“Reflectivism” isn’t an unitary perspective, but its various versions has in common that it can be seen as a kind of opposite to all of the other theoretical schools we’ve discussed this far. By this, we mean that the Reflectivist perspectives centers on ontological and epistemological questions not answered to a satisfactory degree by the Rationalist, Behaviourist, Positivist perspectives, such as the nature of knowledge, its objectivity or subjectivity, and the nature of international politics.

Both Realism, Liberalism and Radicalism, and all variants of these perspectives, have positivism as their foundation — a belief in objective truths. Reflectivism questions the existance of objective truth, and our ability to possibly discover such truths.

The Objectivity of Science.
In the traditional view of science, the researcher (say, a chemist) has no perceptible influence over the reaction of chemicals. Moreover, in this view, it is assumed that the institutions, relationships, and broader social/political/economic environment in which the chemist works has no impact on her research. The study of chemical reactions, in other words, is entirely objective.

Positivism.
There are four primary points of view that combine into “positivism”. First of all, there’s the belief in scientific unitarism, that is, that the establishment of knowledge is similar in all fields of study — that the same methods apply to the nature sciences and social sciences alike. An implication of this is that if one does not use the traditional and true principles of scientific method, then one does not doing science, and thus, one is unable to create or discover knowledge.
Second, there’s the belief that a separation exists between facts and values, and that humans see and know this separation. This is based on the attitude that values have no place in scientific analysis, and that they can be controled for and thus pruned if they are disovered.
Third, it is assumed that the social world has distinct characteristics or patters, that we can discover.
Fourth and final, it is assumed that by examining neutral facts, one can uncover the truth value of attitudes, theories and hypotheses.

“The Truth Is Out There. (Or is it?)”
Foundationalists believe strongly that a single Truth (with a capital “T”) exists. The job of scientists and other researchers is to uncover the Truth.

Anti-foundationalists believe that all knowledge is grounded in particular historical contexts, which reflect relations of power in society. In this repect, truth is never absolute.

Theories of explanation vs. theories of understanding.
A theory of explanation sees the world as something outside of our theories and assumptions about it. Realist, Radicalist and Liberalist theories all fall under this heading.
Theories of understanding, on the other hand, are based on the premises that our theories actually take part in constructing the world we live in.

As an example, we can take the Realists’ assumption of an anarchic international system. According to Reflectivists, anarchy is nothing else than what states make of it. If states believe that the international system is anarchis, then they act as if it was. These actions then make the anarchy real. If there had been other assumptions, we’d seen other results.

Theories of understanding, therefore, are based on the condition that our theories construct the world in which we live. “Reality”, in this way, is purely subjective, or rather intersubjective. (Subjctive: one person’s personal reading of the world — a term often used by postmodernists. Intersubjectivity: shared understanding or faith — often used by Reflectivists.)

It is important to emphasise that theories of understanding don’t claim that reality is a part of our imagination, or that it is whatever we want, but that there are solid, deeply rooted structures and forces in the world, and that these structures and forces have real and sometimes even lethal consequences. They want us to understand that these solid, depply rooted structures cannot exist entirely independent of our thoughts and actions.

The core of Reflectivism.
Reflectivism questions the fundamental assuptions of Positivism. Epistemologically, that the social sciences can utilise the same methods as do the nature sciences. This represents the conflict between theories of explanation and those of understanding, as presented above. Ontologically, that an objective, external reality exists, that this reality is represented by neutral facts, and that these can be uncovered through empirical research. This is the conflict between objectivity and subjectivity. FInally, it questions the Positivist assumption of ontology that it’s possible to separate values from facts — the assumption of value-free social sciences.

Reflectivism has a basically constituating ontology. This means that theories consist of conceptualised language and value-loaded assumptions that helps us construct our understanding of the world; what we discover about the world, based on theory, is neither objective nor neutral knowedge. Also, Reflectivism has an anti-foundationalist epistemoloy. This implies that there is no objective way to test theories, as every meta-theoretical position (i.e., external criteria for testing) in itself is based on epistemological reflections which are essentially subjective.

Reflectivist thought — what are the various variants of Refelctivism reflective in relation to?
Perhaps the most famous Reflectivist perspective, is Postmodernism. Postmodernism is primarily reflective to the construction of knowledge, questioning the process of how knowledge is constructed.
Constructivism is a second variation, and Constructionists mainly focus on ideas and common knowledge or beliefs about the social world — how are these perceptions established?
Third, you have something called Normative Theory. These guys question the origins of values, and asks the question of whether or not universal rights exist.
Fourth, there’s the Feminist Theories, that reflect upon the conditions of women and gender roles.
Fifth, there’s the Historical-Sociological perspectives, that examines the relations between states and classes, asking whether any dualism or dynamics between classes cause the establishing of states.
Finally, there’s Critical Theory, which centres on the relation betwee knowledge and power: Who decides what can be defined as knowledge?

Reflectivism isn’t a unitary theory. Reflectivists agree on what they disagree on, but beyond that it’s difficult to classify Reflectivism as a perspective like the Rationalist ones.

However, there’s a perspective generally known as social constructivism, which believes in common understanding — intersubjectivity — placing it in a kind of intermediary position between Rationalism and Reflectivism.

