Lecture
Objective: To examine the theories of behaviorism (modernism) and the «behaviorist revolution» and the principles of modernism. To analyze systemic theories of international relations, linkage theories, factor theories (field theories), and the factors determining the political behavior of citizens, including the operation of political and moral principles and norms. To reveal the content of conformism and nonconformism in the behavior of a country's population. To characterize the features of the crisis in international relations theory: rationalism and reflectivism, and the fundamental ideas of postmodernism (according to J. Vasquez).
1. The «behaviorist revolution» and the principles of modernism.
2. Systemic theories of international relations.
3. Linkage theories.
4. Factor theories (field theories).
5. The crisis of international relations theory: rationalism and reflectivism.
6. Political traditions as regulators of political life.
7. The Westphalian system of international relations
Behaviorism was born in the late 19th – early 20th century as a school of American
psychology that emphasized the need to study personality by recording an individual's specific
reflexes to certain particular external stimuli. In the theory of international
relations, the basic principles of behaviorism were borrowed in the 1940s-1950s, when
the first attempts were made to study international relations based on
the empirical perception of reality. It is from behaviorism that the idea was borrowed for the discipline
of the need to study the specific manifestations of the activity of participants in international relations on
the basis of empiricism, which consists in seeking to determine clear quantitative parameters of phenomena and
processes connected with them. These views led to the so-called behaviorist revolution, which
became the start of the "Great Debate" and the division of international relations theory into two schools:
— the classical and the modernist — and the distinction between two styles of theorizing
— the humanistic and the technical.
Classicism combined the theories of idealism and realism, which, in the words of H. Bull,
"derived from philosophy, history, and law and were connected with their authors' belief in the relevance
of applying common sense."
Behaviorist theories were directed toward the search for objective regularities of
international relations, avoiding a priori claims about the pathological nature of human
nature, the evil or good will of politicians, the mysticism of their thinking, the exemplary character of international
relations, and so on. their foundation should be the determination of fact and its precise interpretation,
free from subjective and unfounded assessments. A. Rapoport believed that only through
such an approach could science have applied value, since "it becomes possible to develop
theories of war and peace, of conflict and conflict resolution.
An extremely important contribution to the development of behaviorist theory was made by D. Easton, who
formulated its initial methodological postulates. He tried to create an analytical
framework of the political system that could be used to conduct empirical
research. Guided by the hypothesis that states are relatively autonomous systems
interacting with one another through inputs and outputs, D. Easton formalized their interaction as follows:
decision > output > input > decision. Any action by one state toward another is perceived by
the power structures of the latter, is identified, and becomes the basis for a reaction.
The methodological postulates of international relations theory were reduced by him to seven
propositions:
1. The regular nature of international phenomena and processes manifests itself in the
recurrence of states' behavior in certain situations. These regularities, generalized in
theories, have explanatory and predictive significance.
2. The empirical verification of generalizations.
3. The rigor of research methods, which must be applied correctly and
based on clarity and verification of the facts concerning the object of study.
4. The precision of research must be built on the maximum possible use of
numerical indicators.
5. The distinction between moral-ethical assessments and empirically grounded research
results. This refers to the fact that the reality of international relations does not always correspond
to the moral values of the researcher. But in any case, one should not present what is desired as
what is real, since the scientific approach is always based on studying reality as
it is.
6. Scientific research into states' behavior precedes political practice, since
science, which claims objectivity, cannot be engaged.
7. Theory and applied research in political science are closely connected with the
whole complex of social sciences, both in terms of collaboration in conducting research and in terms of
mutual borrowing of scholarly results.
The theoretical novelty of behaviorism comes down to an attempt to apply in
research the following principles:
1. Empiricism, consisting in studying international relations through the precise
clarification of facts, in particular by means of quantitative parameters. According to C. Hermann,
subject to quantitative parameterization are: voting patterns in international organizations,
verbal statements by political leaders, factors determining states' behavior, decisions in
foreign policy, and individual facts of international life.
