Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:43:11.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three approaches to the international system some: ontological and epistemological considerations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Richard Little
Richard Little
Affiliation:
Lecturer in Politics, the Open University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years, the use of systems terminology has become widespread in international relations literature. This development has precipitated both confusion and controversy – confusion about what exactly is meant by a systems approach and controversy about whether the approach provides any new insights for the international relations specialist. The confusion and controversy spreads across the methodological divide which exists in the discipline; both traditionalists and behaviouralists are in disagreement about the nature of a systems approach and its potential utility.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , October 1977 , pp. 269 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 269 note 1. See, for example, Stephens, J., ‘An Appraisal of Some Systems Approaches in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly, xvi (1972) pp. 321–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 269 note 2. Haas, E. B., ‘On Systems and International Regimes’, World Politics, xxvii (1975), pp. 147–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 148.

page 269 note 3. Young, O. R., ‘A Systemic Approach to International Polities’, Research Monograph, no. 33, Center of International Studies, (Princeton University, 1968), p. 6Google Scholar.

page 270 note 1. Weltman, J. J., Systems Theory in International Relations: A Study in Metaphoric Hypertrophy (Lexington, 1973), p. 100Google Scholar.

page 270 note 2. Churchman, G. W., The Systems Approach (1968), p. 239Google Scholar.

page 271 note 1. See Rapoport, A. and Horvath, W. J., ‘Thoughts on Organization Theory and a Review of Two Conferences’, General Systems Yearbook, iv (1959), pp. 87–93, p. 87Google Scholar.

page 271 note 2. See Laws, P., ‘Science and System: On the Unity and Diversity of Scientific Theory,’ General Systems Yearbook, xiii (1968), pp. 3–12Google Scholar.

page 272 note 1. Deutsch, K. W., The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication (New York, 1966), p. 27Google Scholar.

page 272 note 2. Claude, I. L., Power and International Relations (New York, 1962), p. 42Google Scholar.

page 273 note 1. Gulick, E. V., Europe's Classical Balance of Power (Ithaca, 1955), p. 5Google Scholar.

page 273 note 2. Buckley, W., Sociology and Modern Systems Theory (Englewood Cliffs, 1967), p. 8Google Scholar.

page 273 note 3. Waltz, K. N., Man, The State and War (New York, 1954), p. 205Google Scholar.

page 273 note 4. Gulick op. cit., p. 50.

page 273 note 5. Claude, op. cit., p. 46.

page 273 note 6. Morgenthau, H. J., Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power, and Peace 5th ed. (New York, 1973), p. 24Google Scholar.

page 273 note 7. Hoffmann, S., Contemporary Theory in International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, 1960), p. 350Google Scholar.

page 274 note 1. Pettman, R., Human Behaviour and World Politics (London, 1975), p. 138CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 274 note 2. Hoffman, (op. cit.). In terms of modern systems terminology, it is more usual to talk of goal-seeking rather than purposeful behaviour. It is assumed that only humans can be purposeful.

page 274 note 3. Nagel, E., The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation (London, 1961), p. 422Google Scholar.

page 275 note 1. E. S. Russell, cited in Nagel, op. cit., p. 432.

page 275 note 2. Nagel, op. cit., p. 406.

page 276 note 1. Morganthau, op. cit., p. 168.

page 276 note 2. See for example, Gregg, R. W. and Barkun, M. (eds.), The United Nations and its Functions (Princeton, 1968)Google Scholar; and Modelski, G., ‘Agraria and Industria: Two Models of the International System’ in Knorr, K. and Verba, S. (eds.), The International System (Princeton, 1961). p. 4.Google Scholar

page 276 note 3. Cited in Haas, E. B., Beyond the Nation State: Functionalism and International Organization (Stanford, 1964), p. 4.Google Scholar

page 276 note 4. Claude, (op. cit), pp. 17–25.

page 277 note 1. See Levy, M. J., ‘Structural Functional Analysis’, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; and Laszlo, E., The Strategyfor the Future: The Systems Approach to World Order (New York, 1974), p. 17Google Scholar.

page 277 note 2. Bredemeier, H. C., ‘The Methodology of Functionalism’ American Sociological Review, xx (1955), pp. 173–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 176.

