Topic
Realism
About: Realism is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 10799 publications have been published within this topic receiving 175785 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the appeal to emergence is merely a disguised regression into reification and the only genuine path out of these antinomies is the adoption of a fully hermeneutic social theory in line with the positions of Winch and Gadamer.
Abstract: From the publication of The Possibility of Naturalism, Bhaskar’s critical naturalism or realism has argued for a dualistic social ontology of interpreting individuals and objective, ‘real’ social structures. In arguing for a dualistic ontology, Bhaskar commits himself to two antinomies; he insists that society is dependent on individuals but also independent of them, and that social action is always intentional but it also has non-intentional, material features. These antinomies are apparently resolved by appeals to emergence. In fact, the appeal to emergence is merely a disguised regression into reification and the only genuine path out of these antinomies is the adoption of a fully hermeneutic social theory in line with the positions of Winch and Gadamer.
59 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that contemporary realism faces two fundamental challenges when attempting to explain foreign policy: the first challenge is to combine structural factors with other variables without ending up with a collection of ad hoc arguments, and the second, and related, challenge is the realist emphasis on the continued importance of materialist factors such as power with the observation that these factors are interpreted and perceived by human beings making foreign policy.
Abstract: What are the main challenges facing realist foreign policy analysis today? Which strategies might realists follow in order to answer these challenges? This article argues that contemporary realism faces two fundamental challenges when attempting to explain foreign policy. The first challenge is to combine structural factors with other variables without ending up with a collection of ad hoc arguments. The second, and related, challenge is to combine the realist emphasis on the continued importance of materialist factors such as power with the observation that these factors are interpreted and perceived — not objectively measured — by human beings making foreign policy. The article explores the potential of contemporary realism in order to shed light on the nature of the challenges and discuss how they might be answered.
59 citations
TL;DR: It will be that a weaker version of the form of realism, mainly developed by Steven French and James Ladyman, is more plausible – namely, epistemic structural realism.
Abstract: In the last decade, structural realism has been presented as the most promising strategy for developing a defensible realist view of science. Nevertheless, controversy still continues in relation to the exact meaning of the proposed structuralism. The stronger version of structural realism, the so-called ontic structural realism, has been argued for on the basis of some ideas related to quantum mechanics. In this paper, I will first outline these arguments, mainly developed by Steven French and James Ladyman, then challenge them, putting a particular emphasis on a metaphysical principle (the Principle of the Identity of the Indiscernibles) which, even though it is crucial for the whole argument, hasn't been, in my opinion, clearly stated and examined yet. My overall view will be that a weaker version of the form of realism we are considering is more plausible – namely, epistemic structural realism.
59 citations
TL;DR: The field of U.S. foreign relations is a clearinghouse of sorts for work on America in the world, and a sample of diplomatic historians approach their field in ways both new and consistent with trends in the profession at large as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: An era of innovation among historians of American foreign relations is upon us. Gone are the days when, in 1980, Charles S. Maier could claim that social and cultural history had marginalized the state, implicitly relegating the "languishing" field of diplomatic history to the status of "stepchild" to serious historical scholarship.' Grievances against departments that supposedly refuse to hire diplomatic historians or against journals that seemingly shut us out are increasingly rare. The relationship of the field to the profession is no longer characterized by the tired, anecdotal saw of exclusion. Instead, historians of U.S. foreign relations are, in many ways, an advance guard driving the bandwagon of international ization, riding along with those who study mentalites and culture. And that relationship has been reciprocal: while the recent story of U.S. diplomatic history rests on its merger with the majority, the mainstream has also reached out to us. This essay looks at how, over the past two decades, the study of U.S. foreign relations has stood at the intersection of the domestic and international, of theory and empiricism, of security/politics and the cultural turn. Diplomatic history is a clearinghouse of sorts for work on America in the world, and I seek to illustrate how a sample of diplomatic historians approach their field in ways both new and consistent with trends in the profession at large.^ This article will consider three (not mutually exclusive) areas in which reform has enlivened the field: traditional realism's engagement with ideology {mentalites), the embrace of international history, and the study of culture and identity. These reforms have redefined the field in ways that confirm the movement of diplomatic history into the mainstream of the historical profession's interests, and vice versa.
59 citations