Theory Must Not Go on Holiday. Wittgenstein, the Pragmatists, and the Idea of Social Science
Theory Must Not Go on Holiday. Wittgenstein, the Pragmatists, and the Idea of Social Science
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/ips/olz004
复制
发表时间：
2019-06-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Hellmann, Gunther
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grimmel, Andreas;Hellmann, Gunther
在许多方面，国际关系（IR）中的“实践转向”仅仅是一种“实践转向”，因为它本质上忽略了这一“转向”的两个可能的关键灵感，即路德维希·维特根斯坦的哲学和美国实用主义。本文认为，尽管存在明显的差异，但维特根斯坦和实用主义共同致力于实践的首要地位和语言中有意义行为的构成，这远远超出了对国际关系中“实践”（作为习惯）的持续关注。我们认为，维特根斯坦和实用主义著作的核心见解的结合，为长期以来关于社会科学的思想和实践是否与其他科学学科（特别是自然科学）在(a)与其主题的关系，(b)其应用的方法，以及(c)理论的作用的争论提供了一个富有成效的新视角。对这场辩论的重新评估也将拓宽我们对国际关系理论化实践的理解，不仅将其理解为社会科学家对其特定科学方法的习惯性或例行化的努力，而且还强调理论化作为一种相对于其主题的语言实践的创造性动力。
In many ways the "practice turn" in international relations (IR) was a mere "practices turn," in that it essentially sidelined what were presumably two key inspirations of this "turn," namely the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and American pragmatism. This article argues that-despite obvious differences-Wittgenstein and pragmatism share a general commitment to the primacy of practice and the constitution of meaningful action in language that reaches well beyond the ongoing fixation on "practices" (as habits) in IR. We argue that a combination of the central insights of both Wittgensteinian and pragmatist works offers a fruitful new perspective on the long-standing debate about whether the idea and practice of social science differ from other scientific disciplines, in particular natural science, in (a) the relation to its subject matter, (b) the methodology it applies, and (c) the role of theory. A reassessment of this debate will also broaden our understanding of the practice of IR theorizing that not only comprehends it as the mere habitual or routinized endeavor of social scientists bound to their specific method of science but also emphasizes the creative momentum of theorizing as a linguistic practice vis-a-vis its subject matter.