Ideal-Types Herman Rogers -- Colorado State University Social phenomena cannot be adequately explained by political science.

Although research in political science contains advanced statistical and mathematical models, prediction of social events cannot occur beyond immediate contexts (for example the failure of International Relation theorists to predict the end of the Cold War). The reason for a lack of scientific prediction within political science stems from the errors in our ideas and approaches towards social reality (assuming social activities occur in relation to a spatial world). Although there are multitude of errors, this paper will focus and address the errors in adopting materialism, individualism, and Rational Choice theory in social models.1i However, this paper is not arguing that materialism has no place among social research but that materialism and rational choice theory should be a jumping off point to begin a new theoretical structure for social models.2 Unfortunately, it is out of the scope of this paper to incorporate this entire concept with its many facets. What it will attempt to do is show how focus upon material indicators leads to an inaccurate model of how political reality can persist and how identities, symbols and ideas can influence how social reality behaves.3ii General Laws in Social Science Previous and current theoretical IR pieces rely heavily upon the ability of scholars to observe phenomena in the objective world and thereby explain and describe particular
1 One could argue that science and its approaches are inadequate for the social sciences and that we must derive new methods, this is particularly an interesting debate with post-positivists. 2 This paper also does not state that Rational Choice theory is the only theoretical perspective in International Relations. However, many of these ideas (i.e. post-positivism, constructivism) attempt to synthesize the argument between normative ideas and rational behavior or merely provide a antithesis. 3 There is a distinction between the flow of ideals in an intellectual sense (i.e. blueprints, pharmaceutical compounds, computer software, etc.) and the ideas generated at the unconscious level that shape the way we think. A perfect example is the concept of the individual which is instilled into society by the works of Rene Descartes, John Locke, etc.

axioms. The logic of this thinking is that by observing constants in human behavior political science would be able to derive general laws to develop a framework of models which will allow future prediction. Game theory uses this general logic of applying mathematical models to a 'game' context to allow accurate portrayal of decision making in social reality. General laws and their application to natural phenomena has led to great success and prediction in the natural sciences. It is only natural that such methods were adopted into political science by IR theorists in hopes of erecting a social positive theory. However, the assumption that laws can be derived from the social realm, and applied to political science has not led to the level of discovery persistent in the natural sciences. However, this inability to apply natural scientific methods to the social world is not a failure, but opens IR theorists to discover an even more intricate world.iii As Max Weber once stated the reduction of the empirical [social] reality...to 'laws' is meaningless... a systemic science of culture...would be senseless in itself.iv The real problem with the adoption of natural scientific methods into a social scientific discipline is that observation of social phenomena is heavily relativistic. Robert Keohane suggest a similar concept in After Hegemony by suggesting that harmony persists in the natural sciences by not requiring human agency.v Social reality, unfortunately, does not contain harmony since every aspect of social phenomena and the subsistence of social systems requires interaction between human actors. Therefore the logic can be applied that if harmony is required in the natural sciences to derive general laws, and harmony does not exist in the social world, then general laws cannot be created within social reality. Here this argument is provided in a logical proof displaying its validity: Symbols Laws Proof Construct S = Social Systems, H = Harmony, G = General Proof

(S => ~H) Finally (N => H) ~S ~G (H G) ~(S v G) / (S => ~G) ~(~S => G) ~~S => ~G

(H => G) (G => H) (H => G) (G =>H) ----> ~G => ~H ~H => ~G ~~G v ~H

~(~H G) ~(~G H) Therefore H ~G ~H

---->

Conclusion ~~H v ~G (S => ~G) Apply 'H' to S => ~H Giving ~S Therefore this argument claims that every context in social interaction relies heavily on relativistic terms between observer's. If general laws and contexts cannot be created then a foundation of a different context must be discovered to based social practice upon. Materialism The concept of certainty is dependent on a pattern to emerge in any phenomena we observe. To progress in a scientific field the discovery of empirical laws is vital and it is unclear what this bears for political science. What is known however, is that several constants in social reality must be dismantled. One of the most important constants we maintain is the idea of materialism. However, materialism only outlines what lies physically within social phenomena and ignores symbolism and ideas. Symbols and ideas can have a very real impact upon social life.vi The second axiom this paper will discuss is the impact of ideas, as well as symbols, and how we must re-conceptualize what we think an idea represents and how ----> G

