Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:50:23.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoreticians' obligation of transparency: when parsimony, reflexivity, transparency and reciprocity meet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

PIKI ISH-SHALOM
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One way to describe the role of the social sciences (international relations included) is by relating to its function of rendering the social world transparent. This is a major conception of moral significance. The social world is a world of moral subjects. To render this world of moral subjects transparent involves exposing the inner states of the human mind. Moreover, according to the moral principle of reciprocity, those who make others transparent should be also transparent themselves. Furthermore, as facts do not order themselves objectively into parsimonious theory, the social scientist requires an extra-theoretical mechanism to classify and filter out data on the way to constructing theory. This extra-mechanism comprises the scientist's a priori assumptions of normative, ontological, and epistemological types: a priori assumptions that constitute the inner states of the theoretician's mind and necessarily precede theory. It is argued here that according to the moral and social principle of reciprocity, theoreticians have an individual and communal moral obligation to ensure that theory and theorising are transparent; an obligation attainable and preceded by strong individual and communal reflexivity. The extra-theoretical mechanism, and especially the ideological inclinations and normative convictions of theoreticians that allows parsimonious theory to be constructed from unbounded social complexity, should be made visible to the public.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 973 - 996
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

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.)

References

1 See also autoethnography, Preez, Jan du, ‘Locating the Researcher in the Research: Personal Narrative and Reflective Practice’, Reflective Practice, 9 (2008), pp. 509–519Google Scholar . Neo-pragmatism also seeks to locate knowledge in a particular perspective, see Baert, Patrick, Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Towards Pragmatism (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 136, 153–154Google Scholar .

2 Rosenau, James N., Distant Proximities: Dynamics Beyond Globalization (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003)Google Scholar .

3 Ibid., p. 405.

4 Ersel, Aydinli and Rosenau, James N., ‘Courage Versus Caution: A Dialogue on Entering and Prospering in IR’, International Studies Review, 6 (2004), pp. 511–526Google Scholar . As will become clear below, I think Rosenau's position, while laudable, is too naïve in its expectations that theoreticians be fully aware of the assumptions, commitments, and convictions that inform their theories.

5 Standpoint theory, embraced mainly by feminist epistemologists, claims that all knowledge is situated. Standpoint theory is historically predisposed towards materialist analysis according to which standpoints are determined by the position of the knower in the social hierarchy and his or her corresponding social commitments. See, Potter, Elizabeth, Feminism and Philosophy of Science: An Introduction (New York: Routledge, 2006), pp. 131–132Google Scholar ; Smith, Dorothy E., ‘Women's Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology’, in Harding, Sandra G. (ed.), Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987), p. 91Google Scholar ; Hawkesworth, Mary E., ‘Knowers, Knowing, Known: Feminist Theory and Claims of Truth’, in Laslett, Barbara, Kohlstedt, Sally G., Longino, Helen and Hammonds, Evelynn (eds), Gender and Scientific Authority (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 78Google Scholar ; Barbara Laslett, Sally G. Kohlstedt, Helen Longino and Evelynn Hammonds, ‘Introduction’, in Ibid., p. 192; Haraway, Donna, ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies, 14 (1988), pp. 575–599.Google Scholar

6 Parsimony is defined as ‘The principle that the best statistical model among all satisfactory models is that with the fewest parameters. Hence, more generally, the principle which asserts that if it is possible to explain a phenomenon equally adequately in a number of different ways, then the simplest of explanations (in terms of the number of variables or propositions) should be selected.’ Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, 3rd edition, edited by John Scott and Gordon Marshall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 477. According to this strict definition, not all IR theoreticians are committed to parsimony. Clearly constructivists do not seek the explanation with the fewest possible variables, and Hans Morgenthau's realism is not as parsimonious as that of Waltz. However, all theoreticians, including constructivists (as we see clearly from the Ned Lebow quotation below), seek simplified explanations; explanations that are much simpler and sparser than the complexities of social reality. This loose conception of parsimony is the focus of my analysis. While not as accurate as the strict definition, the loose conception is much more convenient and word-efficient than ‘simpler and sparser than the complexities of social reality’. I therefore invite the reader to understand ‘parsimony’ as I do, that is loosely.

