Shit! There is another debate in International Relations and it is between Positivism and Post-positivism. This is a third debate, written by Yosef Lapid, in International Relations which was followed up by two earlier debates between realism and behaviouralism. As Steve Smith sums it in International Theory: postivism and beyond, positivism "is a methodological position reliant on an empiricist epistemology of the world in justification by (ultimately brute) experience and thereby licensing methodology and ontology insofar as they are empirically warranted" (Smith 17).
Honestly speaking, I didn't enjoy reading this piece by Lapid for many reasons. First of all it was very difficult to read that I have to keep the dictionary near me. There were so many difficult terminologies and words which made it difficult for me to understand the text.
The criticisms which Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach have made in the website of International Studies Association are justified. Lapid's Third Debate failed to change the opinions of positivists who continue dominating, according to Ferguson's observation, popular journals and departments especially in US. The major failure of The Third Debate is that it couldn't establish a degree to which the theorists, striving for balance, could expressively analyse conflicting interpretations of a certain phenomena. This debate doesn't allow IR to develop a practical theory which could explain important trends, events and results "that shape our lives and threaten our well-being and survival" (International Studies Association). Although the debate has promoted diversity and highlighted major shortcomings of strict positivism, it has proliferated "incommensurable post-positivist islands" ((international Studies Association). Instead of promoting "a genuine search for understanding" (International Studies Association), it has promoted certain beliefs that echo "thinly-veiled ideological posturing" (International Studies Association).
I believe one shouldn't give too much importance to this third debate. It should be treated, according to Ferguson in International Studies Association website, merely as part of IR's history. We already have studied the debate by Hans Morgenthau and now this one by Yosef Lapid. If we love talking about debates in IR so much then I agree with Yale Ferguson's argument that perhaps we should come up with a Fourth Debate which would enable us to use theory effectively to address matters pertaining to real world.
Smith, Steve. 1996. Positivism and beyond. In: Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds., International Theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11-44.
Full link of the website International Studies Association from where I have taken help from: http://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/312/Reflections-on-the-Third-Debate.
Honestly speaking, I didn't enjoy reading this piece by Lapid for many reasons. First of all it was very difficult to read that I have to keep the dictionary near me. There were so many difficult terminologies and words which made it difficult for me to understand the text.
The criticisms which Yale Ferguson and Richard Mansbach have made in the website of International Studies Association are justified. Lapid's Third Debate failed to change the opinions of positivists who continue dominating, according to Ferguson's observation, popular journals and departments especially in US. The major failure of The Third Debate is that it couldn't establish a degree to which the theorists, striving for balance, could expressively analyse conflicting interpretations of a certain phenomena. This debate doesn't allow IR to develop a practical theory which could explain important trends, events and results "that shape our lives and threaten our well-being and survival" (International Studies Association). Although the debate has promoted diversity and highlighted major shortcomings of strict positivism, it has proliferated "incommensurable post-positivist islands" ((international Studies Association). Instead of promoting "a genuine search for understanding" (International Studies Association), it has promoted certain beliefs that echo "thinly-veiled ideological posturing" (International Studies Association).
I believe one shouldn't give too much importance to this third debate. It should be treated, according to Ferguson in International Studies Association website, merely as part of IR's history. We already have studied the debate by Hans Morgenthau and now this one by Yosef Lapid. If we love talking about debates in IR so much then I agree with Yale Ferguson's argument that perhaps we should come up with a Fourth Debate which would enable us to use theory effectively to address matters pertaining to real world.
Smith, Steve. 1996. Positivism and beyond. In: Steve Smith, Ken Booth, and Marysia Zalewski, eds., International Theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 11-44.
Full link of the website International Studies Association from where I have taken help from: http://www.isanet.org/Publications/ISQ/Posts/ID/312/Reflections-on-the-Third-Debate.
Haha, that would have been a better title. I too felt that the it was more of an English paper than an IR debate. Had the author used less complex vocabulary, we would have grasped the concepts better.
ReplyDeleteExactly Laila. Sorry I have to delete that comment because sir has asked us to write in standard academic language and I felt that writing in French isn't the standard that we are using
DeleteWell talk about an eye-catching beginning! Also, I think your original title must have been: merde-il-ya-une-autre-debat, which I believe is French for "Shit another Great Debate". Very bold.
ReplyDeleteAnd I see that you deleted the comment, but no worries - I understand your position quite clearly. Don't worry, you'll still get full credit because of your solid analysis. I'm glad that you found the link on the reflections on the Third Great Debate useful!
And I salute you sir for reading all our blogs which were now beginning to accumulate. It needs more than a human effort to read all of them and only u can do it!
ReplyDelete