scholarly journals Agencia e Estrutura em Sistemas Internacionais: a ontologia do Realismo Científico e suas implicações para uma agenda de pesquisa | Agency and Structure in International Systems: the ontology of Scientific Realism and its implications for a research agenda

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Brancher
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
Social Research ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Suggested Approach ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
International Systems ◽  
Agent Structure ◽  
Agency And Structure

O artigo se insere no debate acerca do problema agente-estrutura nas Relações Internacionais.Na primeira seção, analisa-se as controvérsias e as lacunas teóricas de três repostas para o problema agente-estrutura que influenciaram o debate teórico nas RI: individualismo, estruturalismo e estruturação. A segunda seção discute a perspectiva ontológica proposta pelo Realismo Científico. Argumenta-se que ela constitui uma heurística profícua para o desenvolvimento de um programa de pesquisa que conceba agentes e estruturas como entidades autônomas e inter-relacionadas temporalmente. Por fim, nas considerações finais, sintetiza-se os argumentos desenvolvidos, aponta-se implicações teóricas da abordagem sugerida e indica-se alternativas para a continuidade da agenda de pesquisa.ABSTRACTThe article is part of the debate on the agent-structure problem in International Relations. It is considered that any social research must develop or incorporate ontological presuppositions about this question, since it logically precedes epistemological and methodological definitions. Specifically to the field of International Relations, the agent-structure problem refers to the definition of the components and the dynamics of operation of International Systems (IS). Thus, in the first section, we analyze the controversies and theoretical gaps of three responses to the agent-structure problem that influenced the theoretical debate in IR: individualism, structuralism and structuring. The second section discusses the ontological perspective proposed by Scientific Realism. It is argued that it constitutes a useful heuristic for the development of a research program that devises agents and structures as autonomous and temporally interrelated entities. Finally, in the final considerations, the arguments developed are summarized, theoretical implications of the suggested approach are indicated, and alternatives are indicated for the continuity of the research agenda.Palavras-chave: Teoria de Relações Internacionais; Agente-Estrutura; Realismo CientíficoKeywords: International Relations Theory; Agent-Structure; Scientific Realism 

What's at stake in the agent-structure debate?

1989 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Dessler
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International System ◽  
State Action ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
International Structure ◽  
Structural Research ◽  
Agent Structure ◽  
Structure Debate

Recent developments in the philosophy of science, particularly those falling under the rubric of “scientific realism,” have earned growing recognition among theorists of international relations but have failed to generate substantive programs of research. Consequently, the empirical relevance of much philosophical discourse, such as that centering on the agent-structure problem in social theory, remains unestablished. This article attempts to bridge the gap between the philosophy and practice of science by outlining a model of international structure based on the principles of scientific realism and by considering its implications for a structural research program in international relations theory. Appealing to Imre Lakatos's methodology of theorychoice, the article presents an ontological case for adopting a “transformational” model of structure over the “positional” model developed in the work of Kenneth Waltz. The article demonstrates that the positional approach offers no conceptual or explanatory hold on those features of the international structure that are the intended products of state action. In conclusion, the article argues that the stakes in the agent-structure debate include the capacity to generate integrative structural theory and the ability to theorize the possibilities for peaceful change in the international system.

Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis

1983 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. G. Ruggie
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Structural Explanation ◽  
World Polity ◽  
Constructive Criticism ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
International Systems

Kenneth Waltz's recent book, Theory of International Politics, is one of the most important contributions to international relations theory since his Man, the State and War. It picks up where the earlier work left off: with the structure of the international system serving as the basis for explaining a variety of international outcomes. The most profound and perhaps the most perplexing outcome Waltz attempts to explain is the lack of fundamental change in the international polity. The author argues that Waltz does not fully succeed in this endeavor for three reasons. First, his definition of structure fails to capture so momentous a change as that from the medieval to the modern international systems. Second, his application of the structuralist method leads him to ask questions in such a way that the answers systematically understate the degree of potential change in the contemporary international system. Third, his model of structural explanation turns out to allow only for a reproductive logic but not for a transformational logic. With the epistemological underpinnings of his theory thus biased against the possibility of change, it is not surprising that Waltz finds the likelihood of future continuity compelling. In the spirit of constructive criticism, this review article tries to amend and augment the theory in a manner that is not incompatible with its basic realist precepts.

Beware of gurus: structure and action In International relations

1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Hollis ◽  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Critical Points ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
Agent Structure

The agent-structure problem is not settled by deciding what proportions to put in the blender. Agents and structures do not blend easily in any proportions, and solutions to the problem tend to be unstable. Alexander Wendt's thoughtful review article makes this clear, identifies some of the difficulties, and boldly sketches a possible resolution of them. Since his relections are addressed in part to our recent book Explaining and Understanding International Relations, we welcome the chance to pursue them further. Greatly encouraged by his many friendly comments, we shall concentrate on those suggestive or critical points which have prompted us to think afresh.

