Session 19: Wait. What?

The discipline of International Relations, like any other social science, has been undergoing a process of evolution since its inception as a formal area of study. The discourse regarding IR first revolved around the divide between the Realist and Idealist schools of thought as means to analyze the behavior of states in their interactions with each other. Although this debate has been ongoing since the 1920s, the debate between the use of history vs. the use of empirical evidence to theorize in the realm of international relations overtook the discussion. The “Third Debate” arose as a result of the decline of the popularity of the positivist approach towards international relations as a means to identify the nature of knowledge. Yosef Lapid, in “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era” attempts to explains the origins and future of the third debate that ushered the international system into the “post-positivist” era. 

Lapid presents post-positivism as “philosophical platform” that draws upon themes from various philosophical traditions. Employing a“the celebratory pattern” as a response to the “awakening of the metatheoretical impulses”, Lapid highlights three central features of the post-positivist approach he has taken: Paradigmatism, Perspectivism and Relativism. “Paradigmatism” rejects the use of empirically corroborated generalizations, and asserts that “multi-tiered” constructs should form the basis of all knowledge. This allocates a three dimensional space for knowledge which places humans at the centre of “social-intellectual-ethical complex known as science”. In addition, “Perspectivism” signals a shift towards analyzing the premises and assumptions behind all knowledge claims. Lapid however, does acknowledge that emphasis on the underlying assumptions has been a recurring theme in international relations and therefore, is not a novel phenomenon. Furthermore, “Relativism” signifies as shift of the debate towards “methodological pluralism” that allows for an adoption of multiple research strategies and the incorporation of a wide range of scientific dissensus within the discipline of IR.

Judging from the headings in the article, it is true that Lapid has addressed the discussion regarding the third debate in a systematic manner providing insight into the reasons behind his “optimism” regarding post-positivism and acknowledging the limitations of his theory. However, the intense use of technical IR jargon made this a particularly difficult piece to read, let alone analyze. This negates the efficacy of his work as it is lost on the reader and therefore, may have actually contributed very little to the field itself.