, the state may have to pay a price Wo get is own way. ‘Transnational actos apd. growing economic intenependence result in 1 world where stats retain tei epi sovereignty but {he pre of a loss of aulonomy. According to Mansbach and Vasquez, power politics have been replaced by “iste’ pois, where actors group and regroup atthe intersections of politica ‘nd economic issues.” “The transnational view sndeishy has point, a othe recent views mich we all estion in moment But befor aking Stock ofthe convent scene, me saiitodce one more vit of Rests. Its known NeorRealiem.Altngh ts portly ‘spo the sas of tansnationalom and heme of reset bith Neo-Recam Belongs femiy to the Reis raion, a fam Suggests The Key text Remeth: Walia Theory. of Trueman Polit, pubs in 1999" Although too any {say shatinpat itil hve on the Gsipine it baste pwc ine hoa, ane one wich nil Concer in tet Fates fae ewence of Neo-Reas iso more theorstaly refined systemic or stctral acount of interoational rian. AS ts ‘ame nis, thar ann wth Reals, wie rejecting Simpler ernonThee are wo main anes of concer The rts tn atempt to ceil) Real's iby to det wth emer ites, Wee such a Rebort Keane, in his 1984 sy Aer Tegemonys and Stepaen Krasner, in his work on nemattona fetimes and im his 1978 book Defending the Naina Inte Iiave tht a modiedveron of Redinn, or wha Krasner cals ‘Srocual Reon cen help expsning international economic © manic a2. Vasque, Sah of Ther (NewYork: Combi ate ier) of Ierucina Plies (Resin, MA: Aktuon Wes, om The Growth of a Discipline ” issues Morgenthau has tong been criticized for ignoring oF underplaying economic factors. Notions of “hegemony” and ‘regimes’ at introduced asa corrective. Neo-Realsts yee states os able to contol international economic transactions in way that restores explanatory power to Realist assumptions ubout the role of the power-maximiing sate, International economic regimes are embodiments ofstuctarl power in the international system and their existence allows states to control one area of the Intemational agenda that eluded Realism, ‘The critical mechanism employed by Neo-Realsm is termed ‘hegemonic stability’ hegemony’ meaning domination’ from the Greek hegemon, «leader. Ifan economie power can sfcently {dominate the international economy, i can provide & hegemonic Stability which enables other sates 0 co-operate with itand with ‘one another. This suggests an answer toa question ‘which has ‘soubled intemational politcal economists since the early [970s what happens when the hegemon needed for hegemonic stability begins to decline? The answer is that che tabiity wil persist inthe form of regimes which continue to promote the economic interests ‘of the hegemon (specifically the USA), a8, for example, in areas such as tleeommunicatons and finance. Realism thus becomes le to adress issues of international economics aftr all hence "Neo-Realisr "The ater main cancem af Neo-Reslic she dovelopment of 3 ‘more thoroughly and rigorously strvctoral acount of international relations, Kenneth Waltz in particular has proposed new, "uncompromising sytems" account. Waltz contends tat Morgen. thaw and all the other so-called systems theorists were not truly basing thee accounts on systems but rather on the capabilities ‘ofthe unis comprising the system To use the term coramon i the literature, they were ‘eductionist” accounts. Waltz insists on explaining the behaviour of states solely at the level of the Intemational system. There ist he no appeal to the intentions or ‘capabilities of tates, o to the human nature oftheir leaders, This R.Reshane fe Hepes: Copan nd Diced se Word Plat ‘gato cin Rn Unseen, hs Kem, Dee Fe ety a et Kran rata eiu The Growth of « Ducipine stark view of what really matters has touched off a spied Aeate® and wil ceupy usin Chapter 5. International Relations at the start of dhe 1990s hus a subject in dispute, There is no dominant theory. Instead, there aze sever fehiools, each with ite own set of specal assumptions and ‘icores—interatinal polial economy, foreign policy analysis, strategie studies, peace research, and itepration studies, among ‘thers Bu, despite this fragmentation, steong shared assumptions exist about the character ofthe dsepine overall and we shall rik ‘aiming that they yield only three distinctive approaches “These the approaches are Usually called Realism, Pluralism, snd Stretiration, or 1 putt more graphically, the bllied-ball, cobweb, and layrseske models. This casifiation has besome ‘widely accepted inthe esepline, and virally al iseussions of the sobject deal with this in. *" Each has diferent arion of the actos, of the processes, and ofthe outcomes involved. The Realist, Perspective remains broadly the one desribed in this chapter. Tt Sefines the actors a= stales and sees the main proceses in international relations es constituting 8 search for scum. States tre