Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
-
Upload
tobi-erhardt -
Category
Documents
-
view
227 -
download
0
Transcript of Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
1/21
The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist EraAuthor(s): Yosef LapidSource: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Sep., 1989), pp. 235-254Published by: Wiley on behalf of The International Studies AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600457 .
Accessed: 30/11/2013 17:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Wiley and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to International Studies Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2600457?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2600457?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=isahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
2/21
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
3/21
236 Prospects f nternational heoryn a
Post-Positivistra
it Bunge, 1983:270). One finds, n the other
hand, a prescription ora rigorous
philosophy-avoidancetrategy or the practicing
ocial scientist. specially n the
early tages
f
theorizing,o this rgument oes, misplaced ursuits f epistemology
and
philosophy
f
science re bound to be inconclusive nd are likely o come at the
expense of actual research Rosenberg,1986).
Be that s it may, t s hardly isputable hat hedemiseof theempiricist-positivist
promise or cumulative ehavioral ciencerecently as forced cholars romnearly
all the ocialdisciplineso reexamine heontological,
pistemological,
nd
axiological
foundations
f
their scientific ndeavors. As a result, the human sciences are
currently ndergoing n acute bout of self-doubt
nd heightenedmetatheoretical
ferment.
ndeed,
some of the most
highlyprized premises
f
Western
cademic
discourse concerning he nature of our social
knowledge, ts acquisition, nd its
utility-including hibboleths
uch as
truth, rationality, objectivity, reality,
and
consensus, -have come
under
renewed
ritical
eflection
Fay, 1985).
AnthonyGiddens (1979:238) has identified ourtypicalresponses to this re-
awakeningof metatheoreticalmpulses following he collapse of the positivist
orthodoxy: he despairing, he dogmatic, he celebratory, nd his own,thecall
for
a systematic econstruction f social theory.Alarmed by the conspicuous
absence
of a
single shared
conviction
bout the nature and destination f social
theory, he despairing esponse rticulates n instinctiveesirenot tobe disturbed
by foundational,
r
meta -scientific,roblems.Noting hat xperts
n
metascience
rarely gree among themselves, hisresponseclings o pre-Kuhnian erities bout
objectivity,estability,nd falsificationnd encourages ocial scientistso go on with
some
useful
or
practical
work.
Unfortunately,
his
retreatist
attern
neither
addresses
nor
settles he issues raised by the current
ntellectual ransfiguration.
Worse till, hecreative otential f the risis s ost
n
thehaste
f
wanting o
know.
The dogmatic esponse uffers rom imilar imitations.n theface ofexpanding
confusion nd as a result f a foundationalistraving
o
restore ntellectualecurity,
this
response ppeals
to an authoritative
igure
uch
as Karl
Marx or
Max Weber.
As Giddens indicates,however, his reversion o dogmatism voids rather than
confronts he core problem. Certainty s perhaps
artificiallyestored,
but
at an
excessive scientific price.
In sharpcontrast o the firstworesponses, he third ffirmsnd
celebrates
he
supposedly liberating otential
f
the
Babel
of
theoretical oices
urrently
ound-
ing over the ruins of the positivist roject.
t casts
a
new
light
on the
endemic
diversity
f theories
by questioning
he
assumption
hat
convergence
f
belief s
necessary
or
maturity
n
science.
t
seriously
xamines
nsteadthe
possibilityhat,
within imits,diversity f viewpointsmightbe fully compatiblewithscientific
rationality
nd
objectivity.
his
is an
optimistic
esponse,
nd thus Giddens
cau-
tiously pproves. He insists, owever, hat imply
mbracing-or compounding-
this
condition
f
theoretical luralismmay
nadvertentlyggravate
he
crisis.
His
fourth
esponse, ystematiceconstruction,
ddresses his
roblem ytrying
o order
and
transcend
diversity
without
ubstituting
new
orthodoxy
for
the
old one
(Giddens, 1979:240).
As we shall see shortly,
his
far-reaching
nd still
volving
ntellectualransition
n
the
philosophical
nd social
disciplines
has left
ts markon international elations
scholarship. ollowing
he idealismversus
realism chism
f the
1920s
and
1930s,
and transcendinghe more recent history ersus cience exchange
of
the 1950s
and
1960s,
n the ate 1980s the
discipline
tands n the midst f a third
discipline-
defining
ebate
(Maghroori
nd
Ramberg,1982;
Holsti, 1985a; Banks, 1986).
