Analyzing Multi-Definitional Problems of Concepts in International Relations: Re-Conceptualizing Change

Introduction

International Relations (IR) is an interesting discipline in the field of Social Studies. The discipline itself was first recognized as a separate discipline in 1919 immediately after the end of the First World War (Groom et al., 2019). The initial aim of the discipline was to investigate the causes of the war as well as how it could have been prevented. As a newly conceived discipline, it had no background; hence, in order to achieve its aim, the discipline borrowed its theoretical and conceptual background from a variety of established disciplines such as law, politics, economics, political philosophy, and diplomatic history (Daddow, 2017).

In the history of IR, there have consistently been debates between competing theories, even there is no consensus on how many there are in total. However, four theories have been accepted as markers that have shaped the discipline. In the initial stages, it was the realist critique of Liberal utopians that characterized the first theoretical debate in the discipline. This debate was between realists and idealists, who were arguing over the nature of international politics and the possibility of peaceful change. The second debate emerged in the 1960s between behavioralists and traditionalists on the appropriate methodology (Daddow, 2017) that should be used when studying IR. The next debate was called the inter-paradigm debate, or sometimes referred to as the neo-neo debate, which transitioned IR away from methodological issues. All the parties in this debate accepted the superiority of positivist principles, although the issue of the first debate regarding the nature of scientific inquiry resurfaced (Kurki & Wight, 2013). The fourth debate (some argue that it was in fact the third debate) emerged in the mid-80s and it focused on the role of science in the history of IR. It was characterized as debates between explaining versus understanding, positivism versus post-positivism, and rationalism versus reflectivism. Since that time, there has been an explosion in the number theories within IR, where each one competes for attention in terms of its ability to explain the realities of the world.

Today, it has become clear that international relations as a field have become broader, more extensive and diversified; in a sense, it has become more interdisciplinary (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2017). Evidence of this diversity can be even seen in the name of the discipline itself, where some scholars argue that it is more appropriate to define it as “Global Politics” or “World Politics” instead of IR. Although these are the basic historical evolution of the IR theories known by all the scholars of the field these debates and changing understandings can be related to the construction of knowledge through the work of changing time, space, and socio-environmental context which we will be explaining in the following sections.

These endless debates (within, between, and among the theories) have led to the emergence of numerous concepts and ideas with multiple meanings. These multiple definitions and understandings have generated confusion and vagueness. In another words, (as one of the most frustrating aspects of the discipline) this vagueness is the outcome of intellectual plurality and differentiated perspectives regarding the names and definitions given to the concepts. Above all, this vagueness and frustration leads scholars to question whether it is acceptable to call this area of studies as social studies rather than social sciences (Dunne et al., 2013) (Dictionary, 2014). ¹ By referring as social studies, this does not mean that scientificity or the scientific method are rejected. It is the authors’ belief that the humanities can be studied scientifically, but they should not be called science because, as the definition suggests, science searches for absolute truths or solid evidence, causes and outcomes, and results should have absolute explanation, which can either be proved or disproved. For example, in hard sciences, formulas and theories exist that explain certain things, such as E = MC². This theory will remain valid until it is proven to be false, and when this occurs, the new formula will invalidate the previous one. Hard sciences, such as physics and biology, offer proper textbooks explaining what is right and what is wrong, in no uncertain terms; there is no place for “out of date” theories. Furthermore, the researcher can easily isolate him/herself from the subject they are scrutinizing. However, unlike hard sciences, in social studies, subjects under scrutiny are dynamic, because they involve “human person” and researchers are not only unable to isolate themselves from the subject, but also from the outcomes. This makes it particularly challenging to invalidate any thought; in that sense, it can be assumed that in social studies, no idea ever dies. Consequently, there are now many competing and overlapping theories with multiple meanings and definitions, which means that invalidating any one of them could necessitate the elimination of a potentially correct assumption (Brown & Ainley, 2005).