monolith with interest, andthe mai interest of each isthe maximization of its power. A world in which these actos and processes are at work iS marked by a constant struggle for tlominance. The cert sam international system where war is am cverpresent posit, eld a bay by a mitue of international Taw, informal conventions, and the operation of the balance poser mechanism. Tn the view of the Plutalists, the state remains an important actor, but mest increasingly deal widh x world where otbet, now Sate actors penetrate its territory and reduce its autonomy. These ‘other ators, subional, supranational, and transnational, have “© eons eh), Newel and iy Cris (New York: Calan gpa re 0, SPS a dation ofthe pie, M, Has, "Te ean a Ineancnal Rear Than mS Beas eC Wer Soc (Bog ‘Whsathet, Tis), pp Std. ML Sony Ry Lite, an Mo taam de) Pompei on Word Paes (Lando Crone Hen Marj expec heeinaoaacton pT The Growth ofa Discipline 8 specific areas of intrest, where they can challenge the dominance Of the sate. The resulting processes are very diferent to those postulated by the Realisis. The very notion of a foreign policy Process changes, asthe issues and actors involved challenge the ‘istnetion between damestie and international evixonments. The processes ste characterized by a wide vange af policy concerns With no obvious hierarchy of dominance. Foreign poliey becomes Tess todo with ensuring the survival of the state, and more 1 do With managing. an environment composed of newly poicizd reas and a sarily of actors, Thi rerlts in an international system where there is no obviows hierarchy, no dominant sve, And # shifting set of relevant tors, [tis commonly called “the mixed actor system’. The faces is on managing the effects of imerdependence by the construction of institutions formal and informal. This international system has multiple cenres of power tnd states are increasingly sensitive and vulnerable ithe eects of| imerdependence. ‘The more recent Siructuralist perspective looks a international relations from the perspective of the less-developed nations Indeed, its main proponenis have come from outside the Anglo American academic communities, often from Latin America oF ‘Arica, and from the peace movement and development studies pars ofthe subject. According tothe Structuraists, the tte is Sill = dominant acior ia international relations, but in x very specific sense, whichis that of representing a set of economic interests. This reals the Marxist theme thatthe state the ool of the daminant economic class in society, But the rle ofthe sate s limited or conditional, since the dominaas class wil ease wsing itt ieannot manage thet interests. Hence there ae actors othe than te sae, and their precise role i international society depend on the interests of international capital, The real actors are clases, fand the locaton of the state within the global network of ‘opitalsm is crucial. This is usually discussed in terms of centre periphery relations, both within and between states. IC 18 the Structural ature of ceatre-pesphery relations that explains the nature of international pots and economies. ‘The processes ‘hirseterizing international relations are those of exploitation, imperialism, and underdevelopment; the outcomes ae essentially those of the continuing explotation of the poor by the ric. The Plurals concern with management, forthe Struturalis, simply“ The Growth ofa Discipline another means of ensuring the continued dominance ofthe rich, “The only way in which this could he changes by a revolution in the system of global inequaiy. Yet, according to Stucturlists| swho adopts historical approach, notably those associated with the wworidsystem approach of Immanuel Wallerstein. the central Jeature of the international coptalist system Bas Beenits capacity to maintain pater of econeri domination [At he start of the 19%, then, Intemational Relations offers a numberof competing views on how lo explain the central events of| the international system, They are not simply comparable since they describe rather different works. Bach approach ees certain Problems ns the most important, Decause there are diferent types Df ators and processes invelved. Each eiffers in the outcomes Swbich it selects asthe most important ones to be suibed, Just 38 the Fist World War set the stage for the development of International Relations oy separate cscpline, vo now the subject ie studies ina way which reflects an impliit view of what ae the most important exenis and trends. As we noted at he stat, the Policy concerns of the county in which academics work are an tmportant factor determining the kind of Internation Relations ‘hat hey wil toy ‘Atterapls are made to compare snd contrast tle different perpestves, but there is no agreement on which s the most powell theoetcaly. A secent survey Of tho iatemational Felations eratuce