2. Inductiveness, consisting in organizing research by drawing conclusions
as a result of generalizing and systematizing empirically identified facts. Research must
include the formulation of clearly stated hypotheses, the search for dependent, independent, and
influencing variables of the situation, the formulation of conclusions, and the search for and verification of
arguments.
3. Objectivism, that is, the perception of the phenomena and processes of international relations as not
dependent on human will or aspirations, but arising from the reality of relations between people
in the course of their activity. This tradition began with the views of the ancient Greek
philosopher Isocrates, who argued that war should not be perceived as good or evil,
but should be treated as a social phenomenon that needs to be studied and understood.
The outstanding Italian Renaissance thinker G. Vico, in his work "The New Science on the
common nature of nations," argued that the laws of history are providential in character
and do not coincide with the will of monarchs and other historical figures.
4. Systemicity, consisting in understanding international relations as a set of connections
between participants in international relations, creating among them a situation of
interdependence and interconnection.
All theories of behaviorism, depending on their initial hypothesis, can be divided into three
groups: systemic theories, linkage theories, and factor theories ("field theories").
Note that modernism, while criticizing traditional research methods,
uses political realism and focuses attention on applying the methods of exact sciences to
the study of the phenomenon of international relations.
Behaviorism was born in the late 19th – early 20th century as a school of
American psychology that noted the need to study personality by recording
an individual's specific reflexes to certain particular external stimuli. In the theory
of international relations, the basic principles of behaviorism were borrowed in the 1940s-1950s
century, when the first attempts were made to study international relations founded
on the empirical perception of reality. It is from behaviorism that the idea was borrowed for the discipline
of the need to study the specific manifestations of the activity of participants in international relations on
the basis of empiricism, which consists in seeking to determine clear quantitative parameters of phenomena and
processes connected with them. The understanding of international relations theory by adherents of
behaviorism consisted in the aspiration to create a universal, comprehensive, closed,
logical theory of international relations that would allow not only describing current and past
configurations and the course of events and explaining them, but also predicting their
future patterns.
An extremely important contribution to the development of behaviorist theory was made by D. Easton, who
formulated its initial methodological postulates:
1. The regular nature of international phenomena and processes manifests itself in the
recurrence of states' behavior in certain situations. These regularities, generalized in
theories, have explanatory and predictive significance.
2. The empirical verification of generalizations.
3. The rigor of research methods, which must be applied correctly and
based on clarity and verification of the facts concerning the object of study.
4. The precision of research must be built on the maximum possible use of
numerical indicators.
5. The distinction between moral-ethical assessments and empirically grounded research
results. This refers to the fact that the reality of international relations does not always correspond
to the moral values of the researcher. But in any case, one should not present what is desired as
what is real, since the scientific approach is always based on studying reality as
it is.
6. Scientific research into states' behavior precedes political practice, since
science, which claims objectivity, cannot be engaged.
7. Theory and applied research in political science are closely connected with the
whole complex of social sciences, both in terms of collaboration in conducting research and in terms of
mutual borrowing of scholarly results.
The main premise of transnationalism is the proposition that the state
is not the only international actor. Besides it, such actors include individuals, institutions,
organizations, and non-state associations.
The core idea of neo-Marxism — the integrity of the world community —
is given concrete expression in the view of the asymmetry of interdependence in the contemporary world and the real
dependence of economically underdeveloped states on individual countries.
Neorealism expresses a desire to preserve the advantages of the classical tradition while,
at the same time, enriching it in light of new international realities and the achievements of other
theoretical schools.
The founder of general systems theory is considered to be the American scholar
of Austrian origin L. von Bertalanffy. In the late 1940s he arrived
at the conclusion that, regardless of the type and nature of their elements, all systems are governed
by the same laws of functioning and development. That is, these laws are isomorphic, and their operation
is the same regardless of the system in which they act: natural or social.
This hypothesis gave him grounds to assert that the study of social
phenomena and processes could quite reasonably employ methodology and formal apparatus
borrowed from the exact sciences.
