Abstrakt
Nauka o stosunkach międzynarodowych nie jest pewna swojego statusu jako „nauka” i racjonalne przedsięwzięcie zdolne do wytwarzania wiedzy o świecie polityki międzynarodowej. W długiej dyscyplinarnej historii legitymizacji pola badawczego jako „naukowego” badacze stosunków międzynarodowych importowali wiele stanowisk z filozofii nauki w celu ustanowienia pewnych fundamentów nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Kwestie filozoficzne są zazwyczaj traktowane jako uniwersalne, ponadczasowe i abstrakcyjne w swojej naturze. Filozofia nauki zajmuje się badaniem abstrakcyjnych kwestii logicznych, epistemologicznych i ontologicznych związanych w szczególności z problemem w jaki sposób sądy naukowe są uzasadniane lub strukturyzowane. Niestety, żadne takie pewne fundamenty nie istnieją. Filozofia nauki sama stanowi kontestowane pole badań, w którym nie istnieje konsensus odnośnie właściwych fundamentów nauki. Na jej gruncie ustanowiono co najmniej trzy dobrze uzasadnione stanowiska fundacyjne: instrumentalizm, społeczny konstruktywizm i naukowy realizm. Żadne z nich nie uzyskało powszechnej akceptacji. Artykuł przedstawia napięcia między różnymi filozofiami nauki. Debaty nad „nauką” w stosunkach międzynarodowych podzieliły dyscyplinę w kwestii możliwości ustanowienia naukowych stosunków międzynarodowych. Stanowiska fundacyjne stały się istotnym elementem w sposobie myślenia badaczy stosunków międzynarodowych o swojej pracy naukowej. Podziały między pozytywistami, antypozytywistami i postpozytywistami stały się nieuniknionym rezultatem roszczeń poszczególnych grup badaczy do zajmowania słusznego stanowiska w filozofii nauki.Bibliografia
Adler E. (1997), Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics, “European Journal of International Relations”, Vol. 3.
Banks M. (1984), The Evolution of International Relations Theory, in: Conflict in World Society, (ed.) M. Banks, Brighton.
Bierstaker T.J. (1989), Critical Reflections on Post-Positivism in International Relations, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 33, No. 3.
Brante Th. (2001), Consequences of Realism for Sociological Theory-Building, “Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour”, Vol. 31, No. 2.
Buzan B., Jones C., Little R. (1993), The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism, New York.
Buzan B., Little R. (2001), Why International Relations Has Failed as an Intellectual Project and What to Do About It. Millennium, “Journal of International Relations”, Vol. 30, No. 1.
Campbell D. (1996), Political Prosaics, Transversal Politics, and the Anarchical World, in: Challenging Boundaries: Global Flaws, Territorial Identities, (eds.) M.J. Schapiro, H.R. Alker, Minneapolis.
Campbell D. (2001), International Engagements: The Politics of North American International Relations Theory, “Political Theory”, Vol. 29, No. 3.
Chernoff F. (2002), Scientific Realism as a Meta-Theory of International Politics, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 46.
Crosby A.W. (1999), Imperializm ekologiczny. Biologiczna ekspansja Europy 900–1900, Warszawa.
Diamond J. (2000), Strzelby, zarazki, maszyny. Losy ludzkich społeczeństw, Warszawa.
Diamond J. (2007), Upadek. Dlaczego niektóre społeczeństwa upadły, a innym się udało, Warszawa.
Diez T., Steans J. (2005), A Useful Dialogue? Habermas and International Relations, “Review of International Studies”, Vol. 31, No. 1.
Dunne T. (1995), The Social Construction of International Society, “European Journal of International Relations”, Vol. 1.
Elman C., Elman M.F. (2002), How Not to Be Lakatos Intolerant: Appraising Progress in IR Research, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 46.
Fearon J.D., Wendt A. (2002), Rationalism versus Constructivism: A Skeptical View, in: Handbook of International Relations, (eds.) W. Carlsnaes, Th. Risse-Kappen, B.A. Simmons, Thousand Oaks.
