Unstated negative-pole assumptions drive scholarly disagreements about a concept

Evidence

Diehl and Goertz (2000; see Klein, Goertz, and Diehl 2004 for an updated discussion) explicitly discussed the negative pole of “isolated conflict” whileThompson never explicitly addressed the negative pole question. Underlying much of the debate about the concept of rivalry were conflicting views about the underlying continuum between the positive pole of enduring/strategic rivalry and the negative. The adjective “enduring” made it seem that temporal duration was core. In practice severity was also very important, because many looked at rivalries as the source of much war. One of the ongoing debates in the literature is the nature of low-level, long-term conflict. The Diehl and Goertz concept of rivalry allows this. In contrast, Thompson’s view is that rivalries consist of “enemies”; they are severe and very hostile relationships. — Gary Goertz, Social Science Concepts, 224

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies that a concept’s negative pole (here ‘isolated conflict’) is a substantive choice, not a formality — and that scholars often leave it unexamined.