Abstract
Abstract This chapter explores radical interpretivism as an approach to understanding contemporary war and the implications that flow from its application to questions about what ought to be done in contemporary asymmetrical wars. It argues that the currently dominant version of the relationship between just war theory and the world to which it is to be applied is misguided. It is widely held that policymakers facing ethical decisions about war and peace, have first to ascertain the empirical state of affairs in which they find themselves, and then, in a second step, consider what it would be ethical to do, given the circumstances. On this view, questions about the justice of going to war arise only after the completion of an empirical analysis about how things stand in the world. Radical interpretivism denies the possibility of determining a given “state of affairs” in social relations in purely empirical terms that do not involve engaging with ethical considerations from the outset. A central strand of the argument is that in the analyses of the circumstances that precede wars, what must be understood are the histories of actions and reactions of the parties involved. These, as is the case with all actions, can only be understood within the social practices in which the actors are participating. Such understandings involve an ethical engagement at every point. This interpretive approach is particularly important for a proper understanding of asymmetrical wars.
Highlights
The scholarly conversation which gave rise to this special edition of the journal revolved around the following question: How is it possible to dovetail empirical social scientific accounts of war with the normative work of just war theorists? A second, and more general, phrasing of the question might be: What is the relationship between empirical social science and ethical theory? In what follows I argue that these questions, as posed, are misguided
The argument offered here is that there are not two distinct forms of social inquiry: one empirical and the other normative/ethical. It is fundamentally important for all scholars focused on the study of war and conflict whether focused on the micro, meso or macro levels, to understand that a proper comprehension of any war or conflict requires an engagement with ethical questions at every point
The ethical dimensions of social scientific inquiry into war do not form a domain that is in some sense fundamentally separate from a realm of pure empirical inquiry
Summary
The scholarly conversation which gave rise to this special edition of the journal revolved around the following question: How is it possible to dovetail empirical social scientific accounts of war with the normative work of just war theorists? A second, and more general, phrasing of the question might be: What is the relationship between empirical social science and ethical theory? In what follows I argue that these questions, as posed, are misguided. The argument offered here is that there are not two distinct forms of social inquiry: one empirical and the other normative/ethical Instead, it is fundamentally important for all scholars focused on the study of war and conflict (and all other social phenomena) whether focused on the micro, meso or macro levels, to understand that a proper comprehension of any war or conflict requires an engagement with ethical questions at every point. The chapter starts by setting out a well-known approach to just war theorizing which, on the face of the matter, suggests a clear distinction between the empirical study of war and the consideration of its ethical dimensions. A proper understanding of this dimension is of fundamental importance for all those who become involved in wars, be they politicians, men and women serving in conventional military roles, men and women fighting in unconventional fighting units (“terrorists” “freedom fighters” “guerrillas”), civilians, or academics studying war
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