The author of the best-known classification of international systems among those developed
by representatives of behaviorist theory is the American scholar M. Kaplan, who, like the
neorealists, put forward the idea that types of international systems correspond to the global
distribution of power, that is, their "polarity." In his conception, relations within the system
are determined by the number of poles and the relationships between them, and by relations between the poles
and neutral and universal actors. In later works he drew
attention to such a factor in the formation of international relations as states' possession of
nuclear weapons.
M. Kaplan defines five variable systems: the fundamental principles of the system,
the principles of its transformation, the classificatory variables of the participants, the variables of their capabilities, and the
information variables.
1. The fundamental principles of the system are the rules of its existence, determining
the functions of the participants in international relations, and should be viewed as a generalization of their
characteristic behavior, determined by the structural capabilities and constraints that
have taken shape within it.
2. The principles of the system's transformation are the rules of its dynamics, i.e.,
the particular features of the changes through which it is modified.
3. The classificatory variables of the participants in international relations are linked to structural
features that modify their behavior. That is, this concerns the internal characteristics
of the participants, which M. Kaplan, like K. Waltz, considers to mean that all states of the world pursue
similar goals in foreign policy, but achieve them only under favorable conditions
of the international environment can affect their activity within the international
system.
4. The capability variables of the participants determine the physical parameters that allow a
given participant to perform certain functions. This refers to such traditionally
emphasized parameters of a state's power as the size of its territory, population,
the level of industrial development, as well as the combat capability of its armed forces, the condition of transport
and communication systems, its propensity to use force, its capacity to obtain assistance
from other participants, and so on.
5. The information variables include a participant's knowledge of the means it can
use in attempting to achieve certain goals, and the possible reactions and means
of other participants.
Initially M. Kaplan identified six types of international systems, considered
the principal ones, and later added four more (mixed). That is, his typology contains ten
models of international systems:
1. The balance-of-power system is characterized by the absence of general confrontation,
while allowing for the possibility of conflicts of marginal significance. It involves a certain
number of "poles," with the optimal number considered to be five, which under any conditions does not
allow one of them to dominate. M. Kaplan believes that "the individual actions
of national actors complement one another, and thus the essential rules of the
system are realized, describing the behavior of actors. By their nature they are universal." The
balance-of-power system is characterized by rules that the "poles" adhere to. They
always:
—act to expand their own capabilities, preferring
diplomatic to military means;
—are inclined to use military force rather than lose the opportunity to expand their capabilities;
—are inclined to stop military action rather than completely destroy one of the leading states;
—act against any coalition or single state attempting to dominate the
system;
—act against states that support supranational principles of organizing the
system;
—allow leading states, once defeated and limited in their capabilities, to have their
status restored.
2. A loose bipolar system exists when two confronting blocs emerge,
but between them there remains a group of participants in international relations that stays
neutral. The mediator in relations between the blocs is a universal actor
(for example, the UN). The determining role in the system is played by the blocs, composed of
nation-states led by one of the global superpowers ("poles"). The system
functions on the basis of rules governing relations between the blocs:
—the blocs try to increase their relative capabilities;
—they will not risk a direct clash with one another, considering the risk too great;
—they are inclined to fight in order to prevent the opposing bloc from dominating;
—each bloc tries to subordinate to itself the universal actor of
international relations, and through it – the opposing bloc;
—they strive to increase the number of their members (i.e. satellite states), but
tolerate non-alignment (under certain circumstances).
Neutral and universal actors in international relations in such a system have
similar aspirations, and in their policy try to:
—maintain neutrality toward both blocs;
—support one another, clearly demonstrating a critical stance toward both
blocs;
—help reduce the danger of global war and tension in relations between the
blocs.
3. A loose bipolar system is characterized by the same features and rules
as the previous one, but the opposing blocs, compared to the neutral participants, are relatively
weak and cannot show a tendency to absorb them.
4. A bipolar détente system arises when the "poles" and the blocs they lead
abandon confrontation in favor of cooperation and peaceful coexistence.
5. A bipolar system of unstable blocs is created when the "poles"
are not strong enough to permanently keep other participants within their sphere of influence. It
is characterized by the alternation of confrontation and peaceful coexistence.
