Phenomenon Explanation vs. Normative Evaluation: An Unnecessary Division in International Relations Studies
Since its inception, the development of international relations study (IR) has not always run smoothly. In the 1950s, the study experienced a bifurcation of its theories, initiating a debate between the importance of phenomenon explanation and normative evaluation (Schmidt, 2002: p. 116). Phenomenon explanation was seen as a more well-received approach because of its focus on giving empirical elaboration of international relations events. On the contrary, normative evaluation received rejections because the approach was perceived as less logical and empirical than the former (Schmidt, 2002: p. 119). I argue that such rejection towards normative evaluation is harmful to the development of IR studies, as relying on empirical explanations that usually elaborate on how the reality was formed confined humans to accept the reality as it is and turning a blind eye to its flaws. This essay seeks to highlight the importance of both phenomenon explanation and normative evaluation to coexist in the field of IR studies.
Normative evaluation provides input by reflecting international events on the values and morality it upholds. As its main contention is to give “prescriptive claims about what ought to be done,” I argue that normative evaluation possesses an emancipatory quality in its foundation (Brown & Eckersley, 2018: p.10). Normative evaluation assesses the social reality in IR and presents commentary on what is lacking in the status quo. Thus, normative evaluation is not necessarily a non-empirical approach, as its assessments are based on factual international affairs. Aforesaid input strives for progressivity in international relations, emancipating a multitude of international matters that have not been taken into serious consideration before. The prescription gives guidance for IR actors, both state and non-state, on how they should act in order to achieve international relations’ goals, such as peace and equality. Critical theory is one of many normative evaluation forms that critiques the confining realm of realism — a phenomenon explanation theory — by arguing that IR should cater more to civil society’s concerns and contemplate the social-political realm as a unit (Cox, 1981: pp. 126–129). The existence of critical theory enables various discussions and attempts in providing meaningful input for numerous issues, including human rights and climate change, rather than merely focusing on explaining how security became the main interest of states.
As I have partially foreshadowed, too much reliance on phenomenon explanation would cause more harm than good in IR studies. I do recognize the importance of making sense of reality in IR, but I argue that there is a tendency for the explanation to justify how reality was formed. While making sense and explaining the phenomenon, there is a likelihood for the approach to implicitly accept and approve the reality. For instance, United States’ intervention in Iraq was seen as a form of heroic salvation from terrorism, without taking into consideration the number of civilian lives that were lost in the turmoil. This leads me to another layer of this argument, on phenomenon explanation’s tendency to normalize IR actors’ actions. With its likelihood to justify the reality, it is likely for the approach to condone actors’ behavior, no matter how morally incorrect they are. The approach tends to not hold those actors accountable for their actions and reduces the severity of the damage that has been done. The lack of feedback would cause a detrimental effect in IR studies and potentially the betterment of the world.
Hence, should normative evaluation and phenomenon explanation be accepted equally, I argue that the concerns above will be mitigated. Favoring normative evaluation over the other would not be feasible either, as norms and values are derived from various sources, varying from religions and beliefs to domestic political situations. It is unfair to impose certain normative evaluations arbitrarily, without drawing attention and understanding to the historical background of a phenomenon. Such conditions would create more disruption and unfairness in IR studies, much like Western’s criticism towards China’s maneuver that it deemed as lacking the democratic spirit, though the country’s ideological basis is socialism. The evaluation produced would not be as accurate as it hoped to be, and thus emancipation would not take place. By synthesizing and recognizing both approaches, there is a possibility for the initiation of theories that are more fitting and relevant to the spectrum of IR concerns. This condition is likely to sustain the relevancy of IR studies to international events and its contribution to the advancement of the world.
The purpose of this essay is not to discredit the function of phenomenon explanation. Rather, this writing attempts to show why both phenomenon explanation and normative evaluation should coexist. Both approaches are a compatible complement for each other, enabling IR scholars in serving a more comprehensive recommendation in the conduct of international relations.
REFERENCES
Brown, C., Eckersley, R. (2018). International Political Theory and the Real World. In C. Brown & R. Eckersley (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Political Theory (pp. 3–18). Oxford University Press.
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 10(2), pp. 126–155. DOI: 10.1177/03058298810100020501.
Schmidt, B. C. (2002). Together Again: Reuniting Political Theory and International Relations Theory. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 4(1), pp. 115–140. DOI: 10.1111/1467–856X.41073.
