Unit 7: Normativism

Introduction

In 1970s, post-behavioral revolution emerged as a challenge against the so called behavioral revolution of 1960s, since behavioralism could not answer the contemporary needs, and became abstract by distancing from real world and ignoring the ideological elements for consideration of empirical conservatism. In this framework, some concepts such as value, purpose and preference lost their importance. Therefore, postbehavioralism moved to fill this gap, and in 1980s the problem was still not completely overcome, but at least normative theories regained their popularity. It was required to adopt a new idealist viewpoint that moral values would play significant role for policy making processes to reach a stable and peaceful world. In this framework, post-behavioralist scholars founded a theory which could be verified by empirical observations through synthesizing moral principles of liberal thought and rigid conservatism of realist approach.

Comparing Normative Theories with Empirical Theories

Normative theories, essentially are related with the subjects of philosophy and ethic. Value is always an important element for the background of normative studies, and such theories placed the discussion of politics in the context of morality. However, normative theories rest on value preferences which cannot be tested or verified with factual experiments and this is an important difference from empirical/positivist theories. Moreover, they are not concerned with the proposition related to “what is” but “what ought to be, what should be”.

Empirical theories intensify on the real reasons of relations between statesmen and foreign policy. However, the traces of the elements of value and norm would be seen in the studies carried out in the framework of realism as well. Therefore, this subjective factor could not be completely eliminated in empirical theories too. Empirical political scientists sometimes use the normative/philosophical concepts, even if they adopt empirical facts.

However, both have certain weaknesses. Since normative theories are claimed to be utopist and idealist and empirical theories too, they are condemned to be over factual for consideration of being scientific.

Cosmopolitan Approach and Normative Theory

Kant - the best known representative of the cosmopolitan understanding – discusses ethics and reason in his studies and takes the concepts of peace and war into account as the basic phenomena of social structure. According to him, an individual has the freedom to choose right, ethic and moral, and his behaviors are not determined in advance. But, he has responsibilities and obligations to perform and to obey to the ethical laws accepted as right by universal reason. The universal dimension of Kantian ethics is accepted as fundamental in IR. In Kantian idealism, there is an understanding of cosmopolitan international society which is composed of individuals, states and other actors adopting ethical principles.

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill claimed that the principle of pleasure and satisfaction (utilitarianism) should be obeyed to reach to the best. For utilitarianism, if fundamental institutions are reshaped or reconstructed for providing the highest satisfaction, then it is certain that the society is regulated rightly. In fact, Kantian and utilitarian thinking are shaping the fundamentals of international law because, these principles cannot be attributed to the one single state or society.

Social Contract Approach and Normative Theory

Social contract theory depends on the assumption that the individuals might voluntarily bind themselves to the certain principles. From this point, like stag hunt model of game theory, individuals would sacrifice their small satisfactions to reach a highest satisfaction. In international relations, as states choose the apparatus for individual satisfaction, they would also sacrifice their small interests for larger interests and social contract theory is a hypothetical and fictive example for this.

For utilitarianism, the social and individual interests overlap (harmony of interest thesis). Utilitarian philosophy assumes that the individual who works for his own utility, automatically works for the utility of community.

Normative theories, adopt human being’s freedom and capability to determine the outside world rather than emphasizing the influence of international structure and national interest. In this sense, normative theories have features of being voluntarist and eclectic. They look like predictive and explanatory theories rather than being deterministic theories. But, the propositions of normative theories cannot be tested or verified by facts

Normative Theories and International Relations

Normative element in IR is persistently an indispensable phenomenon for human beings. In fact, those who are criticizing the normative theories are using normative discourse and normative comments in their foreign policy expressions. States try to excuse their coalitions with other countries by moral reasons. Therefore, it is frequently observed that ethical norms are employed to excuse foreign policies.

In addition to the fact that foreign policy activities are tied to moral principles, some foreign policy goals also have ethical and moral content. Foreign policy goals are addressed to certain concepts such as peace, law, justice, international stability, social solidarity and freedom. For example, Wilson was aware of working for American interest as he claimed “to get the world a safe place for democracy”, and to realize the principle of “selfdetermination”.

As well, he introduced the goals of the American government as the common goals of the World.

Similarly, American President George W. Bush, in 2001, identified the attack of Al-Qaeda as an attack to the democracy and human rights, and he also introduced the operation against Afghanistan with the concepts of “perpetual peace” (or infinite peace) and “infinite justice/enduring freedom”.

Furthermore, Truman Doctrine declared in the aftermath of the Second World War, was expressed as an “help to free nations”.

During the Cold War years, for the United States, a world which was composed of independent, peace loving and law abiding countries were seen as just and moral; however, for Communists, such a world was identified as an order in which capitalism enslaved humans, and international law was seen as an apparatus to maintain and sustain the inequality among states.

Similarly, in our times, some conceptual slogans like “free trade”, “non-interference”, “peaceful solution of conflicts”, “non-intervention”, “self-determination”, and “respect to territorial integrity” are being used to influence the policies of other states.

The values of states and individuals are likely to determine the preferences in line with their approaches to the events and policies. Therefore, the impossibility to establish a value free theory of international relations is obvious.

The significant critic toward the normative theories is that they are value laden propositions and cannot be tested, and their skepticism is questionable because normative theories which express judgments, reflect the individual views, emotions and personal preferences. It is not possible to refer them as right or wrong since they are not composed of factual assumptions.

Furthermore, normative theories do not have the characters of verification or falsification that empirical theories have. As scientific theories are concerned with the empirical world, normative theories are related to an ideal world that should be. For this reason, normative theories cannot be applied to the problems faced every day. Therefore, normative theories are interested in an imaginary world, and can be claimed by realists as utopic theories.