It
is
noteworthy
hat
n
terms
f
methodological
nd theoretical
nnovations
he field
f
international elationswas
and still s an absorber
nd
importer,
ot a
producer
n
itsown
right Halliday, 1985:408). Hence,
prima
acie,
there re
reasons to
suspect
that
ust
as the second debate -the
history
ersus science
controversy-was
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
4/21
YOSEF LAPID
237
wedded to the ascendance of positivismn Western ocial science, o is the third
debate linked, historically
nd
intellectually,
o
the
confluence f diverse anti-
positivistichilosophical
nd
sociological
rends.
Submittinghat the thirddebate
in
international
elations
heoryparallels the
intellectual erment hat ther ocial sciences re presently ndergoing nd that his
debate onstitutes diffuse nd stillmaturing isciplinaryffort
o
reassess heoretical
options n a post-positivistra, this ssay xplores hedebate's tiology nd assesses
its mplications or urrent nd future rospects
or
heoretical rowth. lthough ll
fourresponses numeratedby Giddens are embryonicallyresent
n
the
context
f
the third ebate,this tudy ingles ut one of them-the celebratory attern-as its
main
focus.' This
optimistic
eactionhas
been
chosen
for
three
principal
easons.
First,
t
s
a
salient
nd
provocative esponse
which
merits
pecial
onsideration
n
view
of
a lingering uspicion that something s stillradicallywrong
with
nternational
theory.2What,one might sk, s the nature nd
the
origin
f this
pparent urge
of
optimism? re we truly n theverge
f
a new
ra n
theory
r are we
simply itnessing
an international elations ersion f the obsessive iscoverer's omplex ?3
Second,
from
more
practical oint
of
view,
he
celebratory attern
s
intriguing
because
of
ts xplicit ocus
on
some putativemoments
f
specialproductivity
hich
are
presumably mplicit
n
the current
ntellectual
ransition.
t
is
interesting,
n
other words,to see what types
f
theoretical pportunities nd potentialities ave
been attributed
o
the currentdebate
and what
kind of
theoretical
rojects
re
expected
to
best realize
such
promises.
And
finally,
s hinted
by Giddens's
fourth
pattern, ystematic econstruction,
he
celebratory esponse
needs
constructive
critical elimitation
n
ordertoanticipate nd preempt hedangers f ndiscriminate
theoretical lation.
In
direct nswer o thesequeries
and
concerns
we
posit
hat he
deeper roots nd
implications f the current eason of hope in internationalelations heory re best
explored
in
the context
of
a focused effort
o
understand ome
seemingly
ar-
reaching ramifications
f the
new, post-positivisthilosophy
nd
sociology
of
science. The
following nalysis
s
presented
n four
consecutive
tages.
The first
acknowledges
and
explains
the
difficulty
ome
have
in
identifying
coherent
debate
n
the
emerging
Babel
of
discordant heoretical oices
n
the nternational
relations ield.The second seeks to bring the
third
debate into sharper focus by
highlightingts distinctive ost-positivistrofile.
he thirddelimits he
parameters
of
the
celebratory esponse
nd
explores
the
grounds
for he
optimisticquation
of
the current
ebate
with
promising rowth
n
international elations
heory. he
fourth
section
issues a
general warning concerning
some notable hazards
of
misplaced r extravagantheoretical opes.Whileacknowledginghe considerable
'
Brief reference will be made later to the despairing response. The orthodox Marxist attack on the
dependency and world system
pproaches provides good examples
for the
dogmatic pattern see
Denemark
and Thomas, 1988). The systematic
econstruction esponse
is
certainly ery mportant
nd deserves
separate
attention. But
I
agree with Preston that as formulated
by
Giddens
it comes close to
step
number one in
the
direction of a new orthodoxy
Preston, 1987:75). And like him
I
believe that having ust escaped from one
straitjacket
here s
no point
n
pushing so early
for
new
one
(Preston, 1987).
As an
example, however,
Hoffman's
(1987) plea for dopting Critical
Theory as the next tage
n
nternational elations heory ertainly ualifies
for
the systematic econstruction ategory.
