The fundamental dilemma in the middle power study is the repeated epistemic fallacies that attempt to answer an ontological question of middle powers with epistemic features. With the common epistemic belief that middle powers are significant actors that play some constructive roles, South Korea is automatically designated as a middle power as long as the agent (researcher or practitioner) finds comparable middle power‐like characteristics in South Korea's material attributes and foreign policy behaviors. However, this research adopted a critical realist research design that addresses the epistemic fallacy and finds the “real world” that makes South Korea's middle power categorization necessary. It analyzed South Korea's middle power rhetoric in South Korean presidents' and foreign ministers' foreign policy discourses, and ultimately uncovered that the “real world” behind South Korea's middle power rhetoric has been its environment comprised of the dominant and less dominant countries. As the less dominant country, South Korea has utilized the middle power title to balance and neutralize the asymmetrical power relations and create an environment more conducive to South Korea's national interests. This includes the removal of South Korea's deeply ingrained victim mindset. Yet, it should be emphasized that such a conclusion is valid only because of the critical realist research design, committed to ontological realism, epistemological relativism, and judgmental rationalism. If not, South Korea's unequal power environment would be viewed as merely an additional condition that a “middle power” South Korea must deal with.

中文翻译：

---

什么样的“现实世界”使韩国的中产阶级分类成为必要？*

中间力量研究的基本难题是反复的认识论谬论，试图回答具有认识特征的中间力量的本体论问题。普遍的认识论信念是，中间国家是扮演某些建设性角色的重要角色，因此只要代理人（研究人员或实践者）在韩国的物质属性和外国特征中都具有可比拟的中间国家特征，就会自动将韩国指定为中间国家。政策行为。但是，这项研究采用了一种批判性的现实主义研究设计，该研究设计解决了认识论的谬误，并找到了使韩国的中等国家分类成为必要的“现实世界”。它在韩国总统和外交部长的外交政策话语中分析了韩国的中间大国言论，最终发现，韩国中等国家言论背后的“现实世界”一直是由主导国家和主导程度较低的国家组成的环境。作为控制力较小的国家，韩国利用中间强权头衔来平衡和消除不对称的强权关系，并创造一个更有利于韩国国家利益的环境。这包括消除韩国根深蒂固的受害者心态。然而，应该强调的是，这样的结论仅是因为批判的现实主义研究设计，致力于本体论现实主义，认识论相对论和判断理性主义才是有效的。如果不是这样，韩国的不平等权力环境将被视为韩国“中等大国”必须应对的附加条件。