THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE STUDY OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: COMPLEXITY, MULTI, INTER AND TRANSDISCIPLINARITY ISSUES.
Thalita Mayume Sugisawa
José Edmilson Souza Lima
Belmiro Valverde Jobim Castor
ABSTRACT
Considerations, discussions and descriptive works about international relations
began three centuries before its realization as an academic major and a formal
field of study. The materialization of international relations inside social science
happened in 1919 and since then questions related to global arena interactions,
such as wars, peace, trade, rights, sovereignty, are constantly being analyzed.
By understanding the development on epistemological field it is possible to
visualize an interesting parallel between both disciplines. Once epistemological
characteristics are comprehended and especially its recent evolution, the
academic field of international relations can also be deeper comprehended. As
international relations is a multidisciplinary major its purpose is to reach for a
higher level of interaction between its components. The interdisciplinarity
happens when the disciplines are in a horizontal scheme and not in a linear,
hierarchical system according Decartes suggestion. The challenge for
international relations science is to walk through what Edgar Morin’s classifies
as transdisciplinarity and complexity. The process on how to bring complexity to
international relations studies and researches is as necessary as understanding
transdisciplinarity – the creation of a single and unique element – as a priority.
THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE STUDY OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: COMPLEXITY, MULTI, INTER AND TRANSDISCIPLINARITY ISSUES.
The goal of this article is to comprehend complexity, multi and interdisciplinarity involved in International Relations researches, identifying some
analogies with epistemological fields in terms of historical periods and theory.
Starting from a summed description of main ideas in epistemology a parallel
with International Relations field will be put on so that it is possible to notice the
complexity, multi and inter-disciplinarity on these researches.
Even though the study of International Relations started on XVII
century, more precisely on Westfalia Treaty in 1748 where it was recognized
the sovereignty of National States involved in the Eighty Years War, the
academy took more three centuries to formalize and materialize the scientific
activities. IR emancipated as an individual field inside social science only in
1919 in United Kingdom, at Whales University. One of the first’s professors to
teach about International Politics was Alfred Zimmern and his main mission,
considering his vast experience with international issues inside the British
government, was to explain why wars occurred and how to avoid them (Sarfati:
2005, p. 23).
Before the delimitation of its own and specific field, the discussions over
IR were performed by individuals of several backgrounds and majors as
philosophers, lawyers, intellectual thinkers, sociologists, economists and
politicians. By this scenario, it is perceptible that IR is a field that came from a
multi-disciplined and complex discussion base. Multi-disciplined by the variety
of visions articulated in the analysis of a fact and complex by the level of
interdependence and connections between factors of IR.
When analyzing a war, for example, it is possible to see the difference
between several prisms: some economists could understand that war will be
necessary to conquer new spaces giving continuity to industrial production and
Nation’s wealth expansion. On the other hand, a sociologist formed in a
Webberian base, could explain war from the concept of domination, a human
being characteristic that is rooted in some cultures. And, a sociologist with
strong Marxists influences would possibly understand that war is generated by
the State’s monopoly of violence and that the countermeasure would be the
population’s union fighting to regain the power.
The political analysts could try to comprehend that balance of power
maintenance implies in war and conflicts and that in many cases, it can be
considered fair, especially when the motivation is clearly self-defense. On their
turn, lawyers tend to put themselves in a position beyond reasons and
consequences, while trying to label guilty and innocent figures inside a war
according to an applicable law – from human rights to international treaties.
Still inside the war example, complexity is also perceptible because if a
war is analyzed only by a single and unilateral view it would probably have
many insufficiencies as it is a fact that it is not the result of a simple relation of
cause and effect. Having these characteristics exposed, it is understandable
that the IR field was born and it was initiated through an adaptation of classical
theories that over time formed new theories capable to position unique and
exclusive analytical parameters inside the research area. Knowledge production
is developing and solidifying the study of IR as a science of multiple
approaches.
The research science, Epistemology, is originally connected to Plato in
the period Before Christ. Its main goal is to explain the concept of science
involving issues as beliefs, truth, knowledge, method, hypotheses, problems
and justifications.