6. A rigid bipolar system exists when there are extremely powerful "poles," rigid hierarchy
within the blocs, and weak or absent neutral participants. It is characterized by
constant confrontation and extreme tension in relations between the poles and by
the likelihood of war breaking out.
7. A universal system has no clearly expressed "poles" in its structure and
unites all participants in international relations around a global international institution
with universal goals of activity (for example, the UN).
8. A hierarchical system arises when the strongest participant in international
relations (the "pole") establishes dominance over other participants, subordinating
their goals to its own activity.
9. A system of complete proliferation (unilateral veto) is a manifestation of a
balance of power among states in which one of them, possessing atomic weapons, can
"blackmail" all participants and lead to general chaos and the loss by all participants of a
sense of security.
10. A system of incomplete proliferation is the same as the previous one, but with the difference
that atomic weapons are possessed by 15—20 states, which could lead to a situation in which it
performs the function of deterring a potential aggressor.
Under conditions of incomplete proliferation, the possession of atomic weapons means independence
within the system, but it causes distrust in relations among the participants.
Unlike the traditionalists, M. Kaplan ignores references to historical
precedents, since he considers them too chaotic and unconvincing for theoretical
generalizations. In his opinion, an analysis of the possible types of international systems allows
one to understand the regularities by which a system of one type transforms into another. M. Kaplan
noted that only the first two types of systems actually existed in history, while all the others never
arose.
In his opinion, "the analysis of systems that have no historical prototype has a certain
value. First, models of international systems that have existed in history will allow
one, with considerable probability, to foresee the possibility of the emergence (under certain conditions) of new types of
international systems. Therefore, the characteristics of international systems that have no analogue in
history are created on the basis of models of existing systems. Second, it is desirable to predict
the behavior of such international systems, should they arise.
According to O. Young, real international relations can be depicted in the form of a "model
of discontinuities", built on the premise that the components of the global system are specific
regional subsystems, between which there is similarity, but no identity. In his
interpretation, "the model of discontinuities deals primarily with subsystems, not with individual
actors; it takes into account the differences between regional and global conflict
axes".
O. Young puts forward five fundamental considerations regarding the international system:
1) within it there exist individual states characterized by global influence and
problems of planetary significance, pertaining to the entire system;
2) within the international system there exist autonomous subsystems, in which the leading states and
the balance of power (in each of them) differ substantially;
3) the autonomous subsystems are regional in nature;
4) regional subsystems are not entirely isolated, since they are a constituent
part of the global international system;
5) the global international system is a complex combination of global and
regional subsystems, characterized by variability and diversity of structural
forms.
Emphasizing the complex internal structure of the global international system, O.
Young tried to avoid a simplified understanding of the international environment, which was an
inevitable consequence of Kaplan's formalization and generalization of reality.
In the early 1960s, J. Modelski formulated the theory of so-called civilizational
systems, which laid the foundation for a new direction in the study of international systems. J. Modelski
distinguished types of civilizational systems, applying a number of sociological criteria:
the capacity for rapid mobilization of a country's resources, the particularity of functioning.
In J. Modelski's conception, civilizational systems are the most important constituent
elements of the global international system of power and sources of its solidarity, the manner of
functioning of the economy, and the character of public culture. He distinguished two types of systems:
Agraria and Industria.
Agraria unites less developed countries, where the possibility of mobilizing resources is quite
limited, power rests on the domination of one person or a certain elite, the solidarity of power is
oligarchic, the manner of functioning of the economy is extensive, and the culture has an elitist
character.
Industria unites developed countries, which, on the contrary, can easily and quickly
mobilize resources; power in them is based on the domination of many elites, headed by
major property owners and businessmen; the foundation of the social system and power is education and
skill; the economy develops intensively; the culture has a widely accessible, mass
character.
