Session 19- Hello Lapid :)

The reading by Yousef Lapid talks about how the International Relations Theory has entered into an era which can be termed as the ‘Third Debate’. Previously we studied about the first and second debate which focused around Idealism versus Realism and the Classical methods versus the Scientific approach.

 However, what makes this debate unique is that it focuses on the ongoing arguments between multiple paradigms which have survived into the post-positivist era. It mainly contrasts and compares the Liberalist, Marxist and Realist approaches to the study of International theory.  Even though he points out that if the Third Debate is not interpreted properly it would cause confusion and the desired outcome would never be reached, the major drawback of his work is that he used complicated terminology unnecessarily which made his work difficult to read.

  

Moreover, he focused on three main ideas in order to represent the evolution in international relations. The first idea which he talks about is that of paradigmatism which emphasis on the value of structures that have survived through the ages. He argues that if an institute or doctrine manages to survive or has multiple layers of information should be preserved and given importance.   The second concept is of perspectivism which says that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. The last idea put forward talks about relativism. This denies the concept of the existence of an absolute truth. Hence because there is no one right or wrong way of doing things, conflict arises which according to Lapid is healthy because without conflict better and richer theories do not emerge. The study of international relations would end up being boring if everyone starts to view the world from the same lens.

Lastly, according to Lapid this change in the field of International theory in a post-positivist era should be viewed from a positive perspective because with the decline positivism came new opportunities which could be availed to understand international relations from a whole new angle. Lapid also argues that in the post-positivist world, variations in methodology, ideas, styles and attitudes should be encouraged as consensus, harmony and full consent amongst scholars is not always required. Instead as mentioned above, multiple arguments and opinions and different methods are more important because they lead to the evolution of international relations theories.