Epistemology is an important reference to be integrated in the study of
any object in any area. Understanding the previous knowledge to formulate a
new one can be analyzed not only its content but also by its construction
perspective. This assumed knowledge construction can come from different
bases that it is up to Epistemology to enclose. From positivism to the theories of
complexity, the comprehension about epistemological fields aloud the
researcher to analyze the way of production in determined science and the
relevancies origin that surround an theory, an affirmation or even the result of
an experiment. In other terms, when reading a scientific article it is important to
identify the author’s knowledge origin and ramifications because, for example,
understanding that the author comes from a linear and positivist field, it is more
probable that the comprehension of his ideas will be smoother. By identifying
these epistemological fields and its main authors, it will be possible to see
essence of determined affirmations and beliefs.
In similar period of the first debates over IR, on XVII century the work of
Rene Descartes was highlighted. He valued method linearity during
investigations. Descartes inspired several thinkers to question more about the
way of knowledge production and the search for the absolute truth. In his piece
Discourse on Method (1637) it is presented his modus operandi in scientific
production giving special attention to the point that truth is manifest and
absolute, and it was up to people to unveil it. His private report also suggest a
segregation of the object or a separation that would permit the research to go
from easy/simple to a complex level while always trying to maintain a distance
from investigator and object of investigation. This paradigm was revolutionary at
the time of its conception considering the great power of Catholic Church over
knowledge and the access to it. Such Philosophy as Science developed based
on these principles – being Philosophy a field on internal reflection and Science
something that needs the absence of subjectivity.
Despite the questions over the mechanic characteristics of the
Cartesian method, this paradigm is still hegemonic and dominant in academic,
corporate and governmental fields. Some researches in IR have a great
Cartesian background when they limit in analyze isolated aspects in only one
dimension, as for example, in the exclusive study of political consequences of a
dictatorial government – not considering other folds as economic and social
impacts.
In the period that IR were being formalized as an academic field, in
1919 Epistemology counted with the insertion of Karl Popper and his new antipositivism and pro critical rationalism vision. Popper’s observations were
against the supremacy of epistemologies and sources of knowledge – he
criticizes the singular way of research and analysis such as empiricism,
historicism, dogmatism, relativism and all other episteme that are applied in a
isolated form. In the case of historicism it is interesting to consider his critic for
researches in IR as history is a vast exploratory base. Popper considers that
historicism is harmful to the progress of knowledge as it determines apriori a
value to history which is not open to changes by individuals being it all guided
by a simple process of cause and effect, as if the present were a definition of
the past, as the future will be a definition of the present (Popper, 2003).
For this thinker the ideal form would be the interpretation of history in
the complementary light of theories and empiricism shaping a more consistent
and catalyzed set for the knowledge development about a determined fact. In it
words: “all observation involves interpretation in the light of our theorical
knowledge” and “knowledge purely observational, not modified by theory, if
possible, would be absolutely sterile and useless” (Popper, 2003).
In IR studies, there is a parallel to Popper appeals in the sedimentation
of several theories originated from interpretations of empiric facts coming from
individual with different ideas and concepts. A real and interesting example is
the analysis done on United States entrance in the Second World War – while a
group understood that it was a strategic step towards power market share
maintenance, other group, the adepts of Conspiracy Theory, comprehend that
the entrance in the war against fascism was a choice made apriori planed and
legitimated by the public opinion after the Japanese strike to Pearl Harbour,
which, according to this group, the United States were aware of and let it simply
happen. It is two completely different visions of the same fact.
It is necessary to notice that this theory, as practically all theories,
renew itself according to the development of facts like the terrorist attack to the
World Trade Center in New York City in 2001 consequently legitimated the
offensive on Iraq and Afghanistan. Still inside this example, other theories are
also renewed like Classic Realism, which infer to National States a supreme
power and comprehend offensive and defensive actions as rational to each
internal vision. Each country acts rationally in favor of its interests, benefits and
safety. It is important to remark that Realism in IR is a theory adapted from
Classical Political Science and its precursors, such as Thucydides, Hobbes and
Machiavelli.
Classical theories in IR are also called Paradigms. Thomas Kuhn in his
book, Structure of Scientific Revolutions explains the “paradigms are scientific
realizations universally known that, during a long time, provide problems and
modulated solutions for a community active in science”. In IR some classical
paradigms can be mentioned as Idealism (Liberalism) understanding the
“National States form a ‘international community’, ruled by a ‘moral contract’
based in the notion of justice”; and Realism that puts the National State as the
main and central actor of IR, placing issues of power and safety as of maximum
importance (Magnoli: 2004, p. 27).