The model of the international system of J. Modelski was critically elaborated and developed in the
works of F. Riggs. He argued that there exist international systems that have features of both
agrarian and industrial civilizations. Relying on the application of structural-functional analysis and on an analogy with the physical process of light passing through a
prism, he outlined three types of international systems:
1) a monochromatic system unites societies in which diverse social
functions are performed by a single structure, which as a whole corresponds to Agraria;
2) a refractive system, that is, one in which each social function corresponds to
a separate structure, correlating with Industria;
3) a prismatic system is something intermediate between the two preceding ones, since it
is based on such a distribution of functions that envisages both their ranking and parallel
promotion of two principles of the functioning of systems. That is, there exist levels at which individual
social functions are performed by different structures, but alongside them, at other levels, social
functions are monopolized by a certain structure. According to F. Riggs, such a construction
of a social system is characteristic of most countries of the world.
The Norwegian scholar J. Galtung outlined two types of international systems, relying
on the criterion of their placement relative to the centers of the most important global processes in the spheres of
politics, economics, culture, and information. The world, in his opinion, is divided into central
and peripheral international systems, and international relations are determined by the specificity
of the relations between them:
1) central systems unite highly developed states, which are the richest and
strongest and play a leading role in international relations. They are connected among
themselves by extensive interrelations, formalized in international structures of
organizations. These countries and their groupings initiate and control global processes, and
therefore should be defined as centers of global domination;
2) peripheral systems include states that are poorly developed and passive
in the political sphere. They are wholly or partially dependent on the centers of global
domination, since they are the object of those world processes that they cannot control.
According to J. Galtung, central and peripheral systems can be distinguished
empirically, by a number of indicators characterizing the level of development of countries and testifying to
their rank in the world hierarchy.
A characteristic feature of contemporary international relations is the domination of central
systems over peripheral ones, which manifests itself in the form of direct, and more often concealed,
imperialism (the theory of J. Galtung is traditionally classified as neo-Marxism (globalism), but
the authors do not share such an assessment, since its conceptual-categorial apparatus and the very content of
his views are closer to the systems theory of behaviorism, and the structural theory of aggression — to
neorealism and neo-colonialism. From this thesis, J. Galtung draws three most important conclusions:
1) between the central and peripheral systems there is an obvious conflict of
interests, since the former seek to preserve their dominance while the latter seek to free themselves from
their influence;
2) the possibility of forming coalitions of peripheral states, and between the two
systems, depends on the unity of the states of the central system;
3) the probability of a conflict of interests is significantly higher within central systems than within
peripheral ones.
J. Galtung's last conclusion follows from the assertion that the exploitation
of peripheral countries by the states of the central systems occurs unevenly and
without solidarity.
The systemic theories of behaviorism, despite justified criticism related to
their abstractness and deductiveness, can be interpreted as a significant step forward, which
symbolized substantial development of international relations theory. It resulted in the formulation
of a large number of highly interesting theoretical concepts that attempted to find
an approach to explaining the phenomena and processes of international life. The development of general theories
of international systems, in parallel, led to the emergence of a number of narrower directions of
research into their individual parts or situations. Theories of stability, the environment of systems,
internal relations between elements of systems, and other scholarly directions gave concrete shape to the
general theories of systems. The widely known scholarly legacy in this area includes the works of K.
Deutsch, R. Rosecrance, J. Singer, H. and M. Sprout, B. Brodie, and others.
Linkage Theories
Linkage theories followed logically from general systems theory, which their authors critically
analyzed while at the same time attempting to develop it in the direction of a more concrete study of the
interactions arising within the international system. Proponents of linkage theory formalized
such relations using the concepts of "microsystem" and "macrosystem."
The most concise and clear formulation of such relationships was given by S. Rosen, who
argued that the interaction of two states within an international system consists in a balance
between the ability of one of them to inflict harm on the other and the ability of the other to withstand the pressure
associated with the actions of the first. A state that is the object of pressure, taking its own capabilities into account,
can:
—submit to the pressure, changing its policy and internal social
structures, that is, becoming dependent on the acting subject;
—passively withstand the pressure;
—actively apply countermeasures against the state exerting pressure,
subordinating it to its own policy and changing the macrosystem in its own interests.
