SEARCHING FOR SCIENCE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: INSIGHTS FROM CRITICAL REALISM

Abstract

A serious academic debate in general, let alone on theoretical and methodological issues, is rare for both Western and Russian peer-reviewed journals. In the context of discussion, launched by a polemical article by a prominent Russian IR expert Alexey Fenenko, published in 2018 in the ‘International Trends’ journal, is more important and noteworthy. Nominally both this article and the subsequent responses from Denis Degterev, Igor Istomin, Andrey Baykov and Konstantin Khudoley focused on a long-running dispute between the proponents of quantitative and qualitative methods in IR studies. However, the true essence of this discussion, as well as its implications, goes far beyond a mere technical argument about methods. The present article examines this discussion as well as developments in contemporary IR theory through the lens of critical realism (CR). The first section considers the arguments of the discussants and shows that they tend to focus on secondary, technical issues leaving out the key subject of the dispute, i.e. how should international studies be organized in order to have a right to be called a science. In order to bring this issue back into the spotlight and to provide a new perspective on the issue, the second section considers the problem field of the contemporary IR theory from the viewpoint of CR. According to critical realists all predominant approaches in the mainstream IR theory are rooted in the Humean empiricism which to a large extent explains both epistemological and practical limitations of the contemporary IR studies. As an alternative, they advance the ideas of the founder of critical realism, British philosopher R. Bhaskar. The third section examines the key epistemological and ontological provisions of CR, which include the fundamental recognition of objective reality, existing prior to and beyond human activities, reality, which is stratified and differentiated. They also entail a specific perception of causality and of possible limits of cogniscibility and predictability of social phenomena. Nonetheless the article is far from a straightforward apology of critical realism. The fourth section identifies certain weaknesses of contemporary interpretations of CR in the context of IR theory, which include a static nature of their methodology and inconsistency of their implications. The author concludes that the major contribution of CR to the IR theory lies in providing a clear path for further research – that is development of materialist theories and approaches.