Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:13:33.731Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Kuhning of reason: Realism, rationalism, and political decision in IR theory after Thomas Kuhn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2015

NICOLAS GUILHOT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Beyond the initial infatuation with his work, Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions has had a lasting impact on the field of International Relations. The article analyses the reception of Kuhn in IR and suggests that it contributed to overcoming the ‘second debate’ by making science and realism fully compatible. More importantly, Kuhn offered a vision of science in which scientific communities operated on the basis of realist principles. This not only consolidated the academic hold of neorealism, but transformed realism into a theory of knowledge, which its critics have failed to acknowledge. This lasting transformation is analysed by looking at Kuhn’s influence on the classic studies of strategic decision-making by Graham Allison and Robert Jervis.

Type
Articles
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 3 - 24
Copyright
© 2015 British International Studies Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I have benefitted greatly from the comments of three anonymous reviewers and the editors of the Review of International Studies. I am grateful to John Mearsheimer for his comments on the article during a panel at the 2013 ISA convention in San Francisco. Robert Jervis and Ronald Rogowski kindly accepted to talk to me about their use of Kuhn. The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) Grant Agreement no. 284231.

References

1 Gieryn, Thomas, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

2 Terence Ball traced a similar trajectory of Kuhn within political science, before endorsing Lakatos like everybody else: Ball, Terence, ‘From paradigms to research programs: Toward a post-Kuhnian political science’, American Journal of Political Science, 20:1 (1976), pp. 151–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Lakatos, Imre and Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Patomaki, Heikki and Wight, Colin, ‘After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism’, International Studies Quarterly, 44:2 (2000), pp. 213–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chernoff, Fred, ‘Scientific realism as a meta-theory of international politics’, International Studies Quarterly, 46:2 (2002), pp. 189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Lijphart, Arend, ‘The structure of the theoretical revolution in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 18:1 (1974), pp. 41–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Like all words in ‘-ism’, positivism suffers from semantic fuzziness. Here, I will follow Ayer and consider ‘positivism’ to be a diluted version of logical positivism according to which it is only ‘required that a statement be capable of being in some degree confirmed of disconfirmed by observation’. A. J. Ayer (ed.), Logical Positivism (New York: The Free Press, 1959), p. 14. This is in line with the use of the term in IR, for instance by Kenneth Waltz, when he attacks the ‘crassly positivist ideas’ of those who think that theories must be evaluated with observations: Kenneth Waltz, ‘Foreword: Thoughts about assaying theories’, in Elman and Fendius Elman (eds), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003), pp. vii–xii, pp. ix, xii.

5 Mirowski, Philip, ‘What’s Kuhn got to do with it?’, Social Epistemology, 17:2–3 (2003), pp. 229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 231).

6 Smith, Steve, ‘The development of International Relations as a social science’, Journal of International Studies, 16:2 (1987), pp. 189–206Google Scholar; Smith, Steve, ‘Paradigm dominance in International Relations: The development of International Relations as a social science’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 16:2 (1987), pp. 189–206Google Scholar.

7 Wæver, Ole, ‘The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate’, in Smith, Booth, and Zalewski (eds), International Theory: Postivism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 149–185Google Scholar.

8 Banks, Michael, ‘The evolution of International Relations theory’, in Banks (ed.), Conflict in World Society: A New Perspective on International Relations (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1984), pp. 3–21Google Scholar (p. 15).

9 Lijphart, ‘The structure’.

10 Schmidt, Brian, ‘On the history and historiography of International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2013), pp. 3–28Google Scholar (p. 11).

11 Wæver, Ole, ‘The sociology of a not so international discipline: American and European developments in International Relations’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 687–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a defence of Kuhn’s usefulness for the history of IR theory, see Vasquez, John, ‘Kuhn vs Lakatos? The case for multiple frames in appraising IR theory’, in Elman and Fendius Elman (eds), Progress in International Relations Theory: Appraising the Field (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003)Google Scholar; and Mansbach, Richard and Vasquez, John, In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981), p. 12Google Scholar.