7 Latour, Bruno, Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1987)Google Scholar . Jasanoff, Sheila, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990)Google Scholar , Jasanoff, Sheila, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the US (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005)Google Scholar ; Pielke, Roger A., The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007)Google Scholar ; Longino, Helen E., The fate of knowledge (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002)Google Scholar .

8 For example, Wight, Colin, Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 51–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

9 Baert, , Philosophy of the Social Sciences, p. 96.Google Scholar

10 Ibid., p. 43. See also, Schütz, Alfred, The Phenomenology of the Social World, trans. Walsh, George and Lehnert, Frederick (Evanston, Il: Northwestern University Press, 1967), p. 226Google Scholar ; Cochran, Molly, ‘Deweyan Pragmatism and Post-Positivist Social Science in IR’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 31 (2002), pp. 535–536Google Scholar .

11 Hollis, Martin and Smith, Steve, Explaining and Understanding International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p. 72Google Scholar .

12 Falleti, Tulia G. and Lynch, Julia F., ‘Context and Causal Mechanisms in Political Analysis’, Comparative Political Studies, 42 (2009), pp 1143–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

13 Ibid., p. 1145. Emphasis added.

14 Searle, John S., The Construction of Social Reality (New York: The Free Press, 1995), pp. 27–29Google Scholar .

15 See, for example, Alkopher, Tal Dingott, ‘The Social (and Religious) Meanings that Constitute War: The Crusades as Realpolitik vs. Socialpolitik’, International Studies Quarterly, 49 (2005), p. 719CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

16 Moses, Jonathan W. and Knutsen, Torbjørn L., Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), p. 190Google Scholar . See also, Lupovici, Amir, ‘Constructivist methods: a plea and manifesto for pluralism’, Review of International Studies, 35 (2009), pp. 195–218Google Scholar , and Kurki, Milja and Sinclair, Adriana, ‘Hidden in Plain Sight: Constructivist Treatment of Social Context and its Limitations’, International Politics, 47 (2010), pp. 4–10Google Scholar . See also Peter Winch who advanced a radical version of constructivism and argued that ‘the category of cause [fitting to natural phenomena] involves generality by way of empirical generalizations, that of a reason for action [fitting to social phenomena] involves generality by way of rules.’ Winch, Peter, The Idea of a Social Science and its Relations to Philosophy, second edition (London: Routledge, 1990), p. xiGoogle Scholar .

17 Cox, Robert W., ‘Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 10 (1981), pp. 128–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

18 Ibid., p. 129. For a recent critical exercise in the historicisation of the meaning of democracy, see Hobson, Christopher, ‘Beyond the End of History: The Need for a “Radical Historicisation” of Democracy in International Relations Theory’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 37 (2009), pp. 631–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

19 A devastating criticism of behaviourism can be found in Steven Lukes. Lukes rightly argues that behaviourism's single-minded focus on observable behaviour leaves it unable to say anything fruitful about power that quite often works in invisible ways, Lukes, Steven, Power: A Radical View (Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004)Google Scholar . Charles Taylor criticises behaviourism for other reasons, namely, that contrary to its pretensions, behaviourist research is caught up with values and norms, Taylor, Charles, Philosophy and the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 77–81Google Scholar .

20 Pouliot, Vincent, ‘The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities’, International Organization, 62 (2008), pp. 257–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

21 While this understanding is most explicit in the constructivist approach to the social science it is by all means not exclusive to it.

22 Most theories are attempts at establishing and explicating the causal patterned relations between phenomena, yet causality is not a necessary element of theory as theory can try to establish and explicate constitutional patterned relations.

23 Khunians would rather see the academic process as a continuous effort of shielding theory from falsification. For an engaging comparison of Popper and Khun, see Fuller, Steve, Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004)Google Scholar . Fuller favours Popper and sees his philosophy of science as companion to democratic politics and ‘the open society’. Ibid., p. 16.

24 Gilovich, Thomas, How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life (New York, NY: Free Press, 1991), p. 3Google Scholar .

25 See footnote 6.

26 As analysed above, these patterned regularities can be seen as universally or contextually applicable, depending on the theoretical approach.

27 Waltz, Kenneth N., ‘Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory’, Journal of International Affairs, 44 (1990), p. 27Google Scholar .