Finnemore M., Sikkink, K. (1998), International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, “International Organization”, Vol. 52.
George J. (1994), Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations, Boulder.
Gunnell J.G. (2009), Ideology and the philosophy of science: an American misunderstanding, “Journal of Political Ideologies”, Vol. 14, No. 3.
Harvey F., Cobb J. (***), Multiple Dialogues, Layered Syntheses, and the Limits of Expansive Cumulation, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 5.
Hellmann G. (2003), Are Dialogue and Synthesis Possible in International Relations?, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 5.
Hellmann G. (2003), In Conclusion: Dialogue and Synthesis in Individual Scholarship and Collective Inquiry, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 5.
Idh-Shalom P. (2006), The Triptych of Realism, Elitism, and Conservatism, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 8.
Jordan R. et al. (2009), One Discipline or Many? TRIP Survey of International Relations Faculty in Ten Countries, Teaching, Research, and International Policy (TRIP) Project, Virginia.
Katzenstein P.J., Keohane R.O., Krasner S.D. (1998), International Organization and the Study of World Politics, “International Organization”, Vol. 52.
Keohane R.O. (1988), International Institutions: Two Approaches, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 32, No. 4.
Keohane R.O. (1989), International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory, Boulder..
Krasner S. (2000), Wars, Hotel Fires, and Plane Crashes, “Review of International Studies”, Vol. 26.
Kratochwil F. (2003), The Monologue of „Science”, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 5.
Kreisler H. (2003), Theory and International Politics: Conversation with Kenneth N. Waltz, 10 February 2003. http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/ (26.05.2011).
Kuhn T.S. (1985), Dwa bieguny. Tradycja i nowatorstwo w badaniach naukowych, Warszawa.
Kuhn T.S. (2001), Struktura rewolucji naukowych, Warszawa.
Kuhn T.S. (2003), Droga po strukturze, Warszawa.
Kurki M., Wight C. (2007), International Relations and Social Science, in: International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity, (eds.) T. Dunne, M. Kurki, S. Smith, Oxford.
Kurki M. (2009), The politics of the philosophy of science, “International Theory”, Vol. 1, No. 3.
Lapid Y. (1989), The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3.
Lee W-Y. (2007), A Pragmatic Case against Pragmatic Scientific Realism, “Journal for General Philosophy of Science”, Vol. 38.
Legro J.W., Moravcsik A. (1999), Is Anybody Still a Realist?, “International Security”, Vol. 24, No. 2.
Liebrucks A. (2001), The Concept of Social Construction, “Theory & Psychology”, Vol. 11, No. 3.
Linklater A. (1996), The Achievments of Critical Theory, in: International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (eds.) S. Smith, K. Booth, M. Zalewski, Cambridge.
Lyons T.D. (2009), Non-competitor Conditions in the Scientific Realism Debate, “International Studies in the Philosophy of Science”, Vol. 23, No. 1.
Mansbach R. W. Vasquez J. A. (1981), In Search of Theory. A New Paradigm for Global Politics, New York.
Mansbach R.W. Vasquez J.A. (1990), Between Celebration and Despair: Constructive Suggestions for Future International Theory, Annual ISA Meeting, Washington.
March J.G., Olsen, J.P. (1998), The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders, “International Organization”, Vol. 52.
McPhee W.N. (1963), Formal Theories of Mass Behavior, New York.
Monteiro N.P., Ruby K.G. (2009), IR and the false promise of philosophical foundations, “International Theory” Vol. 1, No. 1.
Moore J. (2010), Philosophy of Science, with Special Consideration Given to Behaviorism as the Philosophy of the Science of Behavior, “The Psychological Record”, Vol. 60.
Moravcsik A. (1997), A Liberal Theory of International Politics, “International Organization”, Vol. 51.
Morawcsik A. (2003), Theory Synthesis in International Relations: Real Not Metaphysical, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 5.
Patomäki H. (2002), From East to West: Emergent Global Philosophies – Beginnings of the End of Western Dominance?, “Theory, Culture & Society”, Vol. 19, No. 3.