For an
interesting xchange sparked by
Hoffman's
uggestion,
ee
articles
by Renger (1988b) and Hoffman 1988).
2
See, for instance, Waltz's (1979:18) lament: Nothing seems to accumulate, not even criticism. Or see
Rosenau's (1980:129) despair over
the
process
of
paradigm deterioration which,
n
his view,
is
underway
n
the
study
of world affairs.
Reflecting
his
spirit,Gilpin (1984:287) has recently uggested that
the
discipline,
no less
than
its
object
of
study,
s in a
state
of
anarchy.
'
This complex originatesfrom
orokin 1956:3-20) and refers o the periodic emergence n the ocial sciences
of would-be
new
Columbuses who discover
hereto undetected eaps
of
growth
n
social theory.
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
5/21
238 Prospects f nternational heoryn a Post-Positivistra
promiseof the current ntellectual erment,he concluding section singlesout
enhanced
reflexivitys the most important
ontribution o
date
of
the current
theoretical estructuring.
The Third Debate: Disarray
or Theoretical
Restructuring?
Few observers
would
seriously ontest he suggestion hat he field
f international
studies
has
experienced
n
recent
years
sustained theoretical ffervescence. ut
beyond vague
uneasiness ver the
fact hat
no
reduction
eems
to be
obtaining
n
the diversity
f
conceptualizations
nd
higher-orderheories,
ne looks
n
vain for
more
specific
onsensus
on
the current tate
nd future
irection
f the
discipline.
Echoing Giddens's despairing response, we
find at
the pessimistic nd
of
the
spectrum
cholarswho are either eluctant
r unable to
detect coherent
attern
n
the
rampant heoretical peculation.
uch observers
eplore
the
dazing pace
with
which
new deas are superficiallyntroduced
nto
nternationalelations heory, nly
to be discarded subsequentlywith nexplicableurgency.They seem thoroughly
confused by the amount of debris
on
the battlefield f international elations
theory Der Derian, 1987:11) and feelunderstandablyrustrated
t
facing hisvast
intellectualisarray
with
ewguides
on
making
hoices
Lyons,1986:643). Hence,
they onclude that in both theory nd practice nternational olitics an bring n
despair.
This is an
occupational
hazard
in
the field
for
which
here s
no
remedy
(Morgan, 1987:301).
Others,
o be
sure,
would
strongly isagree
with
uch
a
gloomy eading Holsti,
1985a:4). They would counter hat he ively horus
f
contending heoretical oices
in
the field
f international elations
onstitutes
dialogue
or a debate with
he
power
to transform
he nternational elations iscipline. et evenamongthis roup
there sconspicuouslyittlegreementboutwho sdebatingwhom, longwhat ines
of
contention,
nd
withwhat
prospects
f
success.
For
in
sharp
contrast
withboth
previous debates, the residual
confusion ver the
source, nature,direction,
nd
potential onsequences
of the current ntellectual ransition emains xtensive.
t
reaches far beyond technical isagreements ver nomenclature r head countsof
would-beparadigmatic ombatants Holsti, 1985a:5).4
At
first
ight
t is
therefore
ifficult o avoid the
conclusion
that
nternational
relations
heory
has
recently p-graded
ts
profile
s a
fundamentally
ontested
domain
Biersteker, orthcoming).
his
perhapspartially xplains
hereluctance
o
bring
the current
xchange
nto focusas an
intelligible
debate.
But, precisely
n
view
of
this
reluctance,
t
is imperative
o
highlight ome notable commonalities
among thosewho do acknowledge coherent nd consequentialpattern n the
current
ntellectual
acophony
n
the nternationalelations ield.
or
at a minimum
one
finds,
or
xample,
shared
recognition
hat he
third ebate marks clear end
to the
positivistpistemological
onsensus
hatwas
hardly
haken
n
the ourse
of
the
history
ersus
science controversy.Whereas
the
second debate was preoccupied
with
quarrels over methodologynarrowly efined,the third debate is typically
expected
to
facilitate
railblazing
deas
about the
nature nd
progression
f knowl-
4 The nature f the thirddebate may vary
onsiderably long ontological, pistemological, nd axiological lines.