For example, one can consider what Lieber’s (1973) indicated, with an antient parable that originated in the Indian subcontinent, ² related with several blind people and an elephant. Here, the elephant stands between several blind people, and they all touch the elephant in order to describe what it is. Each will have different explanations and understandings of the part they are touching. It is important to bear in mind that human individuals are prone to skipping not only microscopic details, but also those that are extremely large. One possible explanation for this is the absence or the inability of the human person’s visualization of the totality (Lieber, 1973). Because of this, none of the definitions made by the aforementioned blind people about the parts they are touching will reflect or explain the whole elephant, in other words, its totality. Even their definitions and explanations could be irrelevant to the totality. For example, the person holding the tail might claim that it is a brush and then define it accordingly by explaining its functions, the manner in which it should be used and the material from which it is made. This does not mean that the description of the brush is incorrect because, as human persons, we are the tool builders, name givers, meaning constructors as well as definition creators. In this example, if the elephant represents the truth or real reality, so to speak, then each definition created by the blind persons cannot be eliminated, because each definition is an outcome of the collective experiences of that particular blind person and constitutes a truth in itself. In other words, as Smith (2013, p. 5) indicates, the correct explanation of an issue depends on what the researcher is attempting to explain, and this depends on the researcher’s perspective (values and beliefs). In short, this concurs with Cox’s statement about theories; “. . .theory is always for someone and for some purpose. . .” (Burchill et al., 2001, p. 21; Brown & Eckersley, 2018).

As the authors of this article, it is not our intention to engage in a discussion regarding the hard and soft sciences, and we will not address Social Studies in general or whether it should be called a science or a study. Both have their own rational approaches that create certainties and uncertainties that could be overwhelming. However, the purpose of mentioning their differences is to stress the uncertainties inherent to social studies. By saying “sciences,” the implication that there is greater certainty, whereas “studies” implies that there is a significant lack of certainties. Almost every meaning and understanding of any concept or idea is vague, therefore creating a sense of uncertainty toward it. If we put it in a different way, the different understandings and constantly changing meanings and definitions create this vagueness about the understanding of concepts or ideas. If it is science, these variations would be accepted negatively, because they indicate uncertainty. However, if it is studies, it would be accepted as a form of richness. This is partly due to the impossibility of invalidating any idea, as each reflects differentiated realities that are based on different perspectives and perceptions. Furthermore, it is also because of the awareness among scholars that “no single theory or idea can explain everything.”

Hence, the fundamental aim of this article is to shed some light on the reasons behind the existence of multiple meanings and definitions of the concepts within this discipline and potentially in other areas of social studies. As the authors of this article, we believe that a clearer picture can be revealed through understanding how and why change happens. Of course, writing an essay on this type of subject, in which the length is restricted, creates some impediments, as well as force our hands, as authors, to impose heavy limitations.

The article aimed at understanding why there are always multiple meanings and definitions of concepts. Accordingly, it does not aim at clarifying and removing the vagueness of concepts (including the case studies presented in this article). The belief is that every individual has their own realities based on their relative experiences of time, space, and context. Therefore, there is no universal definition and there is no single meaning of the concepts in social studies.

The aim is to understand the reasons behind changing meanings of concepts. Although change is tried to be re-conceptualized it is not our intention to go forth with in-depth analysis of change. If we tried to do it and go along with every single literature about it requires many volumes of books. However, a quick review indicated us that majority of the studies on change asked the general question such as change in what? indication of change? what has changed? But, to reach our aim, we need the questions such as why and How change occurs? Because of this we needed and tried to re-conceptualize change to fit our needs. In other words, we were looking for the elephant and not the parts of it.

In the process of re-conceptualization, we needed the smallest unit, that is the individual level, to explain why and how as well as the reality or the construction of the knowledge. Although we mentioned individual level, during the cases what we focus on is not the individuals but the concepts themselves because we are not intended to explain and make in depth analysis of those concepts. All we need to see is the evolution of the concepts, and if this evolution has an effect on multiple meanings.