Levels of analysis vs. agents and structures: part III

1992 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Wendt
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Levels Of Analysis ◽  
Opportunity To Respond ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Agent Structure

I welcome this opportunity to respond to Martin Hollis and Steve Smith's ‘Beware of Gurus: Structure and Action in International Relations’, their reply to my review2 of their book, Explaining and Understanding International Relations. Their constructive comments have helped me clarify my own thinking, and I hope by extending my previous remarks in the same constructive spirit I can return the favour. In ‘Beware of Gurus’ they took up both issues I raised about their book: the relationship between the levels-of-analysis and agent-structure problems, and that between causal and interpretive explanations. In part for reasons of economy and interest, and in part being more persuaded by their comments regarding to the latter, I shall limit myself here to the former, taking issue in particular with what I see as their reduction of the agent-structure problem to one of levels-of-analysis.

scholarly journals The agent-structure problem in international relations theory

1987 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander E. Wendt
Keyword(s):  
System Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
World System ◽  
Structuration Theory ◽  
System Structure ◽  
World System Theory ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
State Agents ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Agent Structure

While neorealism and world-system theory both claim to be “structural” theories of international relations, they embody very different understandings of system structure and structural explanation. Neorealists conceptualize system structures in individualist terms as constraining the choices of preexisting state agents, whereas world-system theorists conceptualize system structures in structuralist terms as generating state agents themselves. These differences stem from what are, in some respects, fundamentally opposed solutions to the “agent-structure” or “micromacro” problem. This opposition, however, itself reflects a deeper failure of each theory to recognize the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures—a failure which leads to deep-seated inadequacies in their respective explanations of state action. An alternative solution to the agent-structure problem, adapted from “structuration theory” in sociology, can overcome these inadequacies by avoiding both the reduction of system structures to state actors in neorealism and their reification in world-system theory. Structuration theory requires a philosophical basis in scientific realism, arguably the “new orthodoxy” in the philosophy of natural science, but as yet largely unrecognized by political scientists. The scientific realist/structuration approach generates an agenda for “structural-historical” research into the properties and dispositions of both state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded.

The ontologist always rings twice: two more stones about structure and agency in reply to Hollis and Smith

1996 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivienne Jabri ◽  
Stephen Chan
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Causal Relationship ◽  
Social Life ◽  
Economic Life ◽  
Structure And Agency ◽  
Theory Of Structuration ◽  
Structure Problem ◽  
Agency And Structure ◽  
International Social

The focus of inquiry for a critical, post-positivist International Relations requires a shift away from concern over universalist epistemological legitimacy and a move towards understanding the ontological underpinnings of international social, political, and economic life. Recent debates over the ‘agency—structure problem’, as represented in the Wendt vs Hollis and Smith debate and more recently in the latter's response to Walter Carlsnaes, have centred around Hollis and Smith's assertion that there are always ‘two stories to tell’, both ontological and epistemological, and that because of an assumed causal relationship between agency and structure, epistemology is as important as ontology, or stands on the same footing. In providing two further stories in our reply to Hollis and Smith, we argue firstly, that an ontological discourse, such as that suggested in Giddens's theory of structuration, must precede substantive epistemological questions, and secondly, that an assumed universalist epistemology negates difference in international social life.

Afterword

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 659-670
Author(s):  
John Watkins
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
State System ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
The World ◽  
Foreign Office ◽  
Global Corporations ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
State Relations ◽  
International Systems

Scholars of contemporary international relations have long noted the rise of such nonstate agents as global corporations and NGOs on the world stage. With that shift in mind, John Robert Kelley has questioned the continued viability of an institutional definition of diplomacy that dates back to the eighteenth century. If corporate directors and NGO officers have as much impact in shaping international systems as traditionally commissioned diplomats, it might make more sense to redefine diplomacy as a behavior that can be carried out by nonstate, noncommissioned agents. As the essays gathered in this special issue suggest, that behavioralist redefinition of diplomacy might apply just as well to the premodern state system, before the rise of the familiar foreign office, as to the postmodern state system, whose multilayered complexities extend, resist, and often successfully counter the policy goals of traditional diplomats. Diplomats mattered in premodern state relations. But so did merchants and missionaries, writers, actors, and other artists.

scholarly journals Système et crise en politique internationale

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Brecher
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
System Change ◽  
Core System ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Core ◽  
Systemic Crisis ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Process Issue ◽  
International Systems

This paper is designed to enrich basic concepts. The specific goals are twofold: to stimulate a renewed interest in a System orientation to international relations ; and to prepare the g round for an analysis of the system-crisis linkage, that is, crises as international earthquakes or triggers to System change. The first section analyses approches to international Systems. In the light of their shortcomings a revised definition of a System is presented, along with a discussion of the core System components - structure, process, issue, boundaries, context and environment. The second part attempts to break fresh ground on the concepts of stability and equilibrium. The third section provides a new perspective on systemic crisis. Part four confronts the major task of linking the unit and System levels of crisis analysis, conceptually and empirically.

Ideas part-way down

2000 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT O. KEOHANE
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
Scientific Realism ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Major Work ◽  
Classic Work

Social Theory of International Politics is in my view a major work in our field, fully deserving of this symposium in the Review of International Studies. Indeed, I think that Alexander Wendt's book is virtually certain to become a classic work on international relations theory, standard on graduate reading lists. Wendt's distinctive combination of scientific realism, holism, and what he calls ‘idealism’, will certainly spark much conversation and, it is to be hoped, a great deal of thought.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document