S. Rosen's concept, which became the basis for all theories of this school, was somewhat later
developed and refined by K. Holsti. Modeling relations between states A and B, he found
that the effectiveness of A's pressure on B depends on objective and subjective factors, which
include:
—the level of state B's economic dependence on state A;
—the possibility for state B to apply adequate countermeasures in response to the pressure
of state A;
—the probability of state B receiving various forms of assistance from third states;
—state B's determination to resist, arising from the stability of its internal social
systems – political, economic, and social;
—the willingness of the political leadership and population to submit to the influence of state A;
—the commitment of both states to achieving their own goals and their readiness for
sacrifices and costs in pursuing confrontational actions.
The theory of "penetration," proposed by W. Hanrieder,
followed from the assertion of the mutual penetration of states' social systems within the international
system. He believed that real international relations lack one-way
directed links. Therefore, schemes that model one-way dependence are too
simplified. Dependence is always bilateral in nature, and so one can speak only
of its asymmetry.
Under contemporary conditions there is a clear, substantial influence of the international environment on
the formation of a state's domestic policy, in which three groups of factors are taken into account:
1) predominantly internal problems, addressed using
foreign-policy means;
2) external problems that compel the political leadership of states around the world to take certain
actions in the sphere of domestic policy;
3) both groups of factors, mutually influencing the process of making political
decisions.
In this context, W. Hanrieder's conclusion establishes a simple and
obvious regularity: the influence of the international environment on an individual state is
stronger the weaker that state is, and conversely, the stronger it is, the weaker that influence is.
Linkage theories, aimed at studying the essential problems of the
relationship between the international and domestic systems of states, can be assessed as extremely
promising, since they can be applied both for a deeper study of the global system, compared
with the general theory, and for studying problems of national
security.
Factor theories, or "field theories," were formulated during the 1950s-1960s
century, when many scholars turned their attention to the problem of studying the objective and
subjective factors that directly or indirectly influence international relations.
An important feature of the theories addressing this set of problems was the
formalization of the international environment into a certain plane (field), on which the
participants are located and where the relations between them take place.
The most elaborate and original of these theories was the model
proposed by Q. Wright. It is built on the assumption that any event in
international relations is a variable state of its field. He understood the field of international
relations as a system of variables of many parameters, defined in real time and space,
or analytically. He called the determinants of the field the properties of the subjects (elements), the links
between them, and their actions. The field, in Q. Wright's conception, is an abstracted model of reality that
can be examined on two planes: geographic and analytical:
1) the geographic field of international relations is the real space in which
phenomena and processes, variable over time, exist;
2) the analytical field, unlike the geographic one, is a space containing
subjective elements: assessments of the situation, thoughts, ideas, concepts, doctrines, and so on.
Q. Wright identifies the following axes of capability, determining the objective factors of
a subject's ability to act in international relations:
1. The axis of social energy, which he understands as the axis of economic progress, where the value of
the variable lies between "extremes": from inactivity to vigor.
2. The axis of social elasticity or decentralization: from monocentrism to
polycentrism in the political and other social spheres.
3. The axis of cooperation, associated with the drive toward international cooperation: from isolation
(autarky) to active cooperation.
4. The axis of power (strength): from weakness to overwhelming strength.
5. The axis of raw materials and other resources: from their absence (scarcity) to sufficiency.
6. The axis of technological progress: from technological primitiveness to sophistication.
The value axes are scales on which subjective factors are determined that shape
capacity to act in the international environment. Among them are defined:
1. The axis of assessment of reality: from a subjective assessment of one's own capabilities and
the international environment to an objective assessment.
2. The axis of concreteness of thought: from perceiving reality deductively
(through abstract concepts) to perceiving it inductively (through conscious
experience).
3. The axis of the purpose of activity: from a desire to understand reality to actively changing it.
4. The axis of self-identification: from insularity, suspicion, and defensiveness to
tolerance and expansiveness.
5. The axis of interpretation of interests: from egoism to altruism. The first extreme
is understood as taking into account only one's own interests, while the second — as taking into account the interests
of other participants in international relations.