page 278 note 1. Buckley, op. cit., p. 14.

page 278 note 2. Toulmin, S. and Goodfield, J., The Architecture of Matter (New York, 1962), p. 318Google Scholar.

page 278 note 3. Laszlo, E., The Systems View of the World (New York, 1972), pp. 19–20Google Scholar.

page 279 note 1. Rapoport and Horvath, op. cit., p. 89.

page 279 note 2. Maruyama, M., ‘The Second Cybernetics: Deviation Amplifying Mutual Causal Processes’, in Katz, F. E. (ed.), Contemporary Sociological Theory (New York, 1971)Google Scholar.

page 279 note 3. Singer, J. D., ‘Escalation and Control in International Conflict: A Single Feedback Model’, Gemeral Systems Tearbook, xv (1970), p. 163–73Google Scholar.

page 280 note 1. Rapoport and Horvath, op. cit. p. 89.

page 280 note 2. Buckley, op. cit., p. 42. Nagel, a philosopher of science unconvinced by the need for a systems perspective has pointed to the enormous confusion which this particular holistic “insight” can generate. He defines eight distinct meanings for the concept “whole”, four distinct meanings for the concept “sum”, creating the potential for thirty-two different meanings. Op. cit., pp. 380–90.

page 280 note 3. Laszlo, op. cit., p. 27.

page 280 note 3. Churchman, op. cit., p. 230.

page 281 note 1. Hayek, F. A., ‘Scientism and the Study of Society’, in O'Neill, J. (ed.), Modes of Individualism and Collectivism (London, 1973), p. 60Google Scholar.

page 281 note 2. This use of “realism” refers to the ontological status of aggregates. It needs to be distinguished from the definition of realism when applied to epistemology. See Keat, R. and Urry, J., Social Theory as Science (London, 1975)Google Scholar.

page 281 note 3. Campbell, D. T., ‘Common Fate, Similarity and Other Indices of the Status of Aggregates of Persons as Social Entities’, Behavioural Science, iii (1958), pp. 14–25, p. 14Google Scholar.

page 282 note 1. Ibid., p. 18.

page 282 note 2. Laszlo, op. cit. p. 18; and Koestler, A., The Ghost in the Machine (London, 1967), p. 54.Google Scholar

page 282 note 3. Laszlo, op. cit., p. 29.

page 282 note 4. Forrester, J. W., ‘Understanding the Counterintuitive Behaviour of Social Systems’, in Beishon, J. and Peters, G. (eds.), Systems Behaviour (London, 1972), Published for the University PressGoogle Scholar.

page 283 note 1. Singer, J. D., ‘A General Systems Taxonomy for Political Science’ (New York, 1971), p. 11Google Scholar.

page 283 note 2. Singer, J. D., Bremer, S. and Stuckey, J., ‘Capability Distribution, Uncertainty and Major Power War: 1820–1965’ in Russett, B. (ed.), Peace and War and Numbers (Beverley Hills, 1972), p. 46Google Scholar.

page 283 note 3. Singer, ‘A General Systems Taxonomy for Political System’, op. cit., p. 45.

page 283 note 4. Burton's views were expressed first in Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar; his views were subsequently revised and modified in World Society (Cambridge, 1972)Google Scholar, and his introduction to The Study of World Society: A London Perspective, Occasional Paper No. (Pittsburgh, International Studies Association, 1974)Google Scholar.

page 284 note 1. This view is most clearly articulated by Cohen, B. J., The Question ofImperialism (London, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 284 note 2. There is a growing literature examining this idea, but see in particular Frank, A. G., Latin America: Underdevelopment or Revolution (New York, 1969)Google Scholar; A Amin, , Accumulation on a World Scale: A Critique of the Theory of Underdevelopment (New York, 1973)Google Scholar; Emmanuel, A., Unequal Exchange: A Study in the Imperialism of Trade (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; and Galtung, J., The European Community: A Superpower in the Making (London, 1973)Google Scholar.

page 285 note 1. Singer, J. D, ‘The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations’, in Knorr, K. and Verba, S. (eds.), The International System, (Princeton, 1961), p. 91Google Scholar.

page 285 note 2. Moul, W. B., ‘The Level of Analysis Problem Revisited’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vi (1973), p. 496Google Scholar.