12 Ashworth, Lucian, ‘The poverty of paradigms: Subcultures, trading zones and the case of liberal socialism in interwar International Relations’, International Relations, 26:1 (2012), pp. 35–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Boulding, Kenneth, ‘Future directions in conflict and peace studies’, in John Burton and Frank Dukes (eds), Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution (London: Macmillan, 1990), p. 38Google Scholar, quoted in Walker, Thomas, ‘The perils of paradigm mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper’, Perspectives on Politics, 8:2 (2012), pp. 433–451Google Scholar; Smith, Steve, ‘The forty years’ detour: The resurgence of normative theory in International Relations’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 21:3 (1992), pp. 489–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Walker, , ‘The perils of paradigm mentalities’, p. 443Google Scholar.

15 Smith, ‘The development of International Relations as a social science’; Smith, , ‘The forty years’ detour’, p. 494Google Scholar.

16 Wight, Colin, ‘Incommensurability and cross-paradigm communication in International Relations theory: What’s the frequency, Kenneth?’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 25:2 (1996), pp. 291–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 292).

17 Wæver, ‘Rise and fall’.

18 Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus and Nexon, Daniel, ‘Paradigmatic faults in International Relations theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 53:4 (2009), pp. 907–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 919).

19 Fuller, Thomas, Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), p. 31Google Scholar.

20 Stove, David, Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a Postmodern Cult (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2001)Google Scholar.

21 Mirowski, ‘What’s Kuhn got to do with it?’.

22 Caneva, Kenneth, ‘Possible Kuhns in the history of science: Anomalies of incommensurable paradigms’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31:1 (2000), pp. 87–124Google Scholar; Feyerabend, Paul, ‘Consolations for the specialist’, in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 197–230Google Scholar (p. 199); Ball, , ‘From paradigms to research programs’, p. 151Google Scholar.

23 On which see Guilhot, Nicolas, ‘The realist gambit: Postwar American political science and the birth of IR theory’, International Political Sociology, 2:4 (2008), pp. 281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 See Fuller, , Thomas Kuhn, p. 170ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Ibid., p. 175, fn. 72.

26 This is captured well by Shklar, Judith, ‘Decisionism’, in Carl Friedrich (ed.), Rational Decision (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1964), p. 11Google Scholar. On the decisionist background of IR theory, see Guilhot, Nicolas, ‘Cyborg pantocrator: IR theory from decisionism to rational choice’, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Social Sciences, 47:3 (2011), pp. 279–301Google Scholar.

27 For a first IR take on Kuhn, see Davis, Robert, ‘The international influence process: How relevant is the contribution of psychologists?’, American Psychologist, 21:3 (1966), pp. 236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Bull, Hedley, ‘International theory: The case for a classical approach’, World Politics, 18:3 (1966), pp. 361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kaplan, Morton, ‘The new great debate: Traditionalism vs science in International Relations’, World Politics, 19:1 (1966), pp. 1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Guilhot, ‘Cyborg pantocrator’.

29 Thies, Cameron, ‘Myth, half-truth, reality or strategy?: Managing disciplinary identity and the origins of the first great debate’, in Brian Schmidt (ed.), International Relations and the First Great Debate (New York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 118–132Google Scholar.

30 Groom, Winston, Forrest Gump (New York: Washington Square Press, 1986), p. 23Google Scholar.

31 Bull, , ‘International theory’, p. 361Google Scholar.

32 Almond, Gabriel, ‘Political theory and political science’, The American Political Science Review, 60:4 (1966), pp. 869–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 870, 3).

33 Truman, David, ‘Disillusion and regeneration: The quest for a discipline’, The American Political Science Review, 59:4 (1965), pp. 865–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Almond, , ‘Political theory’, p. 875Google Scholar.

34 Almond, , ‘Political theory’, p. 875Google Scholar.

35 Ibid. On the realist counter-enlightenment, see Guilhot, Nicolas, ‘Portrait of the realist as a historian: On anti-whiggism in the history of International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 21:1 (2015), pp. 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Rogowski, Ronald, ‘International politics: The past as science’, International Studies Quarterly, 12:4 (1968), pp. 394–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 406–8.

37 Lijphart, , ‘The structure’, p. 41Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., pp. 53–4.

39 Ibid., p. 63.

40 Wolin, Sheldon, ‘Paradigms and political theories’, in Gary Gutting (ed.), Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), pp. 160–191Google Scholar.

