Searching for Science of International Relations: Insights from Critical Realism

A serious academic debate in general, let alone on theoretical and methodological issues, is rare for both Western and Russian peer-reviewed journals. In the context of discussion, launched by a polemical article by a prominent Russian IR expert Alexey Fenenko, published in 2018 in the  ‘International Trends’ journal, is more important and noteworthy. Nominally both this article and the subsequent responses from Denis Degterev, Igor Istomin, Andrey Baykov and Konstantin  Khudoley focused on a long-running dispute between the proponents of quantitative and qualitative methods in IR studies. However, the true essence of this discussion, as well as its implications, goes far beyond a mere technical argument about methods. The present article examines this discussion as well as developments in contemporary IR theory through the lens of critical realism (CR). The first section considers the arguments of the discussants and shows that they tend to focus on secondary, technical issues leaving out the key subject of the dispute, i.e. how should international studies be organized in order to have a right to be called a science. In order to bring this issue back into the spotlight and to provide a new perspective on the issue, the second section considers the problem field of the contemporary IR theory from the viewpoint of CR. According to critical realists all predominant approaches in the mainstream IR theory are rooted in the Humean empiricism which to a large extent explains both epistemological and practical limitations of the contemporary IR studies. As an alternative, they advance the ideas of the founder of critical realism, British philosopher R. Bhaskar. The third section examines the key epistemological and ontological provisions of CR, which include the fundamental recognition of objective reality, existing prior to and beyond human activities, reality, which is stratified and differentiated. They also entail a specific perception of causality and of possible limits of cogniscibility and predictability of social phenomena. Nonetheless the article is far from a  straightforward apology of critical realism. The  fourth section identifies certain  weaknesses  of contemporary interpretations of CR in the context of IR theory, which include a static nature of their methodology and inconsistency of their implications. The author concludes that the major contribution of CR to the IR theory lies in providing a clear path for further research – that  is  development of materialist theories and approaches.

1. Archer M., Bhaskar R., Collier A., Lawson T., Norrie A. (2013). Critical realism: essential readings. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. 785 p.

2. Bhaskar R. (1975). A realist theory of science. Leeds: Leeds Books. 258 p.

3. Bhaskar R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: a philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. London: Routledge. 194 p.

4. Bhaskar R. (1993). Dialectic: the pulse of freedom. London: Verso. 419 p.

5. Danermark B., Ekström M., Karlsson J. (2005). Explaining society: critical realism in the social sciences. New York: Routledge. 228 p.

6. Degterev D.A. (2019). «Vtoroy bol'shoy spor» v kontekste stanovleniya rossiiskoy nauki o mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniyakh [Towards «second great debate» in Russian IR]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 17. No. 2 (57). P. 43–62.

7. Fenenko A.V. (2018). Statistika protiv istorii [Statistics versus history]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 56–83.

8. Figura A.O. (2012a). Kriticheskii realizm: metodologicheskaya al'ternativa dlya sotsial'nykh nauk [Critical realism: Methodological alternative for social sciences]. Omskii nauchnyi vestnik. No. 1. P. 114–117.

9. Figura A.O. (2012b). Ontologicheskie osnovaniya sotsial'noi real'nosti v kontseptsii transtsendental'nogo realizma R. Bkhaskara [Ontological foundation of social reality in the conception of transcendental realism (R. Bhaskar)]. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. No. 1. P. 35–39.

10. Isaac J.C. (1987). Power and Marxist theory: a realist view. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 238 p. Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A., Khudoley K.K. (2019). Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Nauka bez metoda? [International relations. Science without method?]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 17. No. 2 (57). P. 63–90.

11. Jessop B. (2010). World market, world state, world society: Marxian insights and scientific realist interrogations. In Joseph J., Wight C. (eds) Scientific realism and international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 186–202.

12. Joseph J. (2000). A realist theory of hegemony. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour. Vol. 30. No. 2. P. 179–202.

13. Joseph J. (2004). ‘Foucault and reality’. Capital & Class. Vol. 82. P. 141–163.

14. Joseph J. (2006). Marxism and social theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 171 p.

15. Joseph J. (2007). Philosophy in international relations: a scientific realist approach.

16. Joseph J., Wight C. (2010). Scientific realism and international relations. In Joseph J., Wight C. (eds) Scientific realism and international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 1–30.

17. Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. (2013). «Postpozitivistskaya revolyutsiya» i filosofiya mirovoi politiki [The «post-positivist revolution» and the philosophy of world politics]. Filosofskie nauki. No. 9. P. 54–64.

18. Lawson T. (2006). Sovremennaya «ekonomicheskaya teoriya» v svete realizma (predislovie O. Anan'ina) [A realist perspective on contemporary «economic theory» (foreword by O. Ananyin)]. Voprosy Ekonomiki. No. 2. P. 75–98.

19. Mann M. (1986). The sources of social power. Vol. 1. London: Cambridge University Press. 549 p.

20. Mattern J.B. (2008). The concept of power and the (un)discipline of international relations. In Reus-Smit C., Snidal D. (eds) The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 772 p.

21. Mearsheimer J., Walt S.M. (2013). Leaving theory behind: Why simplistic hypothesis testing is bad for international relations. European Journal of International Relations. Vol. 19. No. 3. P. 427–457.

22. Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 345–359.

23. Patomäki H. (2003). After international relations: critical realism and the (re)construction of world politics. London: Routledge. 267 p.

24. Patomäki H., Wight C. (2000). After postpositivism? The promises of critical realism. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 44. No. 2. P. 213–237.

25. Roberts J.M. (2001). Critical realism and the dialectic. British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 52. No. 4. P. 667–685.

26. Sayer A. (1992). Method in social science: a realist approach. London: Routledge. 313 p.

27. Sayer A. (2012). Power, causality and normativity: a critical realist critique of Foucault. Journal of Political Power. Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 179–194.

28. Tsygankov A.P., Tsygankov P.A. (2019). Teoriya mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii i obraz zhelaemogo zavtra [Theory of international relations and image of desired future]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 17. No. 2 (57). P. 8–18.

29. Waltz K.N. (1979). Theory of international politics. New York: Random House. 251 p.

30. Wight C. (2006). Agents, structures and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 340 p.

31. Wight C. (2007). A manifesto for scientific realism in ir: assuming the can-opener won’t work! Millennium: Journal of International Studies. Vol. 35. No. 2. P. 379–398.

32. Yalvaç F. (2010). Critical realism, international relations theory and Marxism. In Joseph J., Wight C. (eds) Scientific realism and international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 167–185.