By Kuhn’s perspective a paradigm no longer orientates theorical
debates anymore at the pace it is reviewed and replaced by others occurring
changes on the analytical prisms of determined object. It is possible to bridge
the IR contemporary paradigms or images, Pluralism and Globalism. Both of
them renovate the interpretation of world scenario classically analyzed by
realistic or idealistic points of view. According to Sarfati (2005, p. 39) Pluralism
foundation is on the diversification of actors in IR, considering non-state actors
in a higher level, as well as its direct or indirect influence relevancy.
Consequently, the international debate agenda is defocused from national
safety and amplified to other fields, as international law, economy, cooperation
and environmental issues.
Still based on Sarfati (2005, p. 40), the image of Globalism is laid on the
perception of IR through analysis of State formation mainly from its international
political and economical record. It implicates also that all other areas, as safety
and politics, are subordinated to the performance of economic international
relations and its level of domination, i.e, “great part of the unities behavior inside
the international system could be understood from the comprehension of the
National States role inside the international economic system”.
In the Globalist image as well as in the Pluralist, it is observed a new
international perspective including the interaction of several actors in multiple
scenarios. Besides Thomas Kuhn’s linear affirmation that paradigms do not coexist but substitute themselves at the pace that science progress, in IR
researches it is possible to notice that classic paradigms can complement new
paradigms. By the other side, when a new phenomenon arise, such as
Paradiplomacy1, it is noticed that most of the existent theories are insuficients to
approach the theme problematic.
Paradiplomacy is a contemporaneous phenomenon in which there is “involvement of a
subnational government in international relations, through the establishment of contacts,
formals and informal, permanents or temporary (ad-hoc), with foreign public or private entities
aiming to promote social-economic or political results, as well as any other external dimension
of its own constitutional competence.” Cornago Prieto (2003, p. 559)
1
In face of the examples briefly exposed, the multidisciplinary charge
and complexity in the study of IR is evidenced. Fritjof Capra, a physicist,
became a referential in complexity theory and systemic thinking in science,
questioning Cartesians standards and introducing the universal debate about
environment and society. Capra believes he had showed some insufficiencies in
conventional theories when they try to explain the contemporary crises due to
the complexity increase in all dimensions. In his vision, the result of a fact is
achieved much more by the intrinsic connections among actors and the actions
integration than by the direct interventions. The proposition, then, is a integrated
vision of nature systems and society to produce knowledge.
This
integration
is different
than
Descartes
assumption
when
suggesting that researches must be separated in parts. The systemic
conception aims to group the systems in order to make an analysis of the all.
The analytical systemic theory in IR was consolidated by Immanuel Wallerstein
and it is also called Modern World System Theory. As Capra is not favorable to
the object’s separation, Wallerstein (1974) defends that the appropriate unit of
analysis to comprehend the contemporary phenomenon is not only the National
States but that it must be considered an extended scenario including social
systems, frontiers, structures, blocs, rules and internal conceptions. Citing again
the phenomenon of Paradiplomacy, this is a theme that challenges the
“thinking” of new theories capable to approach subnational unities in the
analysis of IR as a relevant actor.
Hocking (2005, 79) affirms that:
[...] “This ‘state-centric’ vision of international relations see the
National States as completely distinct entities, which the relations are
mediated by national governments. At this point of view, the States
internal characteristics, for example, the territorial power allocation,
end up in the ‘black-box’ of national systems and remain, in the best
case scenario as secondary factors in face of the concerns over
international politics.”
Another similar point with IR in its work The Hidden Connections (2002)
it is the approach about global capitalism network that evidences the necessity
of considering environmental and social costs in the State’s run for economic
and industrial expansion.
In this discourse it is also important to note the work of Edgar Morin.
Besides his identification with complexity, he highlights the necessity of
transdisciplinarity and the creation of new research fields. Transdisciplinarity
can be understood by a chemistry composition. Oxygen and Nitrogen
separately and isolated are objects of specific researches itself, however, when
combined they form water (H2O) that is other element totally different from its
individual components 9Souza-Lima, 2007).