41 Ball, , ‘From paradigms to research programs’, p. 153Google Scholar.

42 Kuhn, Thomas, ‘Logic of discovery or psychology of research?’, in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 1–23Google Scholar (p. 6).

43 Smith, , ‘Paradigm dominance in International Relations’, p. 202Google Scholar.

44 Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), p. 50Google Scholar.

45 Aalberts, Tanja and van Munster, Rens, ‘From Wendt to Kuhn: Reviving the “third debate” in International Relations’, International Politics, 45:4 (2008), pp. 720–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Fuller, , Thomas Kuhn, p. 28Google Scholar.

47 Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 136-43. The comment on Orwell can be found p. 167.

48 Here again, the result was selective reading, and it is also from Kuhn that the critics of IR’s potted history of ‘great debates’ have taken some of their cues. See Schmidt, ‘On the history and historiography of International Relations’, p. 9; Gunnell, John, ‘Political science on the cusp: Recovering a discipline’s past’, American Political Science Review, 99:4 (2005), pp. 597–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Smith, , ‘Paradigm dominance in International Relations’, p. 202Google Scholar.

50 Mirowski, , ‘What’s Kuhn got to do with it?’, p. 232Google Scholar.

51 Gordon, Peter, ‘Agonies of the real: Anti-realism from Kuhn to Foucault’, Modern Intellectual History, 9:1 (2012), pp. 127–147Google Scholar (p. 129).

52 Kuhn, , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 163Google Scholar.

53 Banks, ‘The evolution of International Relations theory’, p. 15.

54 Smith, ‘Paradigm dominance in International Relations: The development of International Relations as a social science’, p. 202.

55 Wæver, ‘Rise and fall’; Lijphart, ‘The structure’, p. 69.

56 Rogowski, , ‘International politics’, p. 415ffGoogle Scholar.

57 Lapid, Yosef, ‘The third debate: On the prospects of international theory in the post-positivist era’, International Studies Quarterly, 33:3 (1989), pp. 235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 236); Wight, Colin, ‘Philosophy of social science and International Relations’, in Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth Simmons (eds), Handbook of International Relations (London: Sage, 2002), pp. 23–51Google Scholar (p. 31); Wæver, ‘Rise and fall’, p. 160ff.

58 Wight, ‘Philosophy of social science and International Relations’. On Waltz’s refusal to provide a justification for realism, see also Guzzini, Stefano, ‘The enduring dilemmas of realism in International Relations’, European Journal of International Relations, 10:4 (2004), pp. 533–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 548-51).

59 Lapid, , ‘The third debate’, p. 237Google Scholar; Walker, Rob, ‘Realism, change, and international political theory’, International Studies Quarterly, 31:1 (1987), pp. 65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 66).

60 Guilhot, ‘Cyborg pantocrator’. On cybernetics’ ontological agnosticism, see Pickering, Andrew, The Cybernetic Brain: Skteches of Another Future (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Kaplan, Morton, ‘A poor boy’s journey’, in Joseph Kruzel and James Rosenau (eds), Journeys through World Politics: Autobiographical Reflections of Thirty-four Academic Travelers (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1989), pp. 41–51Google Scholar (p. 44).

62 Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 1979), p. 9Google Scholar. The extent of Ross Ashby’s influence on Waltz has yet to be studied in detail.

63 Ibid., p. 11.

64 Ibid., p. 39.

65 Waltz, Kenneth, ‘Evaluating theories’, The American Political Science Review, 91:4 (1997), pp. 913–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar (pp. 914, 6).

66 On Kuhn’s Harvard years, see also Isaac, Joel, ‘Kuhn’s education: Wittgenstein, pedagogy and the road to Structure’, Modern Intellectual History, 9:1 (2012), pp. 89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Biddle, Justin, ‘Putting pragmatism to work in the Cold War: Science, technology, and politics in the writings of James B. Conant’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42:4 (2011), pp. 552–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar (p. 555).

68 Fuller, , Thomas Kuhn, p. 174Google Scholar. See the criticism by Gunnell, , ‘Ideology and the philosophy of science: An American misunderstanding’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 14:3 (2009), pp. 317–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Kuhn, , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 93Google Scholar.

