The Concept of Paradigm and International Relations

Introduction

The discussion of the concept of “paradigm” in international relations stems from the broader debate in the social sciences regarding knowledge production and its classification according to specific scientific rules. This refers to concepts that transition from one field of knowledge to another. Three concepts, originating from different disciplines, share a common foundation:

1. Gestalt (Gestalt Theory) in psychology, where behavioral phenomena are indivisible wholes.
2. Synergy, where combined elements produce outcomes superior to their individual parts.
3. Interdependence, where the dynamics of a part are incomplete without its connection to others in the global economic and political system.

These principles have come to dominate, making “positive instability” the basis for leaps in human thought.

The significance of the “cognitive map” lies in its reference not only to the totality of information held by an individual or group about themselves and the universe but also to the “network of structured interconnections between information about the self, others, and the universe.” This means:

1. Information about the self, others, and the universe—whether formal or substantive, true or false.
2. The interrelation between information, such as our understanding of the relationship between individuals, the state, institutions, and role distribution—whether accurate or not.
3. A value hierarchy that determines behavioral patterns, resulting from the two preceding elements.

The cognitive map distinguishes one society from another. Two societies may store similar information, but the network of interconnections—which forms the framework for interpreting phenomena—differs, leading to distinct value hierarchies (e.g., Neil Armstrong vs. Yuri Gagarin).

Cognitive Maps and International Relations

Thomas Kuhn captured the attention of historians and philosophers of science by proposing a framework for describing and evaluating scientific research. Despite the widespread use of the paradigm concept, it remains difficult to define due to Kuhn’s initial usage in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). Margaret Masterman identified 21 different meanings of “paradigm” in Kuhn’s work, prompting him to clarify the term in the second edition.

Kuhn defines a paradigm as:

“A paradigm is what the members of a scientific community share, and, conversely, a scientific community consists of individuals who share a paradigm.”

He further explains two distinct meanings:

1. The sociological sense: The entire constellation of beliefs, values, and techniques shared by a research community.
2. The exemplary sense: Concrete puzzle-solutions that serve as models for solving remaining scientific problems.

However, scientific communities are not closed; their shared paradigm can be identified through the behavior of their members.

Paradigms and Scientific Revolutions

A scientific community consists of practitioners in a single discipline who share education, training, and technical literature. While competition exists, it diminishes as members align toward common goals, including training successors.

Communication within the community is strong, and consensus on scientific judgments is relatively high. Examples include physicists, chemists, and astronomers—each with subfields. These groups produce and validate knowledge, sharing a paradigm only after a long journey from pre-paradigm to post-paradigm stages. Initially, competing schools vie for dominance in a field; after significant success, one school prevails, establishing a new scientific practice.

In the social sciences, paradigm shifts occur gradually rather than abruptly. Scientific problem-solving only begins after this shift. A paradigm does not govern a field but a group of researchers. Thus, studies leading to paradigm shifts must trace back to the responsible group. A scientific revolution involves restructuring the foundational assumptions of a research team.

The Importance of Paradigms

A paradigm comprises assumptions that focus researchers on specific phenomena, interpreted through defined concepts. Propositions arise from emphasizing certain relationships between terms, and theories emerge from linking these propositions. This allows diverse theories to be generated from the same propositions.

A paradigm is not methodological but content-based, and it is distinct from a dominant theory. Two key observations:

1. Multiple theories may coexist in a field, or theories may change without a paradigm shift.
2. A paradigm precedes theory, generating theories from the outset. Stephen Toulmin’s question—“What exists in a field before theory?”—is critical for international relations. R.G. Collingwood’s “absolute presuppositions” parallels the paradigm concept.

A paradigm can thus be defined as:

“The fundamental assumptions scholars make about the world they are studying.”

These assumptions answer pre-theoretical questions in international relations:

• What are the central units of the world?
• How do they interact?
• What key questions can be asked about them?
• Which concepts provide answers?

Central assumptions shape a researcher’s worldview, distinguishing the known from the unknown and guiding inquiry into what deserves study.

Historical Perspective

A historical view is essential to understanding international relations and the impact of paradigms. After Kuhn’s 1962 work, inter-paradigm dialogue intensified. The key was not whether Kuhn was right about knowledge progressing dialectically (where normal science triumphs through conflicting ideas) but that his book encouraged radical rethinking, shifting focus from puzzle-solving (routine problems within a paradigm) to deep problems.

Kuhn rejected absolute truth, as human science evolves continuously. Thus, any paradigm’s explanations are limited. Researchers eventually uncover anomalies—contradictions or unanswered questions—that the paradigm cannot resolve.