If a parallel is traced with the formation of IR as an academic and
singular major it would be as water but having its main individual components
the disciplines: Politics, History, Economy, Law and Sociology, not necessarily
in this order. Considering the recent formation of this major, less than 100
years, the result of transdisciplinarity proposed by Morin, the creation of a new
element totally different from its components, is not effective everywhere.
Besides the recent conception, in many cases the docents’ origins are from
unilateral vision and academic majors, which at the end is a limitation. Morin
(2000, p. 135) is categorical when affirming that:
[...] “We know that more and more disciplines close and do not
communicate with each other. Phenomenons are more fragmented
and it is not possible to conceive its unity. That is why it is being said
repeatedly: ‘Let’s do interdisciplinarity’. But interdisciplinarity controls
as much the disciplines as the UN controls the Nations. Each
discipline intends first to make recognize its sovereignty, and to the
cost of some poor exchange, the frontiers are confirmed instead of
fall”.
However, the IR identify as a complex, multi and interdisciplinary major
that aims to achieve transdisciplinarity. It is an area with multiple levels of
analysis that are interdependent among them. For example, it is possible to
research about a political icon, as Adolf Hitler, and this would be a paper of
individual level; in an investigation about Poland, the level would be national;
about the relation between two or more countries and international
organizations, the level would be international; and in the research about the
union of countries, as European Union, it would be supranational level.
Nevertheless, the levels of analysis can hardly be isolated – they can go over
each other, being focused, but will always have an inter-relation characteristic.
Vasconcelos (2002, p.112) explains that interdisciplinary practices
“promote structural changes, generating reciprocity, mutual enrichment, with a
tendency to make the power relations in the implicated fields horizontal.”
Interdisciplinarity is more similar to the complex thinking than to the Cartesians
and linear models.
Morin (2000, p.143) explains that complexity is a challenge and not a
solution. Beyond the reunion of the partial to the global, opposite elements and
the application of a logic to this process, complexity still needs a vast
comprehension to organize this interconnected knowledge. Vasconcelos (2000)
agrees when
he emphasizes how disastrous were
the
tentative of
epistemological homogenization as they reduced the phenomenon complexity
and produce expansive movements empowering a single paradigm.
According to the University of Brasilia, pioneer in IR major in Brazil, the
object of study in IR is “the analysis of complex phenomenons, which influence
extends direct or indirectly to all countries”. The practice in this area requires
the articulation with several actors as public and private organizations, national
and local governments, universities and corporations of all genres and sizes
that in many occasions are inter-connected.
Theory of complexity explains that as it is possible to separate the
elements of a research, it is also possible to combine them, conceiving “the
levels of emergency of reality without reducing to the elementary unities and to
general laws”. It is the way to a vaster exploration. (Morin: 2003, p. 138).
At least, it is noticeable the advance of epistemology as a science that
aims to comprehend science itself and the ways of production. And this is a
necessary tool to the process of research in any area. In IR, the understanding
over epistemology aloud a deeper evaluation of the previous knowledge, the
empiric observations, theories and the paradigms for the construction of a new
or a alternative knowledge.
REFERENCES
CAPRA, Fritjof. As Conexões Ocultas: ciências para uma vida sustentável. São Paulo: Cultrix,
2002.
DESCARTES, René. O Discurso do Método: as paixões da alma. 4. Ed. São Paulo: Nova
Cultural, 1987.
HOCKING, Brian. Regionalismo: uma perspectiva das relações internacionais. In:
VIGEVANI, T. et al. A Dimensão Subnacional e as Relações Internacionais. 1. ed. São
Paulo: Unesp, 2004.
KÖCHE, José Carlos. Fundamentos de metodologia científica: teoria da ciência e iniciação à
pesquisa. 20.ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2002.
KUHN, Thomas S. A Estrutura das Revoluções Científicas. 9. Ed. São Paulo: Perspectiva,
2005.
MORIN, Edgar. Ciência com Consciência. 7. Ed. Rio de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil, 2003.
MORIN, Edgar. & MOIGNE, Jean-Louis Le. A Inteligência da Complexidade. 2. Ed. São
Paulo: Peirópolis, 2000.
SOUZA-LIMA, Edmilson. Curso de Epistemologia e Pesquisa Multidisciplinar. Unifae, 2007.
VASCONCELOS, Eduardo Mourão. Complexidade e Pesquisa
epistemologia e metodologia operativa. 2. Ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2002.
Interdisciplinar: