Just like any other field of study, the study of
International Relations has been constantly evolving over the years as new
researchers come up with different concepts and ideas to explain the dynamics
of International Relations. Starting from the first debate, following to the
second debate which has eventually led to existence of the “Third Debate”. The
Second debate as we already know discussed the best possible methodology to
study the International Relations. The positivist approach towards
International relations depends on science and mathematics and thus considers
empirical evidence as the main source of knowledge. However, with the theory
facing intense opposition, the Third Debate emerged with post-positivists
disregarding such a nature of knowledge.
Yosef Lapid in “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of
International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era” discussed the debate in great
detail shredding light upon the post-positivists era. He talks about three central
approaches which have been adopted in this so called post-positivist era.
Paradigmatism, criticizes the concept of making generalizations under the
scientific approach and instead recommends the in depth analysis of long lived
multi-tiered constructs. The second approach, Perspectivism, focuses on taking
in to account and analyzing all possible assumptions behind a concept leading
to knowledge. As far as Relativism is concerned, it talks about the different
scientific approaches that can be incorporated within a field to study concepts
in detail.
As mentioned above, the field of International Relations has
been constantly evolving and can be characterized be long lasting debates. However,
this debate has not been put forward that effectively by Yosef, mainly because
of the terminology he has used in the paper. The complex jargon makes it
difficult for students of our age to analyze the article properly. Even if the
paper was meant for higher studies, the language of the article should be easy
to read for students of every age considering the importance of the topic in
the field of International Relations.
Yeah the jargon was definitely a bit more difficult in this reading.
ReplyDeleteIt was almost impossible to read! I must have read the thing four times.
ReplyDeleteyeah i agree the language made it impossible to undertand the arguments presented in this debate
ReplyDeleteBut one should note that this debate was written back in 1980s, 25 years ago. Authors during those days adopted a flowery language and a tone which was usually found in classic English novels.
ReplyDeleteDecent summary and I think everyone is in agreement about how poorly the article is written. But Taha, 25-years is not that long and there is a lot of good writing that exists from the time. I think it just boils down to the fact that some people write better than others.
ReplyDelete