Paradigms of Explanation in Historical Studies of War

The constructive role of war in the life of human societies has led historical studies to provide multiple explanations of this social phenomenon. If we accept that this confusion and multiplicity of explanations is the result of historians' different epistemological perspectives, then recognizing the paradigmatic foundations of explanatory models will be the way to overcome this confusion. Based on this, the article seeks to explore the criteria determining the correct application of explanatory models in historical studies of war. If we assume that the social ontology of historians has methodological implications that are more compatible with an explanation model, then the problem of the article can be answered by formulating three paradigms of explanation in the historical studies of war. Based on the understanding paradigm, the application of the understanding model of explanation implies accepting the atomistic answer to the problem of agency and structure and denying the determining role of social structures in the occurrence of wars. In the deductive-nomological paradigm, the application of the covering law model of explanation will be correct only if the claim of holistic ontology on the determining role of social structures and culture is taken for granted. In the narrative paradigm, in order to explain wars as social phenomena, one must consider the agency and structure as overlapping dualities, with reference to structuration, and plot the narrative by taking into accout the two-way effect of social situations and the response of historical agents to the situation.