Although we are talking about international relations as a discipline, we need to keep in mind that it is a sub-branch of political science. In international relations during analyzing relations or trying to explain any issues that has international as its origin, we have to consider every different levels of analysis, as global is the most general level and individual is the most specific. As indicated earlier we believe that, although in analysis each level is crucial, the starting point of everything is human in origin, as we are the tool builders, constructors and meaning givers, and so forth. In that sense, in order to understand the reasons behind the multiple meanings, definitions, and changes we need to start analyzing from the individual level. Scrutinizing a huge concept, such as change, in a limited article is nearly impossible. In this article, we are not going to focus on “what has changed?” or “indications of change” but our primary aim is to understand the reasons behind the multiple meanings and definitions of any concept in social studies.

In the first section, we scrutinize change from the perspective of International Relations. As already indicated couple of times, our aim is not scrutinize change by asking what has changed? or change into what? We are going to look at change from broader perspective. In another word we are going to try to look to the whole elephant with the purpose to understand the reasons behind change, and more specifically to understand the reasons why the meanings and definitions of concepts changes and why we have multiple meanings.

The second section is where the real contribution of this article lies. In order to understand the existence of multiple of meanings, we needed to understand the reasons behind those changes in the concepts. As we indicated earlier, the concepts themselves are human constructs and it is in this individual level we need to scrutinize those changes as why and how they happened. Although we tried to look to different literatures on the subject, it is necessary to indicate that, the full and detailed scrutinizing of the subject extends the limits of this article, even extents to be scrutinized in a single volume book but requires volumes of books to cover everything without even without indicating our contribution. In that sense we tried to generalize the approaches to change and what we found is that the common point of most studies answers the questions of “what has changed?” and “how can we identify change?” and with these questions it is not possible to answer why we have multiple meanings of the concepts. In order to understand why human persons understanding of concepts changes, that leads to the construction of new meanings and definitions, we tried to re-conceptualize change.

In the final section we choose some concepts as case studies. We have chosen to scrutinize human rights and globalization with the purpose to demonstrate our result for our re-conceptualizing. The reasons to choose them is our belief that they would be the most suitable cases in order to demonstrate the validity of our conceptualization. In very short summary the generations of human rights that emerged in different certainty (fist, second, and third) as well as the globalization (interdependence and dimensions) Each chosen concept have loads of books and articles. However, it is not our intention to analyze them in detail but to show that our re-conceptualization has the potential to shed some light on the reasons behind their multiple understandings and definitions.

To achieve our aim, we used Qualitative methods. During the re-conceptualization of change various reasoning methods were used. Deductive ³ reasoning was used to understand the concept of change, and inductive ⁴ reasoning used to establish the base for our re-conceptualization. As a final note and limitation related with literature review we left out constructivist perspective because we believe that our re-conceptualization can be accepted within constructivist perspective. ⁵

“Change” in International Relations

As Holsti (1998) indicated in his article, the nature of inquiry in International Relations (IR) is the problem of change. Furthermore, according to Vincent (1983), scholars in Social Studies and specifically in IR have long neglected the issue of change. In his article, Vincent (1983) claims that there are six reasons for this neglect. Accordingly; the first one is that studying continuity is easier than studying change; the second one is emphasis on continuity at the expense of change; the third one is the decline in grand theory; the fourth is the narrow-mindedness in dealing with non-Western systems and studies and the traditional concepts acting as ontological blinders; the fifth is anti-intellectualism; and finally, the sixth is the conservative approaches taken by scholars in their studies (Vincent, 1983, pp. 63–66). In that sense and as Holsti (1998) claims, the problem of change torments IR theorists.

In addition to the abovementioned reasons that push scholars away from change, another problem exists in terms of identifying change, even though there is no consensus on what is meant by the concept. However, there are significant debates among IR theorists regarding the nature of change. In this sense, looking from a pessimistic perspective, realists limit the change to a narrow parameter such as alterations in the power relations (Holsti, 1998). Liberals and constructivists emphasize the variability of state interests, the learning potentiality of policymakers and the progress scenarios. From of the perspective of post-modernist understanding, change has rendered the pursuit of knowledge as we have known it since the time of Aristotle (Holsti, 1998, p. 3). Regardless of the perspectives taken into consideration, the debates surrounding change will never generate a solution. In that sense, in the field of IR theories, change has become a virtually constant theme. However, those themes usually revolve around the questions of “what has changed?” and “how can we identify change?”

What can be observed, specifically in our lives and in the world in general, is that certain things seem to be different than they were previously and the question “what has changed” has forced scholars to identify certain markers of change and those markers of change are cause for debate. Some changes in trends can mark a point such as volume of trade, level of interdependence and population growth, but of course, only if those trends have a major impact on the relations between states. In line with this, change must have a significant consequence (Holsti, 1998, pp. 4–5). On the other hand, for some, change cannot be an accumulation of small acts; it must be significant, dramatic and compressed (Ruggie, 1993, p. 148). In this context, it is a Great Event causing serious disruptions and changes to previous patterns that end one period and mark the beginning of a new era. Global wars can be regarded as monumental events that have undisputed significance, but there is still no consensus as to whether they are the source or the outcome of change (Clark, 1997). Finally, for some scholars, such as Toffler (1980, 1990) and Rosenau (2006), markers can be identified by significant social changes, technological innovations and great achievements, such as the golden age of Greece, the discovery of the new world, innovations in communication and transportation, and the French, British, and other revolutions.

Further studies have shown attempts are rarely made to define change in IR. Although such examples are rare, there are several exceptions in which IR scholars have provided conceptions of change. However, those conceptions represent nothing more than the definition of different types or levels of change. Holsti (1998, pp. 7–9) defined some of them as “change as an addition,” which is the first type/level of change and indicates a coexistence where the old and new supplement each other in a complex manner. For example, generations of human rights do not replace one another but coexist and supplement each other. Another example that can be given is the existence of “Civil Society,” which does not replace the nation state but rather supplements it. The second type/level that Holsti (1998, pp. 7–9) defined, which was one step further, is “dialectical change.” Similar to the concept of “change as addition” this one also does not erase the old one. Instead of old and new coexisting, this time it involves a synthesis of both with complexity. One step further is the “change as transformation” (Holsti, 1998, pp. 7–9), resulting from the accumulation of change that occurs over time in order to bring new forms to life. The old one only exists as a residue or legacy from which the new is derived, such as liberalism and neo-liberalism. The last type is the “change as replacement” (Holsti, 1998, pp. 7–9), indicating a discontinuity in which old forms are replaced by new ones. For example, in Huntington’s (1997) terms, “clashes between states” are replaced by the “clash of civilizations.”

Although they carry some importance, those types or markers are not particular suitable for our aims. These types and markers only answer the questions “what has changed?” and “how can we identify change?” Although it is possible to deduce some ideas about change, they are far from explaining or defining it. In order to understand change more clearly, a specific kind of conceptualization is required, which will be more suitable for the task at hand. In that sense, the following section will establish that specific conceptualization by asking the questions: “how does change happen?” and “why is there change?” or simply put, “why is it inevitable?” By doing so, it will also be possible to deduce various explanations as to why and how there are so many definitions and meanings of the concepts.

Re-Conceptualizing Change

It would be a cliché to say that it is hard to study change because, as with other concepts, there is no consensus on what it is meant by “change.” As Holsti (1998) suggested, “we do not have even the beginning of the consensus on what constitutes change. . .” (Holsti, 1998, p. 2).

