چکیده:
AbstractIn present paper, defensive paradigms and policymaking schools are disciplined in a paradigmatic analytical framework and their paradigmatic basic theories are reviewed by which their relation to defensive policy and policymaking is determined. Categorization analysis method based on meaning building relations are used to categorize defensive paradigms and schools. research findings indicate a comprehensive categorization in the format of postmodern, symbolized and descriptive paradigms in line with realism, neorealism, Copenhagen, critical and Paris schools. However, by postmodern discussions, one cannot put these theories only in postmodern framework like feminism which has roots in other paradigms. However, such categorization is not fully separated and comprehensive that a part is due to author’s weakness and a part is due to the nature of human and social sciences in which delineating the borders precisely is neither possible nor the target of the authors; rather, it is enjoyable and motivating like postmodernists’ Canvas Collage.
خلاصه ماشینی:
77 This work, while scrutinizing the Western paradigmatic view and highlighting multiple perspectives and their impact on defense policymaking schools and theories in both theoretical and practical domains, facilitates the possibility of alternative thinking for us; because different ways of looking at the world (paradigms) lead to the emergence of various sciences; different perspectives (paradigms) are linked with their own specific concepts and theories.
Table No. 1: Types of paradigms and defense policy-making schools (Source: Researchers) Security Paradigm | Basic Theories Paradigm Elements | Corresponding Paradigm (Schools) Ontology: General theory of objectivism, belief in an external reality and systems Objective that exists independently of our knowledge.
Traditional Realism With the beginning of World War II and after it, the power-centric realistic view within the framework of systemic theory 88 caused the factors of formulating and implementing defense policy to be seen with regard to internal and external dependencies has been.
Of course, the emphasis on this assumption does not mean that the critical paradigm has nothing to say about technical and strategic defense issues, such as the establishment of military bases or missile issues; rather, it emphasizes that in defense policy studies, it thinks about deeper questions beyond strategic and technical subjects; questions that relate to politics and its foundations (Booth, 2007: 158/ see also: Qaisari, 1393: 850); a question such as whether state authority for defense leads to security?
(
, 
, 
)