28 Lebow, Richard N., ‘Power, Persuasion and Justice’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 33 (2005), p. 574CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

29 Gilovich, Thomas, Griffin, Dale W. and Kahneman, Daniel (eds), Heuristics and Biases: the Psychology of Intuitive Judgement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

30 See also Hollis, and Smith, , Explaining and Understanding International Relations, p. 201Google Scholar .

31 In a recent article Niko Kolodny attempted to demonstrate that there is no requirement for formal coherence as such, but that reason and rationality cannot do without coherence, Kolodny, Niko, ‘Why Be Disposed to Be Coherent?’, Ethics, 118 (2008), pp. 437–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

32 Compare with the seminal observation of Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel, ‘people rely on a limited number of heuristic principles which reduce the complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations. In general, these heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors.’ In ‘Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases’, Science, 185:4157 (27 September 1974), p. 1124Google Scholar . See also, Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), pp. 47–48Google Scholar .

33 Hawkesworth, ‘Knowers, Knowing, Known: Feminist Theory and Claims of Truth’, pp. 90–2; Guzzini, Stefano, ‘The Concept of Power: a Constructivist Analysis’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 33 (2005), pp. 498CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

34 Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘The Triptych of Realism, Elitism, and Conservatism’, International Studies Review, 8 (2006), p. 441Google Scholar . See also, Jahn, Beate, ‘Liberal Internationalism – From Ideology to Empirical Theory – and Back Again’, International Theory, 1 (2009), p. 424Google Scholar . This does not imply that theory is ideology (Here I part ways with Beate). The ideological inclination is one component among other components of theorising, and the academic culture of healthy scepticism along with methodological rigorousness help to distinguish theory from ideology, even though the two share a common foundation.

35 It could be argued that the existence of those ideological inclinations and normative commitments in theory may give good reasons for disclosure, for example out of decency and civility, or out of epistemological concerns for the quality of theory. But by itself the existence of those ideological inclinations and normative commitments does not generate a moral obligation for transparency. To ground transparency as a moral obligation we need to relate the existence of those ideological inclinations and normative commitments to principles of justice, such as the principle of reciprocity.

36 Ibid., pp. 463–4.

37 Riedel, Eibe, ‘The Human Right to Social Security: Some Challenges’, in Riedel, Eibe (ed.), Social Security as a Human Right: Drafting a General Comment on Article 9 ICESCR – Some Challenges (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2007), p. 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

38 Oren, Ido, ‘Can Political Science Emulate the Natural Sciences? The Problem of Self-Disconfirming Analysis’, Polity, 38 (2006), pp. 72–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

39 Social capital is intimately linked to trust, which in the terms used here is a kind of inner state of human mind.

40 Ibid., pp. 97–8.

41 Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘Theory gets Real, and the Case for a Normative Ethic: Rostow, Modernization Theory, and the Alliance for Progress’, International Studies Quarterly, 50 (2006), pp. 287–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

42 A central role in Rostow's theory of modernisation is kept for what he termed the Newtonian conception, namely the awareness of the ability to change the environment. See, Rostow, Walt W., The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), pp. 4–12Google Scholar . This awareness is, in the terms use here, an inner state of human mind.

43 Kissinger, Henry, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812–22 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1957)Google Scholar .

44 Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘Theory as a Hermeneutical Mechanism: The Democratic Peace and the Politics of Democratization’, European Journal of International Relations, 12 (2006), pp. 565–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

45 Lepgold, Joseph, ‘Is Anyone Listening? International Relations Theory and the Problem of Policy Relevance’, Political Science Quarterly, 113 (1998), pp. 43–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

46 Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘“The Civilization of Clashes”: Misapplying the Democratic Peace in the Middle East’, Political Science Quarterly, 122 (2007–2008), pp. 533–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

47 Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘The Rhetorical Capital of Theories: The Democratic Peace and the Road to the Roadmap’, International Political Science Review, 29 (2008), pp. 281–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

48 As can be seen in the title of the first academic article that pointed out the phenomenon of the democratic peace, Babst, Dean V., ‘Elective Governments – A Force for Peace’, The Wisconsin Sociologist, 3 (1964), pp. 9–14Google Scholar .

49 Davis, Douglas J., ‘Reciprocity’, in Clarke, P. A. B. and Linzey, A. (eds), Dictionary of Ethics, Theology, and Society (London: Routledge, 1996), pp. 721–722Google Scholar .

50 Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), p. 88Google Scholar .