Postmodernism.
Postmodernism is inspired by the French philosophy of the post-war era, also known as “the linguistic turn”. It questions concepts such as reality and truth based on the idea that an over-arching knowledge or understanding of the uman world, exists. A cornerstone of this perspective is “deconstructivism”, which is meant to make researchers aware of their conceptual prisons. Because of this, Postmodernists are concerned with discourse and discourse analysis. This implies examining how concepts enters scientific debate — who started talking about something, and why? They’re not necessarily too worried with why we see something, but rather how what we see came to be where we saw it. The two most central theorists in Postmodernism are Foucault and Derrida. Foucault’s claim was that truth can’t exist outside of history, sa the truth is historically constructed. Derrida, on the other hand, saw the world as a text that neeeded interpreting. The basis for this interpretation should be deconstructivism: Researchers should examine old texts anew, find new nuances and draw new conclusions from e.g. Hobbes, Machiavelli, and others.

Postmodernists are critical to metanarratives (general or universal theories), on the basis that there is no objective truth. They also seek to dismantle theories (deconstructivism) to reveal their inaccuracy and predisposed intetions. Their main target in this repsect are the Neorealists, whom the Postmodernists perceive as being ahistorical. Furthermore, they focuses on the “politics of knowledge”, emphasising that knowledge and power are closely related: “All power requires knowledge and all knowledge relies on and reinforces existing power relations.”

Postmodernism — a short evaluation.
One advantage to Postmodernism, is that it represents a downward adjustment of academic egoes: Scientists, generally speaking, think too highly of their own theories. [The question being, of course, whether this also applies to the Pomo-people. :P] Furthermore, the scepsis with which Postmodernists examine the concept of universal truth, can often be quite fertile.

However, there are also disadvantages. First and foremost, it’s the dilemma of why one should believe the decontructed interpretation to be more accurate than the original construction. Also, there are conventions tied to international law, politics and economics which are fundamental elements in the modern world. These concepts may contradict the rejection of universal truths or rights. Finally, Postmodernism can end up in nihilism, if theories are picked apart without something replacing them. Nihilism can never serve as a basis for knowledge, because it rejects the possibility and value of knowledge.

Constructivism.
Constructivism is based on a couple of philosophical assumptions. First of all, we have what’s called “philosophical idealism”: The notion that International Politics primarily consists of ideas and thoughts, not material conditions and forces. As an example, we give meaning to such physical concepts as territory, population, weapons, and so on. Second, an ontological assumption is made: people share sets of intersubjective assumptions [assumptions, assumptions, assumptions, assumptions -- it's lost all meaning :P], and the Constructivists focuses on these. An example can be the view of national identities as social constructions. These shared assumptions make up and express the interests and identities of the people, e.g. how people see themselves in relation to others. There’s a focus on how these relations are formed and expressed, e.g. through colective social institutions such as state sovereignty or anarchy - “anarchy is what states make it to be”.

Normative theory.
Normative theory is mainly concerned with the moral or ethical dimesion of international politics, such as the ethical relation between societies and states. They’re also preoccupied with finding principles for legitimacy and prerequisites, rather than explanations. Furthermore, Normative international political theory is pre-positivist: They claim that so-called non-normative theories are value-based, too, but that they simply fail to be explicit about their normative premises and values. The empirical focus of normative theory is typically rules for just wars and human rights especially within international institutions. There are two main theoretical directions, one cosmopolitan, one communitarian. [The links are to articles dealing with these ideas more generally, so you'll have to figure out on your own how this'll fit with normative theory...]

Feminist theories.
Feminist theories often occupy a middle ground between Radicalism and Reflectivism, and is a kind of umbrella category for a lot of theories characterised by a common focus on genders, the relationship between genders, and women. One of the main theories is the liberal feminism. Liberal feminist political scientists try to documentise the importance of women in international politics. Marxust feminists, on the other hand, relate the social position of women to capitalist exploitation, while socialist feminists emphasise the structure of both capitalism and patriarcism. Additionally, there’s postmodern feminists, who focuses on gender as a social construction for differences, caliming that “man” and “woman” aren’t natural categories. Finally, there’s a group known [yeah, right :P] as point-of-view feminism, focusing on women rather than gender, on the degree of and way that female experiences have been ignored or unfavourablycompared to male experiences. Point-of-view feminsts seek to develop a feminist world view.

Historical sociology.
Historical sociologists seek to explore how states, classes and war act together in the development of the former. They ask how various kinds of states have risen as a result of national as well as international forces, with a basis in the assumption that states are different and therefore functions differently, as well.

Critical theory.
Critical theories reject the fundamental postulates of Positivism, that there exists (a) an objective, external reality, (b) a separation between subject and object, and (c) a neutral science. Adherents to this theory claims that all knowledge reflects the inetersts of the observer. Critical theorists have a political goal: to liberate humanity from the “dictatorial” structure in world politics and economy, which is based on hegemonic powers. Because of this, they see theoretical debates as political or ideological debates, and they separate between problem-solving theories and critical theories. [The difference between these are explained in another post.]

There is a problem, however. Critical theory reduces theory to ideology and political programs. This undermines the independence and integrity of science. [Why should the critical theorists care about this objection? It's what they bloody want, ain't it?]

[On my way back to normal!]