| The purpose of my dissertation is to reclaim the validity of the “historical sociology” approach to international relations constructed by Raymond Aron and one of his most prominent successors, Stanley Hoffmann.; My central claim is that the procedure of “understanding” (Verstehen) stressed by Max Weber is decisively important for Aron's and Hoffmann's approach, and the procedure is exactly what many other approaches (such as Realism, Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and Constructivism) have not taken seriously. International Relations is a human science, which is qualitatively different from a natural science. This is the starting point for both Aron and Hoffmann. If we rightly implement a procedure of “understanding,” we naturally come to grasp the “whole of reality.” Unlike many other approaches that purport to be as “parsimonious” as possible, Aron and Hoffmann attempt to avoid “excessive use of Occam's razor” and a loss of such vital elements as institutions, culture, and moral values. They fully understand that human sciences are comprehensive and holistic.; In chapter 2, I explore the foundation of Aron's and Hoffmann's approach and show how strongly it is influenced by Max Weber's understanding of “social action.” In chapter 3, I take up Aron's analysis of the security issues. Seeing that his approach is very much influenced by Clausewitz, I mainly focus on how Aron understands Clausewitz's most important concept, “absolute war,” and show how Aron uses the concept to analyze the contemporary issues. In chapter 4, I take up Hoffmann's analysis of American foreign policy. I argue that Hoffmann bridges theory and practice more successfully than other approaches because he focuses not on “structure” or “interest” but on the “restraints and choices” of the actors.; Chapter 5 concerns the normative theories constructed by Aron and Hoffmann. I argue that Aron's and Hoffmann's ethical studies are successful because they analyze both what is and what ought to be and create a mutual “warning” system between the two.; In the concluding chapter, I reassert the usefulness of Aron's and Hoffmann's approach with reference to currently prevalent approaches to international relations theory. |
