Session 19: The Devil’s Advocate

The third great debate in international relations of rationalism versus reflectivism has ushered the new era of post positivism in the IR theoretical field. Yosef Lapid examines the reactions and prospects of this transition. His piece titled “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era” focuses mostly on the feeling of celebration, excitement and optimism the transition to post positivism has triggered.

He explores three themes of post positivism- paradigmatism, perspectivism and pluralism. He examines how all these have led to an explosion of theory and how it has been regarded as liberating by many because of its ability to be more tolerant and humble because it makes room for varying perspectives.

His main aim is to evaluate this optimism. To play the part of the devil’s advocate. According to him, this optimism is dangerous because it is ‘an enthusiasm of newly initiated departures rather than a sober celebration of safe arrivals.’ Thus one must be wary to been so optimistic right at the starting point. Sure it gives multiples routes to take but that multiplicity is potentially disastrous because it can lead to one getting lost in the anarchic midst rather than reaching a coherent destination. It can also cause redemption of vast bodies of literature just because the evaluation standard has changed and he uses the very apt metaphor of an archer shooting his arrow first and then drawing a bull’s eye around it to explain it. He also warns that excessive questioning of assumptions can exaggerate and problematize issues more than they are in reality. This is self evidently dangerous because it can skew theoretical work. Another danger he warns against is excessive liberating of assumptions and methodology and how it can lead to lower quality work. All this can lead to excessive fragmentation and incoherency in the field, turning into a wild jungle rather than a well kept garden.

It seems like Lapid is, bluntly put, being a party pooper (and here I was, thoroughly enjoying constructivism *le sigh*). But in my opinion his advice for caution is not misguided. His call for restraint and caution is actually important and can substantially help the field of IR. Very often when one gets too much freedom, one runs away with it. Rather than getting carried away and running like a moth to a flame, it is better to exercise caution as he has prescribed. That cautionary tale is as old as history itself. IR theorists will be wise not to fly too close to the sun like Icarus and destruct at the hands of their own fluttering, overeager wings. So perhaps Lapid’s raining on the parade of those celebrating post positivism is not necessarily a bad thing.