Physicists around the globe are working on a theory which will have aptness to explain all the natural processes happening in the world. Other present day theories will have little to contribute then when that string theory (which physicists call it) will be attained. Similarly, theorists in the field of International relations are also putting their efforts in the search of one ultimate theory which will have potential to explain all the occurrences in international arena.
Debate between positivism and post-positivism is another debate going on in the field of international relations. Positivism is a view according to which there are some fundamental principles on which society works and that knowledge is to explain the events happening in human life. They also focus on observations and experiences of a person. Post positivism, on the other hand is the rejection of positivist ideas. They believe that there is no difference between scientific reasoning and human sense. Scientists follow certain specified paths but these paths are set by human reasoning. They also hold the idea that reality exists imperfectly and we can never achieve the goal of completely knowing the reality.
I am not going to talk about what is wrong with positivism and what post-positivism can do to better the field of IR. My focus here is to argue about how these different and distinct theories are helping to evolve the field of IR and some thoughts on in which manner social sciences is somewhat different from natural sciences.
Like other debates and theories in the field of IR, each of which evolved in response to a major event or to explain the chain of events in international arena,like constructivism arise in response to explain the abrupt end of cold war. Like other theories and debates, third debate also has some shortcomings and dead ends. But the main point is, it is another attempt to strengthen the field and add to the limited resources and relatively small literature field has to offer. Still in its way to prove itself as a dominating part of social sciences, these all theories are valuable to the field despite some shortcomings each bear. Continuous effort is the essence of human wisdom. Like string theory in physics, IR theorists are trying to achieve an ultimate theory and in that process, develop a field rich in its aspects and having arsenal full of influential thoughts and ideas.
Debate between positivism and post-positivism is another debate going on in the field of international relations. Positivism is a view according to which there are some fundamental principles on which society works and that knowledge is to explain the events happening in human life. They also focus on observations and experiences of a person. Post positivism, on the other hand is the rejection of positivist ideas. They believe that there is no difference between scientific reasoning and human sense. Scientists follow certain specified paths but these paths are set by human reasoning. They also hold the idea that reality exists imperfectly and we can never achieve the goal of completely knowing the reality.
I am not going to talk about what is wrong with positivism and what post-positivism can do to better the field of IR. My focus here is to argue about how these different and distinct theories are helping to evolve the field of IR and some thoughts on in which manner social sciences is somewhat different from natural sciences.
Like other debates and theories in the field of IR, each of which evolved in response to a major event or to explain the chain of events in international arena,like constructivism arise in response to explain the abrupt end of cold war. Like other theories and debates, third debate also has some shortcomings and dead ends. But the main point is, it is another attempt to strengthen the field and add to the limited resources and relatively small literature field has to offer. Still in its way to prove itself as a dominating part of social sciences, these all theories are valuable to the field despite some shortcomings each bear. Continuous effort is the essence of human wisdom. Like string theory in physics, IR theorists are trying to achieve an ultimate theory and in that process, develop a field rich in its aspects and having arsenal full of influential thoughts and ideas.
I love the comparison to string theory! Very creative take on a very difficult piece
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zuhair. This is one of your best pieces on the blog and I'm only now getting around to reading it :/
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the analogy and I think that IR has grown tremendously as a field since the launching of this "Third Great Debate" 25-years ago.