in the Englsblanguage acedemic Journals conducted by Alker and Biersteker revealed that he vast majority fof those articles were based on Realist (including Neo-Realis) ‘ssumptions © About two-thirds of the atiles were Realist, with ‘only some 10 percent ling ino 'structurals” (or, m they called i ealetica category, The subject in the USA is, herefore stil implicitly dominated by one major theoretial perspective, ad siven the dominance of US scholars in the literature at igs, Realism can be said to be she major current approa:h, But this shows only tht Fernational Relations has become an American “© see, Wiest, The Maer Wer Sym: Cp grate a he ng of eae erty Cy Re Na Ya ARMGT and Bsr, The Dies of Worl Ore Noe fo a ‘Furr Arbesiogat of Intemationa! Soir Fire fuematonal Snes Quarer, Bat a) pp ta The Growth of a Discipline a ‘dominated discipline, and readers should firmly make wp theie fown minds about the hest way to understand and explain the international scene ‘This chapter has traced the min phases in the history of International Relations as ¢ dissipine and has thereby set 49 agenda for the rest of the book. The agenda might be termed ‘lasscal” in the sense that it addresses. problems raised. by Idealism, Realism, and other approaches whose focus ison the ‘tate as the exucial unit nthe international system, That map seem Derverse, given what we have just said about the curent scene, ‘especialy since we do not ourselves lieve that states ae the ony important actors i international relations. But we have both & ‘general reasoa for setting a cluscal agenda, and two particular ‘The general reason is that the book sims t0 show why a philosophies! question about Explaining and Understanding ‘matters for theories of international relations. For this purpose we need ast of developed and weltarticalated theories work with ‘That means looking tothe mainstream history ofthe dssiplne, rather than to.currentateraieen wih ane presem part an incipient. We do so without embarassment, since the mainseam theories ate sill flourishing apd occupy the bulk of the cutent International Relations itersture ‘The particular reasons are more conteatious The first that We 4d not see how states could possibly be regarded as merely one kindof actor among several on the interational seme, In specie issueareas there may be other more important actors, sich 38 transnational companies, some of whose budgets ave larger thin those of many states, of international Financial Insitutions. But the theoretically distinctive feature of international society fits ‘nareical structure, as we romurked at the star, This feature relates solely to the characteristics of the states comprising the ‘membership of intrnational society and is estenil to explaining and understanding the international arenas whee non-state ators operate, However powerful or disupsve ther actors become, the ‘eortial framework is sill set by what states decide about2 The Growth ofa Discipline suidelines or in a systems perspective, what states are presuted Jno deciding bythe demands of the system. ‘Secondly, the central problem which we want to discuss, being ‘common 0 all social seenees, isnot avoided by demaing states from their postion a6 principal actors. The problem is that of Explaining and Understanding and it applies no less to trans~ rational companies, world finance, and revolutionary sroups Whatever the ni, it activites can be explained from without or lunderstood fom ‘within, Every Unit fs & decsion-making process, Those making the decisions are influenced fom outside fn from inside. Influences are a matter both of level with top flown theories nt ods with bottom-up theories, ad of approach, ‘vith scientific explanation at odds with interpretative understand fing, It this is granted, then we need labour no further 10 justly 4 focus on the most stadied and, anyway, unavoidable actor, the “The central problem emerges really from this chaptes. Idealism save the international world largely from within. Iis message was that wars occur through misunderstanding, ignorance, snd folsh- ross, al preventable ifTeaders and citizens will only reflect om the likely uninended consequences of their actions. Even if not fevenone means well, knders of goodwill can organize their felatons so tht goodwill prevails. There are, no doub, structural questions too, for instance about the workings of a balance oF imbalance of power, but they arse fom the combined effects of rational decisions and can be contelled by organization snd agreement, Idealism, then, was an account that focused on how to maximize the free ow of information and remove bares co feeurate perception. As Chapter 4 wll make clear, Idealism as 3 theory relies on Understanding Realism rests squarely Ona contzay view, both in substance and for purposes of method. Recall Morgenthau's sx principles Polit is