SECURITY ONTOLOGY
PHILOSOPHY OF (SOCIAL SCIENCE 1)
- Social sciences are nomothetic
o Seek to develop generalizble theories of the behaviour of actors within a system
- Theories are models of reality that describe, explain and predict outcomes
o Scientific theories are based on empirical observation generate models that can be tested and falsified, this is
critical, never say it is absolute, a good theory should be falsifiable
o A theory (T2) is superior to a competing theory (T1) when:
T2 is not falsified
T2 explains everything T1, explains AND
T2 explains things that T1 cannot explain
T2 is more parsimonious , if it can explain the same outcomes in a simpler fashion
- In international relations (international security) usually compare and contrast theories
- Paradigms are set of very broad assumptions to which one is deeply committed and a set of institutional practices
governing the current conduct of (social science)
o Specify how scientific research is conducted, and the assumptions that underline a theory
o “normal science’ and routine scientific progress occur while the governing paradigm copes with apparent
exceptions; period that a paradigm still applies, even if counterfactual evidence comes up the paradigm can still
deal with it through its assumptions
o When a new, major theory replaces an older one, a paradigm shift occurs; when a new theory comes up that
disqualifies that previous one, when normal sciences stops and is reconfigured
o Series of competing paradigms; realism, neo-realism, social constructivism, feminism etc.
- paradigms contains bundled set of ontological assumptions, cannot empirically prove them cause it is theoretical
o ontology; a systematic account of existence; or the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or
reality
- we say that an agent commits to an ontology if its observable actions are consistent with the definitions in the ontology
SECURITY ONTOLOGY
- security as concept has been termed “essentially contested”; so laden with different assumptions/normative
values/ideas that it makes it impossible to create a simple understanding
- Baldwin (1997) argues the dearth of both conceptual clarity and conceptual debate around “security” in the security
studies literature ; suggests that a conceptual analysis is necessary because we can’t discuss concept of security and
leverage it in IC until we have decided what it is and its limits and where it ends, conceptual clarity is important the
understanding of terms and how we construct/limit terms has huge ramifications for public/foreign policies, etc.
o “Understanding the concept of security is a fundamentally different kind of intellectual exercise from specifying
the conditions under which security may be attained.” (Baldwin 1997:8)
A N
More
Less
