国际和欧洲研究中的思想辩论:走向制图和批判性评估

Andreas Gofas, C. Hay
{"title":"国际和欧洲研究中的思想辩论:走向制图和批判性评估","authors":"Andreas Gofas, C. Hay","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1086060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The appeal to ideas as causal variables and/or constitutive features of political processes increasingly characterizes political analysis. Yet, perhaps because of the pace of this ideational intrusion, too often ideas have simply been grafted onto pre-existing explanatory theories at precisely the point at which they seem to get into difficulties, with little or no consideration either of the status of such ideational variables or of the character or consistency of the resulting theoretical hybrid. This is particularly problematic for ideas are far from innocent variables - and can rarely, if ever, be incorporated seamlessly within existing explanatory and/or constitutive theories without ontological and epistemological consequence. We contend that this tendency along with the limitations of the prevailing human conception of causality, and associated epistemological polemic between causal and constitutive logics, continue to plague almost all of the literature that strives to accord an explanatory role to ideas. In trying to move beyond the current vogue for epistemological polemic, we argue that the incommensurability thesis between causal and constitutive logics is only credible in the context of a narrow, human, conception of causation. If we reject this in favor of a more inclusive (and ontologically realist) understanding then it is perfectly possible to chart the causal significance of constitutive processes and reconstrue the explanatory role of ideas as causally constitutive.","PeriodicalId":399171,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ideas Debate in International and European Studies: Towards a Cartography and Critical Assessment\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Gofas, C. Hay\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1086060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The appeal to ideas as causal variables and/or constitutive features of political processes increasingly characterizes political analysis. Yet, perhaps because of the pace of this ideational intrusion, too often ideas have simply been grafted onto pre-existing explanatory theories at precisely the point at which they seem to get into difficulties, with little or no consideration either of the status of such ideational variables or of the character or consistency of the resulting theoretical hybrid. This is particularly problematic for ideas are far from innocent variables - and can rarely, if ever, be incorporated seamlessly within existing explanatory and/or constitutive theories without ontological and epistemological consequence. We contend that this tendency along with the limitations of the prevailing human conception of causality, and associated epistemological polemic between causal and constitutive logics, continue to plague almost all of the literature that strives to accord an explanatory role to ideas. In trying to move beyond the current vogue for epistemological polemic, we argue that the incommensurability thesis between causal and constitutive logics is only credible in the context of a narrow, human, conception of causation. If we reject this in favor of a more inclusive (and ontologically realist) understanding then it is perfectly possible to chart the causal significance of constitutive processes and reconstrue the explanatory role of ideas as causally constitutive.\",\"PeriodicalId\":399171,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Science eJournal\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Science eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1086060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Science eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1086060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

对作为政治过程的因果变量和/或构成特征的思想的呼吁日益成为政治分析的特征。然而,也许是由于这种观念入侵的速度,太多时候,思想只是在它们似乎陷入困境的时候,被简单地嫁接到已有的解释理论上,很少或根本没有考虑到这些观念变量的地位,也没有考虑到由此产生的理论混合体的特征或一致性。这是特别有问题的,因为想法远非无辜的变量-并且很少,如果有的话,在没有本体论和认识论结果的情况下,与现有的解释性和/或建构性理论无缝结合。我们认为,这种趋势以及流行的人类因果关系概念的局限性,以及因果逻辑和构成逻辑之间相关的认识论争论,继续困扰着几乎所有努力赋予思想解释作用的文献。在试图超越当前流行的认识论论战中,我们认为因果逻辑和构成逻辑之间的不可通约性命题只有在一个狭窄的、人类的因果关系概念的背景下才是可信的。如果我们拒绝这一点,支持更包容(和本体论现实主义)的理解,那么就完全有可能绘制出构成过程的因果意义,并将思想的解释作用重构为因果构成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Ideas Debate in International and European Studies: Towards a Cartography and Critical Assessment
The appeal to ideas as causal variables and/or constitutive features of political processes increasingly characterizes political analysis. Yet, perhaps because of the pace of this ideational intrusion, too often ideas have simply been grafted onto pre-existing explanatory theories at precisely the point at which they seem to get into difficulties, with little or no consideration either of the status of such ideational variables or of the character or consistency of the resulting theoretical hybrid. This is particularly problematic for ideas are far from innocent variables - and can rarely, if ever, be incorporated seamlessly within existing explanatory and/or constitutive theories without ontological and epistemological consequence. We contend that this tendency along with the limitations of the prevailing human conception of causality, and associated epistemological polemic between causal and constitutive logics, continue to plague almost all of the literature that strives to accord an explanatory role to ideas. In trying to move beyond the current vogue for epistemological polemic, we argue that the incommensurability thesis between causal and constitutive logics is only credible in the context of a narrow, human, conception of causation. If we reject this in favor of a more inclusive (and ontologically realist) understanding then it is perfectly possible to chart the causal significance of constitutive processes and reconstrue the explanatory role of ideas as causally constitutive.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信