6. The axis of attitude toward peace: from negative (hostile) to positive.
Proceeding from the definition of these axes, Q. Wright argued that any change
in international relations can be explained by changes in the analytical field, by the interplay between
the variable capabilities and values, and by the relationship between the geographic and analytical
fields. All the variables reflect a complex of objective and subjective factors that
determine changes in the international environment.
The main purpose of Q. Wright's theory was an attempt at empirical modeling of
processes in international relations, and this gave it a more pronounced methodological
effect than explanatory value.
Q. Wright's concept was creatively developed by R. Rummel. He advanced it into the
applied realm and reduced it to axioms in which he combined field theory with the theory of international status. His
theoretical concept is set out in six axioms, three of which concern the field of
international relations, and three – the status of states.
Field theory comes down to the following axioms:
1. International relations represent a field consisting of the attributes and interactions of all states
and their relations, defined over time.
2. The field encompasses the spaces of countries' attributes and their behavior.
3. The space of states' attributes is the set of social forces determining
international relations in the space of action: and their behavior.
Status theory comes down to the following axioms:
1. International relations are a social system characterized by stratification by
status, defined as balanced (uniformly high level) and
unbalanced (unevenly high level).
2. certain manifestations of countries' behavior are linearly dependent on their status.
3. Status is directly connected with the behavior of participants in international relations, which
means that balanced participants strive for the status quo, and, conversely, unbalanced
participants strive for its change and for conflict.
R. Rummel's theory, owing to its applied character, generated considerable
interest and was used operationally in empirical research on the problem of the "measurability"
of states.
N. Gleditsch proposed a somewhat different approach, connected with the rankings of states and their
influence on bilateral relations.
His theoretical concept came down to identifying three of the most important, in his
opinion, regularities of international relations:
1) the higher the combined rank of two states in the international system, the higher the degree
of interaction between them;
2) the greater the similarity of the ranks of two states, the higher the degree of positive interactions
between them;
3) the more similar the rank profile, the more positive the interactions between them.
N. Gleditsch believes that the relationship between states' attributes and their behavior in
international relations can be studied empirically and precise, regular
relationships can be established. A condition for such research is the creation of a precise methodology
for determining the ranks of countries in the hierarchy of international systems.
Behaviorist field theories became an important stage in the development of international relations
theory, one that produced a number of original ideas substantially different from the classical
ones — in their complexity, scientific rigor, and high level of abstraction. They became a significant
step in the development of an empirical methodology for the study of international relations, since Q.
Wright and his followers came very close to creating models by means of which one could
model reality and forecast its future states.
The Crisis of International Relations Theory: Rationalism and Reflectivism
Critics of the "behaviorist revolution" constantly accused its proponents of
failing to realize in their concepts its main goals, that is, of failing to
create fully empirical theories whose conclusions would be inductive in nature. One of
them, H. Bull, stressed: "If this approach is judged by the criteria of logical clarity and
scientific precision, it can be said that its quality is fairly high.
The "behaviorist revolution" failed to accomplish its goals because of the significant
difficulty of the problem of finding empirical parameters for the phenomena of international life
under study. It turned out to be quite difficult to quantitatively measure a whole range of essential
situational variables, such as: the content of the interests, goals, and aspirations of participants in international
relations, the strength of action and interaction between them, and the character of the influence of subjective factors on the
decision-making process.
From the late 1970s – early 1980s, international relations theory entered a
serious crisis, brought about by many scholars' disillusionment not only with the possibilities
of the classical approach, but also with the results produced by behaviorist theories.
One attempt to overcome the crisis can be considered the widely discussed idea of
combining methodologies based on quantitative and qualitative methods, which is considered a
necessary and logical stage in the development of international relations theory. The idea
of forming a new theory of international relations follows from its proponents' understanding
that reality cannot be fully reflected using only one of the
methodologies mentioned above.
In 1988, R. Keohane named the new synthetic theory rationalism and contrasted it with
the so-called reflectivist approach, whose representatives radically and quite actively criticize
the fundamental foundations of rationalism.
Among the harshest critics of rationalism are, above all,
representatives of critical theory, feminism, and postmodernism.
