The “Problem of Values” and International Relations Scholarship: From Applied Reflexivity to Reflexivism

Hamati-Ataya, Inanna

doi:10.1111/j.1468-2486.2011.01024.x

Cited by 35 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 69 publications

(101 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences are also "reflected" in the fact that the terms "reflective" or "reflexive" are used to qualify a wide variety of "things," which adds a confusion as to what a "reflexive ontology" is supposed to look like or what distinguishes the ontological concerns of "reflexive scholarship" from those of other academic For example: 'reflective' (Hoffman 1987;Keohane 1988;Adler and Haas 1992;Linklater 1992); 2 'self-reflective' (Hoffman 1987;Hopf 1998;Steele 2007c;Ackerly and True 2008); 'reflexive' (Neufeld 1993(Neufeld , 1995Cutler 1999;Guzzini 2000Guzzini , 2005Rasmussen 2001;Fierke 2002;Tickner 2006;Pouliot 2007;Steele 2007aSteele , 2007bSteele , 2007cTickner and Tsygankov 2008;Hamati-Ataya 2010, 2011a; 'reflexivity' (Lapid 1989;Neufeld 1993Neufeld , 1995Hopf 1998;Cutler 1999;Guzzini 2000Guzzini , 2005Guillaume 2002;Fierke 2002;Widmaier 2004;Hendershot 2004;Tickner 2005;Pouliot 2007;Steele 2007aSteele , 2007bSteele , 2007cAckerly and True 2008;Lynch 2008;Tickner and Tsygankov 2008; Hamati-...…”

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Hamati-Ataya

2012

European Journal of International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The notion of "reflexivity" has been so intimately tied to the critique of Positivism and Empiricism inIR that the emergence of post-Positivism has naturally produced the anticipation of a "reflexive turn"in IR theory. Three decades after the launch of the post-positivist critique, however, reflexive IR hasfailed to impose itself as either a clear or serious contender to mainstream scholarship. Reasons for thisfailure include the proliferation of different understandings of "reflexivity" in IR theory that entailsignificantly different projects and concerns for IR scholarship; the equation of "reflexive theory" with"critical" and "emancipatory theory" and the consequent confusion of ethical/normative issues withstrictly epistemic/theoretical ones; and the refusal to consider reflexive IR as a "research programme"concerned with empirical knowledge, not just meta-explanation. The development of reflexivity in IR theory as a sustainable cognitive and praxeological effort is nonetheless possible-and still needed.This paper suggests what taking the "reflexive turn" would really entail for IR Introduction: In his 1989 article on the 'Third Debate' in International Relations (IR), Yosef Lapid (1989:249-50) noted, after Mervyn Frost (1986:11), that '[f]or many years the international relations discipline ha[d] had the dubious honour of being among the least self-reflexive of the Western social sciences.' This diagnosis was shared by many scholars who thought it necessary to start reflecting on the epistemic and theoretical premises that subtended the discipline's predominant narratives on world politics. The critique of Positivist (American) IR scholarship has therefore naturally produced the anticipation of a 'reflexive turn' (Neufeld 1991) in IR, and in the early 1990s the view ! 1 was that 'the prospects for the development of theoretically reflexive international relations theory [were] real and significant, while the need for such theory [was] urgent' (Neufeld 1991:2). With the emergence and development of a sustained and coherent metatheoretical critique of Positivist IR, "reflexivity" has, indeed, gained a substantive

show abstract

Section: "Reflexivity" What?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Hamati-Ataya

2012

European Journal of International Relations

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Local intellectual currents and local types of political, historical, and moral reasoning regarding the country's international behavior should be explored on their own terms. Those seeking to escape intellectual dependence on socially external knowledge should therefore try to address the threat of subverting indigenous theoretical impulses explicitly (Tsygankov and Tsygankov ; Tickner and Waever ; Pellerin ; Hamati‐Ataya ). Russia is a case in point.…”

Section: Foreign Policy and Identity Contestationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contested Identity and Foreign Policy: Interpreting Russia's International Choices

Tsygankov

2012

Int Stud Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops a framework for interpreting state international policy by treating national identity as inherently contested. Building on insights from constructivist literature, it proposes a technique for establishing the meaning of foreign policy action on several interrelated levels: state‐based, society‐based, and international. The paper illustrates the benefits of the approach by selecting the example of Russia's European diplomacy under President Dmitri Medvedev. By studying how officials themselves justify their policies and how these policies are then perceived in broader social and international settings, we have an opportunity to develop a rich understanding of a particular state action, as well as tentatively assess the chances of this action's success or failure.

show abstract

“…The question of reflexivity became prominent in IR theory with the third debate (Lapid 1989) and constitutes a central tenet in the post‐positivists’ critique of positivism’s obliviousness to its own constitutive impact upon the reality it claims to “re‐present.” Reflexivity can therefore be viewed as the specific problématique of post‐positivism (for example, Neufeld 1993, 1995; Guzzini 2000; Pouliot 2007; Lynch 2008; Hamati‐Ataya 2011). For this reason, authors concerned with reflexivity often collapse its cognitive and moral components, which is not problematic within a critique of positivism, given that positivism “disavows reflection” altogether (Habermas 1972:vii), whatever the realm of consciousness that it appeals to.…”

Section: Pragmatic Action In the Worldmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond (Post)Positivism: The Missed Promises of Systemic Pragmatism1

Hamati-Ataya¹

2012

International Studies Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hamati‐Ataya, Inanna. (2012) Beyond (Post)Positivism: The Missed Promises of Systemic Pragmatism. International Studies Quarterly, doi: 10.1111/j.1468‐2478.2011.00710.x  © 2012 International Studies Association This paper explores Pragmatism’s potential for transcending the antagonism between positivism and post‐positivism, through the work of Morton Kaplan, who combines a Pragmatist theory of knowledge with a systems theory of world politics. A reconstruction of Kaplan’s synoptic philosophy shows how Pragmatism can help us move beyond the dual fallacy of truth as correspondence and truth as self‐consciousness, to a non‐foundationalist epistemology that acknowledges the historicity of knowing without annihilating the realism of the common world we live in. Moving from the realm of knowledge to the realm of judgment, this paper also reconstructs Kaplan’s moral analysis, thereby revealing its significance for the discipline’s renewed concern for the problems of values and reflexivity.

show abstract

The “Problem of Values” and International Relations Scholarship: From Applied Reflexivity to Reflexivism

Abstract: and thoughtful comments, criticisms and suggestions.

Cited by 35 publications

References 69 publications

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s ‘reflexive turn’ — and beyond

Contested Identity and Foreign Policy: Interpreting Russia's International Choices

Beyond (Post)Positivism: The Missed Promises of Systemic Pragmatism1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About