governed by objective and timeless laws, with 00ts in luniveral facts about human nature. The moving force is power in {variety of form, all of which relate to ‘interest There is 10 Similarly universal moray, if that means moral principle, since the ‘morality’ of sate i, and indeed can only be, an expression of their interests, Politics an autonomous realm, 1 be studied by the methods of science. Behaviouralist crite, who found these principles inconsistent, responded by pressing what they took te ‘Dre Growth ofa Discipline 8 be the clsims of siemite method, thus moving sill further into Explanation and away (com Morgeathan's residual gestures 10 Jnuman nature as an interpretative posit. That is Why We could treat them as more Realist than the Realsts, Tae underying structure ofthe international system, crucial for Neo-Realism, i offered as fn explanation of behaviour so sone that it m0 longer matters how or even whee, the 260: underend the word shout Since this fast point can also be made about some ofthe “biliard- bul, ‘cobweb’, and ‘Tayer-ake’ approaches now cutrent, Tor instance where the demand of ‘capitalist accumulation” are taken to be impersonal and determining, it is fale 10 describe the mmainsteam story as one from outside. There isa dispute about Which unis matter, or even whether units matter at all except ss dependent variables, But there is large-scale agreement thatthe aim is explanation hy appying the methods of natural science. Teealism apart, his long enaptr as made strikingly ithe mention fof individual motives of decisions. In contrast 0. histonans ‘accounts of international events, or indeed the actors’ views of their own coninbution_as recorded in their autobiographies, Inezratioual Relations theories have usually put most emphasis ‘om impersonal units and forees. Yer the abvils question stand! 4o the men and women who formulate the plies, make the ‘decisions, an try ta implement them realy attr 0 litle? “The two kinds of reason fo saying tha they do not matter need fo be kept distinc. Theorists who aspire fo make International Relations a “science” hive no reason to exclude historia) actor, Bur they admit individual agents only onthe Terms on which natural scientit admits individual and parscular objects. What {uit his comes to 8a top that wil be address later, butts Safe to say now that they afe not terms suited 10 actors sutobiographies, aor terms easily accepted by historians. ALbough Wwe have tied o express these scenic impulses fairy, we hereby ive notice that we intend to question hem in lter chapters. ‘The other kindof reason isthe sutantve one. The demands of science, however conceived, can never be the wltimate reason fr a system-centzedorsatecentfed approach to inlernatonsl relations “The final reason for ignoring hurwan actors ean only be that they 40 not mater. Here a system-centted version of Realism is confit with one which fetains Morgenthau's propositions about“ The Growth of a Discipline human nue, In ofa a6 economics fered a «mode of planation, theory of dodo behanou Hl to bea omporen of Increaongl Relnon eons Se mch a of Theor of micosconoms. For the moment, Reweey We tijurn dean nt we each he tp f Brea Pits in uper > Meso wc pene that weresnto rn the Inada ars tek fom ie ning ie, Bense we eee That sates and stems domo! ct or semaine pa Irate atoms, As od nthe ntti, we te tot fl ce tnt how mac nse store mtr o hy Bt me Matto hg te pin an othe noni ep pea or ca) died a. We tha elo tat te eae 1 one that ea ta mmber of probs thal re undamental othe wc wens. 3 Explaining ‘The growth of Intemational Relations a8 a discipline has been ‘much influenced by ides of scence. Realism, as described inthe last chapter, is essentially a eal for the application of scientifi method. Carr and Morgenthau rejected the prescriptive and ‘utopian elements in Meals for te sake of a scence which sees the world as itis. A shared concept of scenic explanation fs unifying. theme among. Realists (and Neo-Reaists) who are “otherwise divided on, for instance, whether to pitch the explanation at the level of the system or iis units. When, Behaviouralists objected to the presence of unobservables in Realist theories. the) Aid in the name of science and the stme basic idea of what science demands. (That is why we refused to teat them a6 @ Separate school.) Even current theories, which break ‘ith ti imainsceam over non-state actors, wily retain he claim 1 offer seionife explanations. ‘This potent theme needs exploring not only for its past intences bu also becasue affects what cot af theories ore ‘thought Worth considering im current debates, At the same time we ‘must stand back from it. The shared. concept of scientiie explanation was aways contestable ad has of late been radically contested. What ‘science’ demands isa very open question, and we need tobe a lear about it as we