Rahvusvaheliste suhete teooriad Lakatosi teaduslikus uurimisprogrammis: reflektiivsete julgeolekuteooriate programmiline paigutus ja progressiivsus
Date
2012
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Tartu Ülikool
Abstract
The current thesis purpose is to search for an answer in which scientific methodological framework the International Relations theories, more specifically, contemporary reflectivist security theories should be observed in order to claim them scientifically useful. The aim of the thesis is to offer a Lakatosian methodology of scientific research programmes for this framework. For testing the validity of the claim, six reflectivist theories (alternative security theory, third world security theory, the Copenhagen securitization theory, critical theory and feminism) are chosen on a basis of Steve Smith article where he proposes these theories to be observed as a part of new security interpretation paradigm.
The thesis starts off with a synthesis of different requirements a scientific theory must possess. In order to be claimed scientific the nature of what is being according to Ernest Nagel presented must be a systematical search for explanations, it has to elaborate the systems and different phenomena, evaluate the different conflicts which occur in order to create universality, be determining and separating from everyday interpretations, find inter-relations and compatibility neglecting values possessed by humans and must be a search for explaining hypothesis to test the existing patterns. Science should in addition be justifying and predicting – therefore useful. Furthermore, a scientific theory should carry some essential values in order to be claimed scientific. These values are conservativeness, consistency with the preceding theories, modesty in its claims, simplicity, generality and fallibility.
Taking these requirements into account, the usefulness of science would remain undiscovered as this criteria is not enough. That is why there are metatheoretical or methodological frameworks for science for to better evaluate foremost its usefulness. The first scientific methodologist being under observation is Karl Popper with its falsification as a scientific demarcation criteria and his scepticism towards empirical inductive method which seeks to find proof for each theory in every observation. The second methodologist under observation is Thomas Kuhn who suggests that science moves in a revolutionary motion whereas there are cycles of “normal” science which is followed by proliferation of theories, then revolution and a new period of normal science. Kuhn explains that these processes do not have any positivist or deductive basis and purely depend on a subjective preference of the scientific community or scientists. Thus, evaluating the science of the theories does not depend on the construction on deductive basis and their fallibility, but entirely on preference.
The third methodologist under observation is Imre Lakatos who presented a methodology of scientific research programmes. Although, Lakatos is more in favour of Popperian standards and rejects the interpretation of Kuhn, he constructs a new form of falsification model which he calls “sophisticated falsification” opposed to Popper’s naïve falsification. The interpretation of the theories’ heuristics, according to what theories might construct a research programme, stands in the core of his methodology. In addition, Lakatos integrates the Kuhnian dynamic model, but rather calls science as a competition and progress of different research programmes rather than a linear revolutionary process.
Although Lakatos emphasizes on objectivist positivist records, then social sciences and International Relations which are created as a result of human interaction cannot prove its existence with the same methods and principles as the natural sciences. The reasons and possibilities for social sciences are given by Otto Neurath and foremost Fritz Machlup who presents 9 points why social sciences are not inferior compeared to the natural sciences. After Machlup’s justifications the Lakatosian methodology can be interpreted as possibly the most comprehensive and useful methodological framework for analysing and evaluating International Relations theories as well as security theories. Although Lakatosian methodology is good and useful he does not clearly explain how theory preferrance is accomplished. Lakatos says that theories should be looked in a programme and to evaluate the programmes progressivness, but does not give criteria for evaluation. That mistake is fixed by Alan Chalmers who brings out a objective “fruitfulness” criterion to evaluate the programme’s and theories’ progressiveness in a certain context. I also add scale of a theory as an important variable.
Analysing the six different theories brought out above the findings show that all those are compatible either with the claims of realism or liberalism international theory. Their greater emphasis is on the social construction or social nature of security which is interpreted by every theory, though differently. For instance, the constructivist theory claims that anarchy is what states make through social interaction, Copenhagen securitization theory says that the constructed threats should be in addition securitysized through a successful speech act, but feminist theory has the position that security is formed by accepting the women’s role and suppression in a male society. Added by the emancipatory aspects of critical theory and collective and third world aspects the picture gets quite blurred and complicated to systemise without a good methodology.
Taking into account the context formed by the liberalist and realist theories the reflectivist security do not construct a separate programme, but complement to two contextual paradigms. When some aspects of constructivism and third world theory according to its heuristics adopt the theories into realism paradigm then on the other theories combined with the different ambiguous aspects of constructivism adopt these to the liberalism paradigm. I call those two research programmes “pragmatic security conflicts research programme” and “ethical security accomplishing research programme” accordingly. More progressiveness basing on the “fruitfulness” and “scale” criteria can be given to the “ethical security accomplishing research programme”.
In conclusion the thesis proposes a more useful model for viewing different security theories in a complex, not separately. There might be other programmes formed if for instance post-structural theories would be included, but the basis for that would remain the same. So, reflectivist theories are ore useful if they are viewed in a formed scientific research programme, because they can add-up each other creating more clarity and simplicity if we want to make sense out of the world we are living in.