70 Daston, Lorraine and Stolleis, Michael, ‘Introduction: Nature, law and natural law in early modern Europe’, in Lorraine Daston and Michael Stolleis (eds), Natural Law and Laws of Nature in Early Modern Europe: Jurisprudence, Theology, Moral and Natural Philosophy (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), pp. 1–12Google Scholar.

71 Waltz, , Theory of International Politics, pp. 1–9Google Scholar.

72 Kuhn, , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 23Google Scholar.

73 Chernoff, Fred, ‘The impact of Duhemian principles on social science testing and progress’, in Harold Kincaid (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 229–258Google Scholar.

74 Lakatos, Imre, ‘Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes’, in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticsm and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), pp. 91–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar, famously depicted Kuhn as an ideologue for religious fanatics.

75 Quine, Willard, Word and Object (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960), p. 27Google Scholar.

76 On the political implications of Quine’s indeterminacy thesis, see Golumbia, David, ‘Quine’s ambivalence’, Cultural Critique (1998), pp. 5–38Google Scholar; Fuller, , Thomas Kuhn, p. 177Google Scholar, fn. 76.

77 Morgenthau, Hans, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948), pp. 216–217Google Scholar.

78 Kuhn, , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 94Google Scholar.

79 Lakatos, , ‘Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes’, p. 93Google Scholar.

80 Kuhn, , The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p. 94Google Scholar.

81 Fuller, Thomas Kuhn, pp. 174–5, fn. 72. Fuller argues that if Kuhn appears to offer an ‘independent corroboration’ of Jervis’s argument, it is because Jervis is unaware of the ‘common ancestry’ that relates Kuhn to him, that is, Cold War realism.

82 Allison, Graham, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971)Google Scholar, p. ix.

83 Allison, Essence, p. v.

84 Kuklick, Bruce, Blind Oracles: Intellectuals and War from Kennan to Kissinger (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), p. 166Google Scholar. See the documents in UAV 708.8, Harvard University, Institute of Politics-May Group, Core Group 1969–1970.

85 Harvard University Archives, UAV 708.8, Memorandum by John Steinbrunner, 10 April 1970, Harvard University, Institute of Politics-May Group, Core Group 1969–1970, pp. 10–11, emphasis added.

86 Allison, , Essence, p. 2Google Scholar.

87 In the 1999 edition, Allison describes himself as a positivist, while Zelikow disavows positivism. Allison, Graham and Zelikow, Philip, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: Longman, 1999), p. 521Google Scholar. See also Kuklick, , Blind Oracles, p. 165Google Scholar.

88 Allison, , Essence, p. 251Google Scholar.

89 Ibid., p. 275, quoted in Kuklick, Blind Oracles, p. 167.

90 Quoted in Allison, Essence, p. vi.

91 Davis, , ‘The international influence process?’, p. 236Google Scholar.

92 Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 5Google Scholar.

93 Ibid., p. 145.

94 Ibid., p. 143.

95 Ibid., p. 154.

96 Ibid., pp. 161, 72. Jervis adds that ‘scientific investigation could not be carried out if men were too open-minded’, p. 158.

97 Ibid., pp. 169, 7. He later acknowledges that there is ‘no way to draw a neat, sharp line between that degree of holding to existing beliefs and disparaging information that is necessary for the intelligent comprehension of the environment and that degree that leads to the maintenance of beliefs that should be rejected by all fair-minded men’, p. 177.

98 Ibid., p. 171.

99 Erickson, Paul, Klein, Judy, Daston, Lorraine, Lemov, Rebecca, Sturm, Thomas, Gordin, and Michael, How Reason Almost Lost its Mind: The Strange Career of Cold War Rationality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

100 Morgenthau, Hans, Science: Servant or Master? (New York: New American Library, 1972), p. 34Google Scholar.

101 Jervis, , Perception, p. 220Google Scholar.

102 Morgenthau, Hans, ‘The theoretical and practical importance of a theory of International Relations’, in Nicolas Guilhot (ed.), The Invention of International Relations: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation and the 1954 Conference on Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011), pp. 263–267Google Scholar.