can before broaching the claims of Understanding’ in the next chapter, In thie chapter we shall teace some feaing ideas in the history and philosophy of sience and shall identify thse most influential in International Relations ‘Then we shall stand. back and ask what notion of scientific explanation best suits the sttemps to apply the methods of natural ‘eience tothe world of international relations. By applying scientiic method, Realsts hoped to locate causes and laws of behaviour which Idealists were too stary-eyed or6 Explaining woolly-minged to detect, Morgentheu's sx principles are instruc: five from this pint of view. Some of them are substantive: for listanee, that politics is an autonomous realm where universal inerests, rooted in human mature, take particular forms connected ‘ithe distribution of power. But some depend on aspeciie ew ‘of science, totaly tht there are objective and timeless laws at ‘work and that normative considerations are to be exchided. This ‘View i commonly Known as Positivism and, in is heyday, was so Widely diffused among social scents that to spel i out would have scemed mere statement of the abvious. But its heyday is vera Teast for pilosophes of science, and we promise That its iments wll no longer be obviows by the end ofthe chapter. We shall lead up tot by sarting where the modern word bean, withthe serene evolution ‘When peope speak of sence’, they usually mean the sciences ‘of nature, expecially phys, chemistry, and biology, inline of ‘descent from the sGenbe revolution of he siateenth and Seventeenth centuries. The sarting point is Sir Istac Newton's Alcovery ofthe laws of gravity and his formulation ofthe laws of totion to explain the movement of bodies in response 0 frees ‘This is «symbolic starting point, Newton was not the Ost or the only great scieniie thinker of the time. By the test of later Teflon bis iden of explanation was confused and his findings have teen at least modified Dy the theory of relativity. But, Smbolclly, he inaugurates three ceauries of smazing Progress inexplsiing how nature works and in harnesing these discoveries ‘We may have mixed feelings about sien triumphs which have inlided micear weapens as well a5 eletie light but we eannot deny the comprchensve debt we owe to the emergence of Ssientifc metho 'At their broadest leading ideas of the scientific revolution sive into a substantive pice of haw nature works and a set of| Imethodoloical rules fr filing in, The Newtonian pitare was of ature as a mechanical system of causes and effects, driven by Invisible forees and governed by inluctale laws. This mechanical ‘sem was not directly presented to our five senses, For insane there ate ao yellow daffodils i the underlying system of mass i ‘motion; daflodis appear yellow to us because of the effect of Suitable wavelengths for corpuscles in Fal theory) of fight oa Thumn sense-organs, So thete was a ned for « method of ening Explaining ° being ‘appearances’ in order to detect the reality which caused thom. Ina typical seventeenthcentury image, the workd was likened to a watch whose face is presented to our five senses but ‘whose real workings are governed by springs and wheels, hiddan from sight behind the bck. Science was 4 method for pesing the back off the wate with the aid of mathematics. Through science \we can detect the necessities the unalterable forces—which ease the appearances, “This picture roke with the past by dispensing withthe idea that cveryehing in_nature has a purpose or proper fonction, which explains why it behaves as it does. That was not obvious at fis ‘Wiiness the image of the wath it remnined easy 10 think ofthe system as having a grand purpose built into it. To explain a watch ‘we need 1 realize both how its springs and wheels (or, nowadays, microchips) work and that ss purpose i to el he ne. But the linger and more complex the system, the further one can get by studying is workings. Provided that each state of the system fesuls from the previous State in acordance with known causal lw, its behaviour can be explined and, in principe, predicted without worrying about what the system is for. Akhough notions ‘of purpose (teleologs) sill have a place i biology, they have Sopp out ofthe physics and chemistty which have become our move! sence, Tis worth noting, however, that teleological explinations are I common in biology, met grandly ip theones ofthe evolution ‘ot species. The idea that organisms of even whole species adapt in order 1 survive isa aseful explanatory’ hypothesis to account for theaceeptance o rejection ofsmall genetic mutations. Analogous, ‘he socal sciences have often employed notions of equicium and ‘of whats functional ot dysfunctional for achieving and maintaining equilibrium. Ths, Morgenthav's use of the balance-of power mechanism i elated tothe maintenance of the sytem and recent