International Relations. A self-Study Guide to Theory

In quantum physics, particles do not have defined properties. The state of 
any sub-atomic particle can be described by a wavefunction. The wavefunc-
tion is a mathematical expression which calculates the probability that a par-
ticle, when measured, will have specific properties; for example, if it will be 
in a given location or state of motion. It is a wave of possibilities. The prop-
erties of the particles are not given. Instead, they are possibilities – elements 
of the wavefunction, which is a statistical law of probability. Their very ex-
istence as a particle is a wave-like probability. In other words, elementary 
particles do not exist as material particles “as such”, but as a “possibility”, as 
an element of a quantum possibility wave. Thus no certainty exists with 
which to predict an atomic or sub-atomic phenomenon (Capra 2012: 67).
With this new information, the particle, which in classical physics is a 
solid, material, separate entity, can no longer be understood as a static object. 
It has instead become a dynamic structure, a process of energy that can mani-
fest as the mass of a particle (Capra 2012: 77, 80). The atomist material onto-
logical statement that matter is made of tiny, indivisible elementary particles 
can no longer be sustained. Against the background of quantum physics, we 
should instead speak of processes as the ontology of matter. 
As mentioned above, a central feature of these processes is that particles 
never exist as single, separate entities, but are entangled, connected. For 
quantum physics, the relations between particles are more important than 
their individual, particular manifestations. In classical physics, it is not the re-
lations between the entities but rather their individual properties and appear-
ances (atomism) that proves key to the world view. In quantum physics, in 
contrast, the properties of a particle can only be understood as having been 
derived from that particle’s activity and interdependencies. 
With the mounting evidence in favor of processes of quantum mechanics, 
classical models of atomism such as the model of the atom as a planetary sys-
tem cannot be sustained. There are thus no solid particles moving around the 
nucleus, but rather waves of probabilities (Capra 2012: 69). Quantum physi-
cists therefore suggest that, in order to better understand the universe, we 
view it as a dynamic web of inseparable energy structures, an integrated 
whole (Capra 2012: 80-81). Quantum physics points to a fundamental unity 

---

98 
and a dynamic character of matter. Particles are thus not isolated entities but 
integrated parts of a whole (Capra 2012: 80). This unity takes us back to the 
old ontological view held in Greek antiquity that “physical/mechanical forc-
es” and “matter” are distinct (Capra 2012: 81). In quantum mechanics, matter 
is a web of interrelations between the parts of a whole (Capra 2012: 68). 
These interrelations include the observer, as the properties of an atomic ob-
ject can only be understood in terms of the interdependency between the ob-
ject and the observer/the measurement process. The classical view of an ob-
jective description of nature being possible no longer holds true for quantum 
mechanical systems; the Cartesian distinction between observer and observed 
cannot be maintained in the subatomic world. Observer and observed are in-
stead part of a single system. Furthermore, there is no independent observa-
tion and hence no objective knowledge. 
Admittedly, these new models and theories are not easy to bring into line 
with the way “objects” are observed on the macro-level of everyday life. As 
quantum physicists admit, the predictions of quantum laws are actually coun-
ter-intuitive. However, exactly this paradox has been proved by quantum 
physics: the ontology of physical objects is contradictory and paradoxical and 
yet, as complementary aspects, those paradoxes themselves are a central fea-
ture of reality. 
At present, a widespread discussion is taking place on whether the findings 
of quantum physics are valid for the macroscopic world of our day-to-day life 
“on earth” or whether they only hold relevance for our view of the microscop-
ic sub-atomic world and for cosmological phenomena relating to the entire 
universe. In fact, the current state of knowledge in physics is now going to be 
based on different, partly incompatible paradigms – classical physics and the 
laws of new physics. We will not find satisfying answers in such discussions, 
last but not least because we have only recently developed an increasing 
awareness of the potential implications of new physics for our perspective of 
the world. We must first study and understand the counterintuitive laws of 
new physics, a complex and difficult task given that we perceive new physics 
through the lenses of our classical, Cartesian-Newtonian world view. In fact, 
analyzing the implications of new physics for our world view requires us to 
see things from a totally different perspective than the classical one in which 
we have all been trained and socialized. In that regard, the discussions about 
the rise of a new scientific world view require rethinking, seeing things with a 
different order of thought. It is exactly this need to rethink previously held 
perspectives and beliefs that makes a discussion of the science-physics-nexus 
so interesting for the social sciences as well. We will come back to this idea in 
the final paragraph of this unit and at the end of the book.