One of the famous mottos of Heraclitus (Mark, 2010), the Greek philosopher, is that “the only constant thing in the universe is change.” What he meant by this in simple terms is that change is inevitable and unavoidable. Of course, when he said “universe,” he meant everything and everyone, even time and space, as if change is the engine of the universe. From this perspective, change becomes one of the core essences of the universe, which includes human nature. ⁶ In that sense, like the butterfly effect, any change will have an effect on the human person, changing the way he/she thinks and acts. This change will not only change our personalities, characters, and our perceptions, but also our perspectives including our understandings, ideas, thoughts, and theories. Above all, this change in the human person will cause a change in his/her social environment, which includes the things that are constructed by the human person, such as societies (families, tribes and etc. . .), systems (international system, political system and etc. . .), structures (institutions, organizations, states and etc. . .), and of course, concepts (power, globalization, and so forth. . .). Because of this complex matrix of human life and its relationship with change, it becomes very difficult to understand “the change.” There is no consensus regarding what constitutes change and what it is meant be change and how it is defined (Holsti, 1998).

Some scholars who have focused on the issue of change, such as Rosenau (2006), stress that technology is an important element that has been causing change not only in human understandings, but also nature itself. Major changes in history are always mentioned with technological advances. This might also be observed in the writings of Toffler (1980, 1990) when he referred to the first wave (agricultural revolution), second wave (industrial revolution), and third wave (technological revolution) changes. Earlier in human history, these changes occurred at a slow pace. Humans had time to absorb and understand what was changed and judged it in different dimensions and levels. Starting from the 1970s, as a result of the technological revolution as well as interdependence and globalization, things have developed beyond human imagination and visualization. Change began to happen at an increased velocity. Today, there is no time to absorb and fully understand events. Waters (2009), quoting from Fred Emery and Eric Trist, summarized this situation as; “There can be no awareness of world changes without an awareness of that awareness” (Waters, 2009, p. 11).

Change emerged in international relations in a structural and systematic way, which is a process of cycling back and forth, and visa-versa. It is first the human person that experiences change, then this reflects into the human person’s constructs, such as ideas, theories, communities, systems, and so forth. First it is the human person, then community, society, state and finally the world, and this wave of change cycles back to the human person. Another motto from Heraclitus (Mark, 2010) indicates that “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man,” which makes it clear that depending on time, space, and social environment (or context), the cycle of change will always change what has changed before. This is one of the reasons why scholars tend to question whether theory follows practice or practice follows theory, although, as is generally acknowledged, both influence each other simultaneously. In that sense, one of the reasons for the existence of a plurality of theories and concepts is that scholars investigating issues will attempt to understand and explain what has changed into what, and what it is. All these explanations are based on the scholars’ own experience of that specific time, space, and social environment as well as the context. Above all, as mentioned earlier, because scientists cannot isolate themselves from the subject they are studying, the cycle of change will not only change the issue under investigation, also the scientist him/herself. The thing that the scholar explained will renew itself according to the certainties of renewed time, space, and context, and ultimately, a plural of understandings and definitions of that certain issue (in our case concept) will exist because they are the certainties within the uncertainties of time, space, and context. For better understanding of this “cycle of change,” one must consider Giddens (1984) “Structuration process.” In that process, Giddens (1984) indicates that human actions simultaneously structure and are structured by society (Kaspersen, 2000). In that sense, whatever the scholar thinks and conceptualizes is based on the scholar’s life experience and it is actually shaped by whatever he/she conceptualizes as well (as indicated by Giddens in the problem of isolation). Accordingly, investigating why and how change happens will facilitate the understanding and explanation of certain realities from a wider perspective.

When the evolution of the human person and the associated constructs is examined, it can be observed that all, tribes, kingdoms, empires, and states as well as their policies and structures were formed and shaped by human persons. Therefore, even a single change in human life has the potential to affect the relations between states in the international arena. It is important to keep in mind that every action, cooperation, war, revolt, coup-d’état, etc. depends on human persons. Rubinstein (1981) by quoting Karl Marx and Frederic Engel’s understanding of history, stress the importance of the human element:

“History does nothing: it does not possess immense riches, it does not fight battles, it is man, real, living who do all this. . .. . .. . . It is not ‘history’, which uses man as a means of achieving – as if it were an individual person – its own ends. History is nothing but the activity of man in pursuit of their ends. . .” (Rubinstein, 1981, p. 108).

