Yosef Lapid in his article," The Third Debate: On the prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era" argues that field of international relations is growing its spectrum of analysis on both the philosophical and scientific grounds, and scholars have started to theorize on the assumptions that communicate the nature and non-observable reality of things. It means that the scholars have turned into the interpretive mode rather than strictly clinging to observable data and proving hypothesis on the basis of evidence gathered.
One believes that this shift in the research patterns of international theory is significant for the development of the field, because scholars will have the opportunity to look into the behaviors and cognitive levels of state actors that make decisions in states' interactions. What this means is that scholars will now interpret the behavior of state actors without requiring observable proof for their claims. However, Lapid suggests that too much of interpretive inclination is not helpful, because distortions are also possible in the analysis of scholars. Hence, it is necessary that standards and criterion be set for interpretation of states' behavior in order to keep coherence in the analytical conclusions that scholars make.
Moreover, Lapid suggests that the third debate provides an opportunity to analyze paradigms on the macro levels rather than theories on the micro-levels. One suggests that paradigmatic approach is useful, because it elucidates the overall macro-assumptions of a school of thought rather than studying the assumptions of a particular theorist. For instance, Lapid suggests that Wendt has argued that the neo-realism and world system theory are unable to contemplate the relationship between structures and human agents. Hence, Wendt attempts to make clarifications on the paradigmatic level rather than making corrections in the assumptions and rationale of a particular realist or Marxist.
As a whole, the piece is quite philosophical, but provides convincing arguments that the third debate has potential to open up new theoretical research in IR.
One believes that this shift in the research patterns of international theory is significant for the development of the field, because scholars will have the opportunity to look into the behaviors and cognitive levels of state actors that make decisions in states' interactions. What this means is that scholars will now interpret the behavior of state actors without requiring observable proof for their claims. However, Lapid suggests that too much of interpretive inclination is not helpful, because distortions are also possible in the analysis of scholars. Hence, it is necessary that standards and criterion be set for interpretation of states' behavior in order to keep coherence in the analytical conclusions that scholars make.
Moreover, Lapid suggests that the third debate provides an opportunity to analyze paradigms on the macro levels rather than theories on the micro-levels. One suggests that paradigmatic approach is useful, because it elucidates the overall macro-assumptions of a school of thought rather than studying the assumptions of a particular theorist. For instance, Lapid suggests that Wendt has argued that the neo-realism and world system theory are unable to contemplate the relationship between structures and human agents. Hence, Wendt attempts to make clarifications on the paradigmatic level rather than making corrections in the assumptions and rationale of a particular realist or Marxist.
As a whole, the piece is quite philosophical, but provides convincing arguments that the third debate has potential to open up new theoretical research in IR.
Ali this is a fantastic post. You engaged with difficult material in a thoughtful and reflective way. I've seen a marked improvement in your writing style and abilities over the course of this semester. I feel bad that it has taken me so long to read this, but good job! The third debate has indeed opened up new room for theorizing, though as the reflections on the third debate have shown, perhaps the positivists have really taken too much control over the field.
ReplyDelete