51 Becker, Lawrence C., ‘Reciprocity, Justice, and Disability’, Ethics, 116 (2005), p. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

52 Blackburn, Simon, ‘Reciprocity’, in Blackburn, S. (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 310Google Scholar .

53 Gouldner, Alvin W., ‘The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement’, American Sociological Review, 25 (1960), p. 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

54 Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations (New York: Basic Books, 2000), pp. 207–222Google Scholar . In the realm of distributive justice, reciprocity can be conditioned by egalitarian principles. See, White, Stuart, ‘Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic Income’, Political Studies, 45 (1997), pp. 318–319Google Scholar .

55 Segall, Shlomi, ‘Unconditional Welfare Benefits and the Principle of Reciprocity’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 4 (2005), p. 337CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

56 Becker, ‘Reciprocity, Justice, and Disability’, pp. 20–1.

57 Smith, ‘Women's Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology’, p. 92.

58 Habermas, Jürgen, The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Boston Beacon Press 1984), p. xiiiGoogle Scholar .

59 Segall, ‘Unconditional Welfare Benefits and the Principle of Reciprocity’, p. 337.

60 Connolly, William E., The Terms of Political Discourse (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), p. 97Google Scholar .

61 See, for example, Engelstad, Ericka and Gerrard, Siri, ‘Challenging Situatedness’, in Engelstad, Ericka and Gerrard, Siri (eds), Challenging Situatedness: Gender, Culture and the Production of Knowledge (Delft: Eburon, 2005), p. 6Google Scholar ; Harding, Sandra G., The science question in feminism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), pp. 137–138Google Scholar ; Harding, Sandra G., Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking From Women's Lives (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 163Google Scholar ; Harding, , Is Science Multicultural?, p. 188Google Scholar ; Potter, , Feminism and Philosophy of Science, p. 140Google Scholar ; Smith, ‘Women's Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology’, p. 92.

62 Harding, , Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?, p. 163Google Scholar .

63 Though once again, the particularity implied by Harding is very much socially and materially located. The particularity I imply is more idealist as it is centred around a priori assumptions of various kinds and various (and undefined) origins.

64 Hawkesworth, ‘Knowers, Knowing, Known: Feminist Theory and Claims of Truth’, p. 92.

65 Ibid., p. 96.

66 See also, Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘Theorizing Politics, Politicizing Theory, and the Responsibility That Runs Between’, Perspectives on Politics, 7 (2009), p. 312Google Scholar ; Engelstad and Gerrard, ‘Challenging Situatedness’, p. 6; Weldon, Laurel S., ‘Inclusion and Understanding: A Collective Methodology for Feminist International Relations’, in Ackerly, Brooke A., Stern, Maria and True, Jacqui (eds), Feminist Methodologies for International Relations (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 62–87Google Scholar .

67 Though those desires may be the motives and reasons for the action of theoreticians as sentient beings. As such, of course, they might be of interest to other theoreticians seeking to theoretically explain the social behaviour of the theoreticians as sentient beings.

68 Thus there is no acute breach of the privacy of theoreticians, and whatever breach does exists is proportional to the above-established obligation of transparency.

69 Ish-Shalom, ‘The Triptych of Realism, Elitism, and Conservatism’.

70 Ibid., p. 441. I want to repeat that this doesn't mean that theory is ideology.

71 Though strictly speaking the theory I advance is a moral theory, not a social science one. Thus, the full force of the argument for transparency is not applicable. However, I can safely argue that in this case the principle of reciprocity does apply, and that it is sufficient by itself. In other words, what I demand of social science theoreticians I must be willing to undertake myself, namely the practice of self-reflexivity and transparency.

72 Héritier, Adrienne, ‘Composite democracy in Europe: the Role of Transparency and Access to Information’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10 (2003), p. 819CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

73 Ibid., p. 824.

74 Dryzek, John S. and List, Christian, ‘Social Choice Theory and Deliberative Democracy: A Reconciliation’, British Journal of Political Science, 33 (2003), p. 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

75 Porta, Donatella della, ‘Deliberation in Movement: Why and How to Study Deliberative Democracy and Social Movements’, Acta Politica, 40 (2005), p. 340Google Scholar .

76 Ish-Shalom, Piki, ‘Theorization, Harm, and the Democratic Imperative: Lessons from the Politicization of the Democratic-Peace Thesis’, International Studies Review, 10 (2008), p. 690CrossRefGoogle Scholar .