According to the above quote, in order to determine why and how change occurs, the smallest unit, the human person, which is the constructor and the meaning giver to all, should be the primary focus of the study. Of course, the human person does not give meaning or construct things out of the blue. As Yurdusev (2003) indicated in the introduction section of his book, International Relations and the Philosophy of History, the experience of history goes through certainties of time, space, and society, the human person has managed to establish and accumulate the necessary knowledge to construct and to give meaning. Even looking to how Yurdusev (2003) can explain history in the light of time, space, and society (context) ⁷ and will shed some light on what we are looking for. He began by quoting and explaining what Graham Green statement that “A history has no beginning or end: arbitrarily one chooses that moment of experience from which to look back or from which to look ahead.” (Yurdusev, 2003, p. 1).

He indicates the obvious uncertainty and paradoxically the certainty that all human person experiences. Accordingly, when looking at history from a point, it becomes obvious for the human person that it has backward and forward extensions, which makes it uncertain. However, at the same time, its certainty becomes obvious because we find ourselves in a point among those extensions. At that point of certainty, we discover that we are in a place because we have to be somewhere, here or there and, when we became aware of it, it becomes a distinct here differentiated from there. It is certain that we find ourselves in a place, but the uncertainty about this space is the existence of innumerable here’s and there’s. Additionally, the interchangeability of here’s and there’s between different people, and between now and then makes uncertainty more obvious. According to Yurdusev (2003), this creates the idea of space (with extensions such as region, territory, earth, and so forth).

Within that space that we found ourselves, we notice that it changes. The sun rises and goes down, leaves fall, and flowers open, we are experiencing and going through happenings, changes, alterations, and occurrences. In short, we are experiencing the time (extensions such as seconds, minutes, days, weeks, years, and so forth) in an uncertain way, because the moment we are experiencing is the present that has no duration; the time we experienced is the past, it has already ceased to exist and we cannot do anything; the time that we are going to experience is the future, it does not exist yet and we can only dream about it. Among these uncertainties, there is one thing that we can be certain about, which is that we are going to experience it (Yurdusev, 2003, p. 2).

When we are experiencing the certainty of space and time, we will notice that we are not alone. We are experiencing those certainties of space and time with others within certain settings. Yurdusev (2003) indicates this in terms of humans in a society. In our socio-environmental context, we notice that it has uncertainty because there are many other people and constructs (tribes, clan, systems, and structures) and it has certainty because we are definitely experiencing a certain context with someone. According to Yurdusev (2003), when we reflect upon space, time, and society, we receive knowledge, and within this knowledge, we have everything that is related to humans, namely science, IR, theories, concepts, structures, systems, history among others. Also, as Giddens (1984) argues, the relation between time and space expresses the nature of what the objects are (Kaspersen, 2000, pp. 46–47).

What Yurdusev (2003) proposed with his expression of knowledge, which includes time, space, and context with their paradoxical and immediate certainties and uncertainties, can clearly be accepted as an answer to the question regarding why change happens. Scholars who investigate particular issues and explain them are actually putting forward their perceptions of the certainties of time, space, and context in which they find themselves. They investigate, study, and explain the subject under scrutiny according to that certain time, space, and socio-environmental context, in which, whatever they explain is true or false because they explain the where, when, what settings, and with whom they found themselves. However, the paradox, or the competing and completing parts of certainty, is the uncertainties of time, space, and the context. These uncertainties are the reason for change, where in every point of certainty within the uncertainty, there will be change. As indicated by Heraclitus’ (Mark, 2010) motto “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man” these uncertainties of time, space, and society represent the reason or the answer to the question why does change happen. In this essay, it is believed that this existence of immediate certainty and paradoxical uncertainty also explains why there are so many different concepts, with a plurality of intellectual ideas and perspectives. Hence, the next question concerns how this change happens.

