International theory: positivism and beyond: The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate
International theory: positivism and beyond: The rise and fall of the inter-paradigm debate
复制标题
国际理论：实证主义及超越：范式间辩论的兴衰
DOI：
10.1017/cbo9780511660054.009
复制
发表时间：
1996
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
O. Wæver
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O. Wæver
将适用于群体的概念与适用于个人的概念分开，是消除传统方法论中唯我论特征的有力工具。科学本质上变成了一种群体活动，甚至不再理想化为一个人的游戏。托马斯S.库恩（1993年，第xiii页）国际关系（IR）的标准教科书介绍有三种范式，三个占主导地位的学校。第一种是现实主义，第二种是多元主义，相互依存和世界社会，但在某种意义上总是自由主义的方法，第三种是马克思主义或更广泛的激进主义，结构主义或全球主义。一些作者声称，这是国际关系辩论的永恒模式--即使在经典著作中，我们也可以找到这三种思维类型（Kaughty和Viotti，1992; Viotti和Kaughty，1993 [1987]）。其他人则会更加严格，并说这门学科在某个时候变成了这样，例如在20世纪70年代（Holsti，1985）。然而，并非所有人都珍视这种分类。它是模糊的和任意的吗？(Why这三个？为什么是三个？新现实主义/新自由主义的争论在哪里？不，所有的类型学都是有问题的--这一点不比其他的更严重。这不是我的主要批评。可以做出一个相当连贯的结构（将在第1节中介绍）。但是，“辩论”是一个误导性的地图和一个坏的指南介绍学生。这不是今天辩论的模式。关于“范式间争论”的故事并没有抓住学科中正在进行的争论。
The separation of concepts applicable to groups from those applicable to individuals is a powerful tool for eliminating the solipsism characteristic of traditional methodologies. Science becomes intrinsically a group activity, no longer even idealizable as a one-person game. Thomas S. Kuhn (1993, p. xiii) A standard textbook presentation of International Relations (IR) has it that there are three paradigms, three dominant schools. The first is realism, the second is alternately called pluralism, interdependence and world society but it is in some sense always the liberal approach, and the third is Marxism or more broadly radicalism, structuralism or globalism. Some writers claim that this is the timeless pattern of International Relations debate – even in the classics, we find these three types of thinking (Kauppi and Viotti, 1992; Viotti and Kauppi 1993 [1987]). Others will be more restrictive and say the discipline became like this at some point, e.g. in the 1970s (Holsti, 1985). Not everyone, however, cherishes this categorisation. Is it vague and arbitrary? (Why these three? Why three? Where do you place the Neo-realism/Neo-liberalism debate?) No, all typologies are problematic – this no more than others. Such will not be my main line of criticism. A fairly coherent construction can be made (and will be presented in section 1). But ‘the debate’ is a misleading map and a bad guide to introduce students to. This is not the pattern of debate today. The story about an ‘inter-paradigm debate’ does not give a grip on the ongoing controversies in the discipline.