Say Yes To Debates

 

                The study of international relations is a volatile subject, this is certainly not an implication of any sort of weakness but rather a strength. The world keeps changing, every year is an eventful addition to our history books. These events can be summed up into two categories, those that strengthen our biases and those that smash them (The latter being more prone to Analysis) Therefore studying these events, identifying their causes and building upon them as a basis of selecting appropriate action requires the aforementioned Volatility. Yosef Lapid in his piece, argues pretty much about the same thing. That of a third debate. His arguments are based on the Transition of the theoretical framework in IR from a positivist-empiricist domination to the importance of Behavioral Sciences. (This is also somewhat similar to our reading structures) This trend is not limited to the science of International relations, but has been observed in almost all interlinked sciences.

                The first great debate to engage IR theorists was the debate between Idealism and Realism, which dominated IR theory in the 1930s and 40s. These were the initial years of IR theory, and the years of the World wars, thus explaining the dominance of a “war or peace” approach. The second great debate was between Behaviouralism and Traditionalism during the 1950s and 60s where theorists argued upon the adaptation of scientific methods in the study of IR. It still remains integral to IR.

                “The Third debate” as Yosef Lapid highlights is between the positivists and post-positivists. This debate is rather critical debate which aims to challenge the prevailing assumptions that have existed in different paradigms, in the post-positivist era. He compares the theories put forward by different schools of thoughts dominating IR. Through this analysis he aims to further the theoretical framework that exists in the post-positivist era.  Lapid provides three themes that have helped shape this debate; Paradigmatism, Perspectivism and Relativism respectively. These three themes help guide the building of theoretical framework in IR. This, according to Lapid should be viewed with a sense of optimism, thus should be seen as groundwork for better theories. He basically tries to argue for a transition that has ensued in the post-positivist era. And although his piece is rather difficult to interpret, it is in my opinion a fascinating approach towards the change in theoretical framework.