In order to find answers to the questions of how and why change happens, it is important to consider the human person and discover what the reality is for that human person.

People never really come into direct contact with reality in the world. There is never a perfect match between one’s perceptions and reality (DeVito, 2017). In addition to our sensory nervous system, our experience of the certainties of time, space, and context, our motivational state (needs, expectations, psychology, and so forth), relating and communicating with other human persons that operate in a world of feelings, attitudes, values, aspirations, ideas, and emotions are all believed to have an impact on how we know, perceive, and process our world.

Perception is evidently a complex, dynamic, interrelated composite of processes by which people maintain contact with the world around them. Through our capability to hear, see, smell, touch, and taste, we constantly create internal images of our physical, metaphysical, societal, and contextual world that we encounter within the certainties of time, space, and society and then convert them into meaningful experiences. It seems clear that any perception is an awareness that emerges as a result of a highly complicated weighing process that an individual undergoes as his/her mind takes into account a plethora of factors or cues. The weighing process, resulting in a perception, is performed for purpose, whether that purpose is seeking food, picking up a book, or accepting or rejecting some political ideology (Samovar et al., 2015). Accordingly, perception can also be defined as an implicit awareness of the probable consequence an action might have for us with respect to carrying out some purpose that might have value for us (Cantril, 1968, p. 7).

Whatever we perceive from our experiences of the certainties, they all occur in our inner world. However, as previously stated, when referring to the certainty of our society, this indicates that no individual in this world has ever been born and raised in complete isolation. No man is an island, entire of itself (Cherry, 1966, p. 4). When others are involved, we interact and as a result of this interaction, there is no other option but to communicate.

The word “communicate” simply means “share” and it is essentially a social affair. A group of people, a society, or a culture could be defined as people engaged in communication. Communicative actions may be unconscious to us, but others may note them and may subsequently be consciously influenced in some way. In turn, their consciousness of the unintended or intended communication may lead to conscious communicative feedback or reactive behavior (Cherry, 1966, pp. 2–3).

When we are sharing what we have perceived, we are actually transferring our experiences of the certainties of time, space, and context (social environment). Experience, in the context here, refers to each of us of making sense out of our environment through the development of structure, stability, and the meaning for our perception (Samovar et al., 2015). These perceptions in communication indicate certain rules and norms that should be followed when we are in relation with others, which during this process of communication, establish our character and personality. These, in turn, become our perspectives (understandings, theories, and ideas), through which we begin to perceive the world in which we live.

Looking through our perspective (understandings, theories, and ideas), which is constructed by the process of communication (establishment of norms, rules, character, and personality), transforms the reality that we perceive into a constructed reality based on how we observe things from our perspective. Furthermore, because of that, we can assume that we never truly come into direct contact with the reality.

Additionally, because of the paradox of uncertainties (as previously mentioned in terms of why change happens), our perspective is likely to change repeatedly. In that sense, the experienced certainty of our context (that establishes our rules, norms, and characters), with the existence of uncertainties, will inevitably change. With this change, our definition and understanding of everything will be modified to suit the present certainties. It can also be claimed that this process is valid for every human person, each creating their own unique perspectives and understandings. Ultimately, there will be a plurality of differing versions of definitions and meanings that change according to the certainties and uncertainties of time, space, and context.

In relation to Antony Giddens theory of structuration and what our article indicates, the human person that lives in a certain time, space, and context is simultaneously experiencing and constructing the reality in which he/she lives. Accordingly, the human person’s understanding of certain concepts, ideas, and theories come from those realities that he/she constructs through experiencing certainties within the uncertainties. Additionally, the next certainty within the uncertainty will be different from the previous certainty and this is how and why change happens. In that sense, it is possible to see and observe in detail the reasons behind the differing definitions, meanings, and understandings of concepts in IR.