reality reformulates itself (initially stemmed by Hegelian idealism).4 To demonstrate this point I will begin with a though experiment. First, let us take the concept of the boiling point. If we take into consideration the environment of which the water is boiling (which can be held constant) then the basic definition of a boiling point is the point at which a liquid becomes vapor (or boils)vii. All liquids have such properties. It is also important to note that a boiling point occurs within nature 'harmoniously' and not dependent on a system of actors to occur. The important concept the boiling point in nature does not exist. This is not to say that water does not boil but the concept of a 'boiling point' is a human creation through an idea and has no bearing on what water actually is. What this means is that, although today, in our language, there is a point at which liquids boil, it is just as easy to say the opposite. In other words, imagine a different planet populated by humans who have discovered the properties of liquid vapor. In there texts the have noted the importance of the points at which water remains non-boiling and the points at which it boils, however they do not take note the point where water begins to boiling. Essentially the boiling water can be expressed by a boiling point or the points at which it does not boil and begins to boil, the fact remains that our ideas and our language structures how we see the world.5 This assumption implies rejection by the mainstream IR community because of the emphasis placed upon materialism and individualism.6 Although this argument contains parallels to IR idealism, and both poles of thought are antithesis's, it is not my attempt to overwrite materialism as legitimate. Hedley Bull states it aptly. If men in their
4 Note that Hegelian idealism expresses the concept of ideas and their impact upon the world which is far different from idealism in International Relations. Here we're talking exclusively about ideas and what they mean, not interpreting the world using Utopian ideas (saying how the world is vs. how the world should be). 5 Remember we are not discussing water itself but the idea of a boiling-point which can very easily be reworded into a different observation of important elements. 6 However, I would feel better with this argument if I could derive it in mathematics and logic more rigourously.

wants of material things were wholly egotistical, the stabilization of possession is conditional. If men and their wants of material things were wholly altruistic in relation to these wants, such stabilization would be unnecessary.viii In essence my aim to not to provide a Hegelian synthesis of materialism and idealism but to reflect how social reality truly exists.ix Conclusion Although hard-constructivists and post-positivists would question who gets to determine whether something is objectively true (therefore why impost a theoretical view), social reality is a world of our making. If we choose to reject empirical-only analysis in political science, then there is freedom to aberrantly think about political reality. It would allow ways to denote that political reality can exist beyond the material world and allow the possibility and implication that ideas, language, and symbols play a major role in the behavior of social reality. What must be noted is that the aim for a reconstructed theoretical approach should not overthrow the established paradigms nor provide an antithetical position. A new theoretical approach must be build upon the foundations of rational choice theory and its mathematical perspectives while incorporating the ideas of antithetical views. If this can be done then a clearer picture of the nature of social and political life could be derived.

Held p. 549
ii

Held p. 549-550
iii

Keohane, location. 496-506

iv

Ritzer, p. 116
v

Ibid
vi

Jung p. 34-45
vii

Hegel
viii

Bull p. 8

ix

Ibid

Works Cited

Anderson, Charles, W. Lecture-46: Hegel. University of Wisconsin, iTunes University. Becker, Theodore, L. Quantum Politics: Applying quantum theory to political phenomenon. Edited by Desmond Lee. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1991 Botcheva, Liliana, and Lisa Martin L. 2001. Institutional Effects on State Behavior: Convergence and Divergence. International Studies Quarterly 45 (1): 1-26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3096099 (accessed April 2011). Bull, Hedley. The Anarchical Society. 3rd ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Hegel, George Wilhelm Friedrich. The Phenomenology of Mind. Translated by J. B. Baillie. 1807. University of Idaho, n. d. http://www.class.uidaho.edu/mickelsen/ToC/Hegel%20Phen %20ToC.htm (accessed April 2011). Held, David, David Goldblatt, and Johnathan Perraton. "The Globalization Debate." In Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations, 547-70. 3rd ed. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2006. Jung, Carl, G. Man and His Symbols. Edited by Desmond Lee. New York: Dell Publishing, 1964. Keohane, Robert, O. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. Amazon Kindle E-Book. Lerner, Daniel. "The Grocer and the Chief." Harper's Magazine, September 1955, 47-56. Miller, John, H., and Scott Page E. "The Standing Ovation Problem." Complexity 9, no. 5 (MayJune 2004): 8-16. Ritzer, George. Sociological Theory. Edited by Desmond Lee. 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008. Wendt, Alexander. "Anarchy is What States Make of it." In Classic Readings and Contemporary Debates in International Relations, 352-73. 3rd ed. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2006.
Zukav, Gary. The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Edited by Desmond Lee. New York: HarperCollins, 1979.