Critical theorists, in particular J. Habermas, proposed a fairly narrow concept
of creating an "ideal speech situation," which could become a means of overcoming
the political domination of powerful superpowers and conflicts, since full openness
of information would foster a reasoned debate between parties and an impartial (that is,
just) resolution.
Within the current of critical theory arose a quite distinctive scholarly direction — so-called
constructivism, represented by the works of A. Wendt, D. Lumsdaine, and others. Their works
reflect two basic assertions characteristic of this theory:
1. The fundamental structures of international relations are formed under the determining
influence of subjective factors arising from human aspirations and interests, and
lead to the creation of one or another social construct.
2. The behavior and interests of individual states in the international environment are determined by
subjective ideas and conceptions of the development of international relations, rather than by their
real interests.
The formation of feminist concepts in international relations theory was prompted by
the internationalization of the women's movement, the growth of transnational feminist
activity, and the placement of gender-inequality issues on the global agenda.
Adherents of feminism, or so-called gender theories, rely more on their own
political stance than on definite logical arguments or a systematically developed theory. From
their point of view, rationalist theories rest on a purely male vision of international relations,
neglecting distinctly female experience and aspirations. Proponents of these theories
proceed from the idea of gender roles in society which, in their view, are
unequal. In particular, V.S. Peterson and A. Runyan note that women in the
hierarchy of society are placed in a fundamentally lower position. Society's division along
gender roles results in men dominating politics, while women
occupy a subordinate position.
The most fully developed fundamental foundations of their own theory were created by the postmodernists,
among whom the ideas of M. Foucault, J. Derrida, R. Rorty, and especially R. Ashley stand out. J. Vasquez
identified five fundamental ideas of postmodernism:
1. The absence of universal progress and evolution in human history. In their view, different
societies develop along their own path, which is neither better nor worse than others, and the current
state of Western civilization is not an ideal, but merely one example of development.
2. A sequence of events is not subject to any objective regularity, but is
the result of particular decisions made at the time as contingent alternatives.
3. Reality is generated by a system of subjective values and by people's actions
aimed at putting them into practice, that is, it is only a "social construction."
4. Identity is a form in which power and violence are exercised over persons, social
groups, and communities.
5. Language and conceptual paradigms create reality, because they
put forward certain models of communication and development, and as soon as a society introduces
innovations whose expediency has been scientifically justified, these become part of reality.
Proceeding from such fundamental foundations, the postmodernists accuse the theorists
of rationalism, especially neorealism, of failing to understand contemporary social processes, of
oversimplifying them, and of operating with imprecise and incorrect concepts and categories.
A continuing weakness of international relations theory is the absence of a scientifically validated
explanatory theory that would holistically, consistently, and cogently explain the essence of
international phenomena and processes. The lack of a clear understanding of them narrows the possibility
of the wide application of modern scientific methods and approaches to research, in particular,
computer simulations and "game" theory.
It follows from this that international relations theory is entering a new, sharp
polemic, which in the end may lead to the formation of a whole series of significant scholarly
concepts.
Contemporary international relations theory must not only synthesize the most significant
achievements within the framework of the new theory, but must also return to the problem of developing
methodological foundations. During its development, this issue did not receive significant attention
in the works of scholars; they instead tried to investigate applied problems and to scientifically explain
real situations in the international environment.
J. Dougherty and R. Pfaltzgraff believe that contemporary international relations theory must:
—help strengthen the science of international relations as an independent scholarly
discipline;
—focus on formulating a post-behaviorist theory that, building on
all the best ideas accumulated so far, would have broader explanatory capabilities;
—achieve a clear division of fundamental and applied research;
—create a system of scholarly connections between studies of international relations
at different levels of generalization.
Self-study questions:
1. Give examples of typical international systems?
2. Identify the types of international systems
3. Clarify the essence of the term "dynamic equilibrium".
4. Characterize the global system and its subsystems
5. Identify the main properties and features of the modern IR (international relations) system.
6. Comment on the hierarchy of international systems. Key types of international systems.
7. Provide the main characteristics of international systems (sovereignty, territorial
integrity, the principle of formal equality of states).
Comments