Cases

Concluding Remarks

In this article what we tried to do is to understand the reasons behind multiple meanings and definitions of the concepts, specifically in international relations and generally social studies. Even, as indicated in the introduction section, international relations as a name have different understanding. In the initial stages of the discipline, it was called “International Relations” where the aim is to study the relations among states. However, during the course of time, we can observe that, today it is not only states but non-states actors such as governmental and non-governmental organizations have some sort of authority over states. This is due to the changing certainties of time, space, and the context within their uncertainties which push us to rethink and change the meanings of things that we, as human persons, have constructed. It was obvious that those differences are related to the changes happened in time, space, and context. In that sense, in order to understand those differences in the meanings and the definitions first thing we need to do is to understand the “change” itself.

Due to our area of study (that is International Relations) the first place that we investigated change is within our discipline. As we have dwelled on change in international relations it became obvious for us that the same confusion about the name of the discipline also effecting the understanding of change. In international relations change is associated only with international and global levels, asking the questions such as “what has changed?” and “how can we identify change?” If we simply put it, what was explained was the parts of the elephant that touched upon.

Accordingly, what we needed is to have a more general understanding of change, which will answer “why?” and “how?” change happens. Even so in our review of related literature we could not find a suitable approach that would help us to understand the nature of changes in the meanings and definitions of the concepts. Hence, what we needed is to re-conceptualize change in order to help us to understand the changes in the meanings and definitions of the concepts. as a focal point of our article, we believe that our re-conceptualization can also contribute to the other fields of social studies. Because the base structure of this re-conceptualization asks the question “what is reality,” it can be used, for example, during the process of conflict resolution which might explain the sides that everyone’s reality is different due to different certainties of the experiences and perceptions of time, space, and context. In the third section of the article, we tried to understand why and how meaning and definitions of certain concepts, such as globalization and human rights has changed. When we applied our re-conceptualization to these concepts what we observed is that; although this re-conceptualization requires more work to be perfected, it still manages to shed some light on the reasons behind the changing meanings and definitions of the concepts.

If we try to summarize shortly of our re-conceptualization of change; as Heraclitus indicates, everything in this universe does not have any choice other than to change. Human persons, as a part of this universe, are also prone to change. Because of this, everything that we construct is also likely to change. Although certain things in nature existed before the human person, such as trees, rocks, and so on, it is the human person’s ability to think, give meaning to them and constructs something out of them. While giving meanings and constructing things, we tend to focus on the certainties of time, space, and contexts. In fact, this is a necessity for us (humans) in order to adapt to the changing environment.

However, because of our inability, at least for the time being, to perceive the uncertainties (of time, space, and context), this obscures our vision when attempting to visualize the bigger picture. In other words, we are all blind and we try to explain the parts of elephant that we are touching. Every point of certainty we experience within uncertainty, forces the meanings and understandings that we have constructed through experiencing the certainty of time, space, and context to change. Our consciousness and experiences exist in the certainty of time, space, and context, and we try to understand, define, give meaning, and construct things according to that certainty that we found ourselves within the uncertainties, which is destined to change with another point of certainty.

As indicated above, these paradoxically simultaneous certainties and uncertainties partially explain why things that we construct are changing. Also, our conceptualization of change explains how we perceive, give meaning, define, and construct our environment and also enlightens us about why and how change happens. The meanings of concepts changes depending on how we perceive the realities. With the process of communication, which establishes our norms, rules, and so on, we construct our perspective, and through our perspective, we construct our realities.

Philosophers and thinkers perceive those concepts and define them according to their own certainties of time, space, and socio-environmental context. This also illustrates that different certainties within uncertainties always change what is perceived in that certainty and this will repeat itself in another point of certainty, thus changing the meaning and definition of it. Consequently, this explains why and how change happens as well as why there are so many definitions and understandings of the concept.