Session 19 - Theories and explanations

The need to explain is the basic instinct of the human mind. It is in this pursuit of explanation that the brilliant minds of human race are bent. Be it the field of Physics or International Relations or any other discipline, scientists and scholars are making hard efforts to get an explanation for how this world, or for that matter this universe, works. Through the times many theories have come forward for the explanation of the workings of different systems, each negating the other or arguing against it. It is in this state, where sprouts the desire of a unified theory that is applicable to all the situations and is infallible.

From my perspective in the field of International Relations the process through which this ‘ultimate’ explanation is being sought has been started by Yosef Lapid, knowingly or unknowingly, in his ‘Third Debate’. I think it is this same instinct that prompted him to write this article. He has talked about a lot of ‘-isms’ in his article and I think he is trying to find the ‘perfect’ explanation for how the International Relations work.

 I do not agree with how Yosef (in the case of International Relations) and others (for their respective disciplines) are trying to get to the explanations for the things working out the way they do. Things have their own way to work out. Some work out in one way and others work out in other ways. One may develop a different theory for every different case but devising one that encompasses all of them is not possible in my opinion. The fact that there are so many theories circulating in the field of International Relations makes it evident that after something has happened one may develop a theory to explain it, but there is no guarantee that the same theory will work for the cases in future too, like there was no theory to predict the end of The Cold War but, once it had ended constructivism was formed to explain it.