Patomäki H., Wight C. (2000), After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism, “International Studies Quarterly”, Vol. 44, No. 2.
Pleasants N. (2003), A Philosophy for the Social Sciences: Realism, Pragmatism, or Neither? “Foundations of Science”, Vol. 8.
Pond E., Waltz K.N. (1994), Correspondence: International Politics, Viewed from the Ground, “International Security”, Vol. 19, No. 1.
Preston J.M. (2003), Kuhn, instrumentalism, and the progress of science, “Social Epistemology”, Vol. 17, No. 2–3.
Price R., Reus-Smit Ch. (1998), Dangerous Liaisons?: Critical International Theory and Constructivism, “European Journal of International Relations”, Vol. 4, No. 3.
Progress in International Relations. Appraising the Feld (2003), (eds.) Elman C., Elman M.F., Cambridge.
Rouse J. (2002), Vampires: Social Construction, Realism, and Other Philosophical Undead, “History and Theory”, Vol. 41.
Ruggie J. (1998), Constructing the World Polity: Essays on International Institutionalization, London.
Russett B.M., O’Neal J.R. (2001), Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organization, New York.
Schmidt B. (2007), International Relations Theory: Hegemony or Pluralism?, “Millennium: Journal of International Studies”, Vol. 36, No. 2.
Smith S. (1992), The Forty Years’ Detour: The Resurgence of Normative Theory in International Relations, “Millennium: Journal of International Studies”, Vol. 21, No. 3.
Smith S. (1995), The Self-Images of a Discipline: A Genealogy of International Relations Theory, in: International Relations Theory Today, (eds.) K. Booth, S. Smith, Cambridge.
Smith S. (2000), The discipline of international relations: still an American social science?, “British Journal of Politics and International Relations”, Vol. 2, No. 3.
Smith S. (2003), Dialogue and the Reinforcement of Orthodoxy in International Relations, “International Studies Review”, Vol. 5.
Snyder J. (1991), Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Ithaca.
Sørensen G.(1991), A Revised Paradigm for International Relations: The „Old” Images and the Postmodernist Challenge, “Cooperation and Conflict”, Vol. 26, No. 85.
Thies C.G. (2004), Are Two Theories Better Than One? A Constructivist Model of the Neorealist–Neoliberal Debate, “International Political Science Review”, Vol. 25, No. 2.
Van Evera S. (1990/1991), Primed for Peace: Europe after the Cold War, “International Security”, Vol. 61, No. 3.
Vasquez J.A. (1998), The Power of Power Politics. From Classical Realism to Neotraditionalism, Cambridge.
Wæver O. (1996), The Rise and Fall of the Interparadigm Debate, in: International Theory: Positivism and Beyond, (eds.) S. Smith, K. Booth, M. Zalewski, Cambridge.
Waever O. (1997), Figures of International Thought: Introducing Persons instead of Paradigms, in: The Future of International Relations: Masters in the Making, (eds.) I.B. Neumann, O. Wæver, London.
Waever O. (2009), Waltz’s Theory of Theory, “International Relations”, Vol. 23, No. 2.
Walt S. (1987), The Origins of Alliances, Ithaca.
Walt S. (1998), International relations: one world, many theories, “Foreign Policy”, Vol. 110.
Waltz K.N. (1979), Theory of International Politics, Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Waltz K.N. (2000), Structural Realism after the Cold War, “International Organization”, Vol. 25, No. 1.
Waltz K.N. (2010), Struktura teorii stosunków międzynarodowych, Warszawa.
Wendt A. (1995), Constructing International Politics, “International Security”, Vol. 20, No. 1.
Wendt A. (2008), Społeczna teoria stosunków międzynarodowych, Warszawa.
Licencja
Teksty opublikowane na łamach czasopisma "Przegląd Strategiczny" i udostępniane w formacie PDF objęte są licencją CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons - Uznanie autorstwa). Kopiowanie i rozpowszechnianie dozwolone jest pod warunkiem uznania autorstwa.