Stracturaist theories eontend that paterns of international intr action fefiet the needs of capitalist exploitation. Similan, ideas fof solFinterest or of “real interes offen give explanations a teleological character. At the sime time, however, all such ‘explanation are contentious, we shal see. Meanie, 3036 not to break the Tinead of ou story, Iet-us jst remack that any purpose’ involved is intemal t the agent or system and not that of ‘hidden hand. Modern teleology too breaks with the past.4“ Explaining [Newionlan sence, as epitomized by phys, chs yielded pituce of mature 4 mechani, animate, purposes stem forces ang on mticr nwa governed by ineiuble laws of Cause and ete. Lully prtap or those who bee hums fe wil however, thik as not the complee and ony picture on {Fie whon the scl wens began to take shape a te ed of he ‘Secon entry. the ve senses donot give vs Knowledge of fealty ts opposed to appearances), what ds? The veneer tury ameter was Resto’, meaning the kid of ata wich trates flere the engung mind, Ths was not at alla foolsh avers Hf one supposes that eomety dscrbes te Properties of space and tht occapancy of space is the Dae Property of malt. Truths of geomet can Be proved, and 19 row ot only to be tue but ako to be mecearty te. For insane, Pltngoras’ prot at he ies of a rgheaned ingle drereised by the lomula + 6 = ¢ shows more an the mere fac that all ight angled anges do ave this propery. I shows that hey mu ave and that a excepion nt improbable bot impose Tie wan cepts ess in the a of pe, ‘hpal ofthe neces which gover motion. I, reo, the ‘Shs evel no newest (o gues Og), he a ental tis noc gen bythe ots "Fiche what wax ter dene confusion between wo eas ofineceiy The proms sf post tne mathemati nn the conti causes compa her effet pai tha knowlege that that books tract oe another wih force in ive tothe quar of her itine apart. Meanwhile, howe {mich more rata! chjocton to the whole presumption that fotnce the search for nesetes Wi that ou Koowledge Surely starts fom what our five seve tll sand can exch eyoud thie ect experience ony fo generalizations of what we how yeaperenc. Atay rt hs of howe ws xo inthe heen entry, nobly by vid Hume in A Drei of amon Nase (st pishedin 739) ahs come etme fincisn, Hume' Tere stu 0 the funtion fo compleic stem ol the sence relying skinaty ony on rpeence and obxevaion-~an amon wih enpiests all share. Soenee cannot know anything of te Kind cl neces Si which cause compel elects and does not ned 1 spose tha here ae any Explaining ” Hume's centrepiece was his analysis of causation, the relation between a cause and its effec. rom the standpoint a ‘experience and observation’, what do we actually know about the forces which one bland all ransmits to another, wien compelling 10 ‘move after a collision? Ip essence, we know only that there is fegular and predictable series of events, whenever the sime ‘conditions hold. (Tobe procs, there are four Human conditions| 1 satsy, if we are to Be sure that ¢cavsed e on some ocsssion, ‘namely: ¢ preteded e: there was no intermediate event events like are always followed by events like «in those conditions; and we fare in the habit of expoctng the sequence.) Yet this is enough. Provided that we can identity the regulates in nature, then we ‘need nothing more in order to predict snd explain what happens. “The idea that there are forces and necessities in nature spurious, a piece of mystic which we can do without “This brilliantly simple thought continues to reverberate, (twill be found in Volume fof Hume's Treatise which should be read at fist hand, as we are not rying (odo any juice here.) Te sets up 8 continuing argument about the proper character of scientific ‘method, which Reais’ has not resolved. To see how deep the argument goes, think about this remark from A Skeich for an Historical Pieture of the Human Mind (Tenth Stage) by the Marquis de Condorcet, written in 1794 “The sole foundation for bee in the ata scenes hi i, tat he several laws dictating the phenomena of fhe universe afe messy and fcomsant Why soul ths pimple be any le tve forthe development fhe inelactoa and moral acute of man than or the other operations ot mane? Notice first that Condorcet, writing in the spt ofthe Ealighten- iment, proposes 10 apply the methods and assumptions of the natural sciences to the study of human being. This wil produce the same triumphant progress only ifthe intellectual and inorl faculties of man’ are nos of 3 deeply pecolar sort which makes the social word radically unlike the natural. Notice secondly thatthe eeneral laws. governing nature are said to he “necesary and constant’, This phrase is crucially ambivalent between the idea {hat they ate constant because they are necescary an the i they fare necessary only in the tenuous sense that they are reliable because constant. The ambivalence would be easly deat with, i