Conflict is something which is central to the discourse of International Relations. If we are not talking about state conflict on political grounds, we are talking about conflicts of ideologies and philosophies within the field of IR. This ideological conflict comes in the form of the three great debates. The first debate, between the Idealist and Realists, reflected the inherent differences of each school. The realists argued that the anarchic international system had constructed a security-over-everything atmosphere which is why cooperation between states would lead to conflict. The idealists disagreed with this, stating that institutionalism and mutual cooperation were the key to resolving conflict and restoring peace. The second great debate, between the realists and behavioralists, took a turn from concepts and moved to method, giving rise to the scientific vs classical approach to the study of International Relations. The third and most recent great debate, called the inter-paradigm debate, features the Rationalists and the Reflectivists, and is analysed and explained through Yosef Lapid's piece 'The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post- Positivist Era".
The 'rationalist' school believes in a rather positivist methodology when theorising data, placing emphasis on measuring mainly what can be observed. The relativists then come in and provide a platform for data to be theorised on subjective grounds, where morals, ethics and values are imperative in the measurement of a concepts validity. Lapid supports the philosophical and scientific analysis of International Relations theories, where theories are now constructed on 'non-observability' rather than pure observations. This is somewhat interesting, as it could really go on to change the entire scope of International Relations as a social science. It accelerates communication between International Relations and other sciences such as Psychology and Sociology, as one can now analyse and interpret the cognitive and social conditions of interactions between not only states, but also non state actors. One downside to this freedom to theorists is that they can make claims on non-observable grounds, and as Lapid argues, can lead to distortions from the truth and an even more contradictory nature of the field.
The third great debate, as pointed out by Yosef Lapid, not only allows for more debate, but can revamp the way International Relations is studied. He does agree that if not used properly, and without proper checks and balances on the claims of theorists, the final result would be chaos and confusion. However, if used properly, concepts such as ideas, morals and values pave their way into International Relations, which leaves room for interpretation, rather than sticking to the claims embodied by schools of thought such as Realism, Marxism and Liberalism. This gives us, international relations students, the opportunity to analyse the world around us through a lens which does not limit us to an anarchic international system and human nature. Everything makes sense when you look at it from a different perspective.
I agree that Yosef Lapid allows for IR to evolve into a new paradigm. I enjoyed reading your post and you summarise all three debates really well.
ReplyDeleteYosefs reading was quite complicated and you summarized not only his essay but also the three debates quite neatly and in an easy to understand manner. And i find your point of view quite interesting when you say that everything makes sense when you look at it from a different perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt's great that you're thanking him, but spell his name correctly (Yosef Lapid). But good post. Its strength was in its summary of the Great Debates, though it would have been more interesting to hear details about the post-positivist perspectives that you liked.
ReplyDelete