---

99 
Prospects 
Quantum physics fundamentally calls into question the very foundations on 
which the classical, Cartesian-Newtonian world view rests: the atomist-
materialist ontology; dualism in regard to mind and matter; determinism and 
the idea of a law-like nature of the order of the world; the view that research-
er and his/her object of scientific inquiry are separate entities. You can easily 
conclude that, in such a world, reductionism and methodological individual-
ism will not make any sense for the practice of science. In addition, scientific 
knowledge will lose its status as “objective” knowledge. If science’s current 
high-prestige status in our societies depends on its association with “objective 
knowledge”, then the interpretation of new physics will have far-reaching 
consequences for the way we perceive the role and function of science more 
generally. If this is the case, we must confront the question of what will then 
provide a “valid” basis for economic and political action.
This unit has been written with the intention of raising some thought-
provoking issues with regard to our idea of science and our world view. It al-
so invites you as readers to actively take part in a debate on the implications 
of our scientific world view for how WE (!) – researchers, students, teachers, 
practitioners of international politics – actually do science, use science, “pro-
duce” knowledge and thus actively shape “reality” by what we do.
I would also like to link our discussion to the current debate about the 
need for a new world view. This debate is extremely broad and goes far be-
yond what has been described above based on the findings of new physics. 
However, I see the current debates on the implications of quantum physics as 
a part of this broader public and societal debate. For us as teachers, students 
and practitioners of international relations, the quantum physics aspect of the 
debate is particularly interesting because of its relevance for science. An in-
creasing number of scientists are convinced that quantum physics has the po-
tential to radically change our classical scientific world view, which is still 
based on Cartesian-Newtonian science (see Dürr 2012, Capra 2012, Bedenig 
2011, Hüther 2012, Knapp 2011). In fact, in recent years physicists have pro-
duced an increasing number of publications in which they “go philosophi-
cal”, pointing to the implications of quantum physics’ recent findings for 
changing our “world view”. You will find a range of such titles in this book’s 
supplementary reading section “New world view”. However, this increase in 
“philosophical” publications holds true for biologists, neuroscientists, neu-
rophilosophers and other scientists too (for biology, see for example the 
overview in Hüther 2012; in biology and immunology see also Han 2010: 5-
16 and Tomasello 2001, 2009).

---

100 
In addition, the broader debate about a new world view demonstrates an 
increasing awareness of the implications of “other” world views, such as 
those based on Chinese, Indian or Arabic philosophies, for the conduct of 
science, politics and economics. These “non-Western approaches” are in-
creasingly being recognized in the natural sciences (for example, Traditional 
Chinese Medicine or Ayurveda in the medical field), philosophy (the new in-
terest in Arab philosophers such as Al Kindi and Ibn Khaldun or in Indian 
and Chinese philosophy), in politics (e.g. a new interest in Indian political 
theory or Chinese IR theory), and business (an awareness of different cultural 
approaches to firms, management and political economy more generally). 
Analogous to the impact classical Greek thought had on European/Western 
culture, science, politics and economics, we can equally assume that the phi-
losophies found at the heart of Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism 
or Arab philosophy shaped world views beyond Europe. Furthermore, these 
world views are equally reflected in the science, politics and economics of 
those areas in the same way European thought is reflected in the Europe-
an/Western understanding of science, politics, economics, etc. (for IR, see for 
example Acharya/Buzan 2010). Learning about these regions thus, requires 
an understanding of positions on international politics that are not European 
in origin.
Why is this discussion a relevant one? 
This book started with the core argument of international politics’ intrinsic so-