Since its inception, the field of
international relations has gone through several evolutionary phases which have
resulted in a turnaround in how the international arena is conceptualized. The
1st Great Debate in IR took place in the 1920s & 30s between the
Idealists and the Realists. In that debate, the realists believed that anarchy
and state survival ruled the interactions between states; whereas for idealists
international agreements and institutions were of paramount importance. The 2nd
Great Debate of IR (1950s & 60s) was between the behaviorlalists and
realists over the different approaches (scientific or classical) to IR. The 3rd
Great Debate in IR was an ‘inter paradigm’ debate which took place in the 1980s.
The debate features Rationalists and Reflectivists. On the one hand,
Rationalists espouse a positivistic methodology and though they acknowledge the
intricacies of the world, they favor to measure what can be observed. On the
other hand, Reflectivists do not prefer this positivistic outlook rather; they
advocate the subjective study and believe that values cannot be divorced from
observations.
The reading for today by Yosef
Lapid analyzes the causes of this debate and tries to decipher its implications
on future study of IR by critically examining it. The focus of the essay is on
the ‘optimistic response’ which has been generated as a result of this debate.
The article has a cautionary tone as it states that ‘post-positivism offers
nearly as many dead ends as it opens promising paths for future research.’
Moreover, Lapid also states that one should exercise prudence when it comes to
assigning unrealistic ‘theoretical hopes,’ and thus, he advocates against the
unbound optimism which ushered in with the 3rd Great Debate.
The reasons he provides for putting
the ‘celebratory pattern’ (as put forward by Anthony Giddens) under scrutiny
are many. One of them is that according to him, this overwhelmingly positive
response should be questioned in order to figure out whether the field of IR is
actually on the brink of a revolution in thought or is this optimism just “obsessive
discoverer’s complex.”
In my opinion, Yosef Lapid’s point
of view regarding the unbridled optimism is worth considering. However, even
more interesting are these debates which keep occurring and changing the nature
of IR. These debates are reinvigorating as they challenge existing ideas or
further validate them. They have helped to keep the field of IR relevant
through constant evolution. And each debate lays the foundation for the next.
Thus, in this manner, the field of IR has developed complexity since its
inception and will continue to hone itself as the debates continue.
Link used:
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/05/20/the-%E2%80%98great-debates%E2%80%99-in-international-relations-theory/
Just like International Relations have changed considerably over time, so have the methods employed to study IR. They allow reconsideration of traditional ideas and development of new ideas that would help improve the spectrum through which intricacies of the international system are viewed.
ReplyDeleteOne believes that IR field is opening up new avenues of research and it is taking itself out of the classical debate of realism and liberalism. So, it is evident that the field is seeing radical change.
ReplyDeleteGood post and comments. As Ali notes, IR has now opened up to radical change through the process of debates. I'm glad that you noted Lyla how complexity has increased in the field because of this debate process.
ReplyDeletewow Sir, you're actually reading all the previous blog posts. Such dedication *thumbs up sign*
ReplyDelete