Its scope may fluctuatewidely depending on whetherone opts for a restrictive escriptionof the debate-as a
focused exchange
betweenrealism and neorealism versus all comers and
challengers Keohane, 1986)-or
for a
far
broader
characterization which
specifies
the
emergence
of
a
genuinely multiparadigmatic nternational
relationsdiscipline as
the
outstanding novelty f
the current ntellectual ransition Alker and Biersteker,1984;
Holsti, 1985a). And finally,moving long the plane
of knowledgeversus power, the significance f the debate may
varydepending on whether ne sees it as a battlebetween good and bad ideas in an
insuLlatedcienitificrenia
r
as a series of
intenselypolitical happenings
(Ashley, 1989) occur-ring etween vestedcuLltuLral,conomic, and
political nterestsBiersteker,forthcoming).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
6/21
YOSEF
LAPID
239
edge
in the international elations ield.One also finds shared
appreciation
hat
theory n thisfield s in the process f beingrestructured, restructuring
hich
s
recognizedmoreover s being linkeddirectly
o a similar et
of
debates
ccurring
n
contemporaryocialand political heory Hoffman, 988:91).
The following nalysis makes no attemptto deny or expunge the possibly
irreducible mbiguities f the current ntellectual ransition
n
the discipline. ts
purpose s simply
o
refer o certain hemes
n
the
new
philosophy
nd
sociology
f
science
n
order
to
clarify
he
etiology
f
the current ebate
and
its
promises
nd
limitations.
The Third Debate:
A
Post-Positivist rofile
Especiallywhencomparedwith he simplisticoherence f the positivist hilosophi-
cal
movement, ost-positivism
s not a
unitary hilosophical latform.
t
presents
itself s a rather ooselypatched-up
mbrella or
confusing rray
f
only
remotely
related philosophical rticulations. ence, ifone wishesto refermeaningfullyo
post-positivism
s an
alternative hilosophical osition-perhaps ushering
n
a new
era
in
international elations
heory-one
first
must
dentify
ome areas of con-
vergence
n
the general deas presented y
this new
philosophy
f
science.
A
detailed analysis
of
such convergentpost-positivist
iews
is, however,
well
beyond
the
scope
of
this
paper.5
will
deliberately
estrict
my
attention o
three
themeswhich eem to have been particularlynfluential
n
determining he
tone,
agenda,
and mood
of
the currentdebate
in
international elations
heory. hese
themes-the preoccupationwithmeta-scientificnits paradigmatism),he concern
with
underlying remises nd assumptions perspectivism),nd the drift
owards
methodologicalpluralism (relativism)-are,
of
course,
interrelated.
hey will,
however, e treated eparately ere to elucidatemore learlyheir istinctmpact n
the current
heoretical ebate.
The
Concern
ith
Meta-Scientific
nits
Paradigmatism)
Post-positivism
as
wrought
notable
change
in
the
understanding
nd choice of
proper
units f
analysis
n
the study
f
scientific
evelopment.6
n
sharp
contrast o
the
positivist
hoice
of
the
empirically
orroborated
aw or
generalization
s the
fundamental
nit f
scientific
chievement,
henew
philosophy
f
science nsists
hat
only relativelyong-lived, arge-scale,
nd multi-tieredonstructs-such s
para-
digms Kuhn, 1962), research-programmesLakatos,1970),
research
raditions
(Laudan, 1984), super-theories Gutting, 980), globaltheories Hooker,1987),
and
weltanschauungen Wisdom, 1987)-should qualify
as basic
knowledge-
producing, nowledge-accumulating,
nd
knowledge-conserving
nits.
For
theories
do
not
come to us
separately;
hence
they
hould not be handled as
self-contained
entities.
Above
all, the new philosophical ostureportrayscientific nowledge s a triadic
complex consisting
f
1)
a
phenomenic
xis
covering
he
empirical
ontent f
scientific
heories; 2)
an
analytic
xis
covering hypotheses, xplanations,
nd
theoretical
models;
and
3)
a thematic xis
covering eality-defining
ssumptions,
epistemological remises,
nd other
types
f
distinctlyideological
r
metaphys-
'There is now a voluminous body of literature which seeks to
identify
he
basic themes of the dramatic
revolutions n our
understanding
of
science.
See
Laudan et al.
(1986:141-224), in particular,for a readable
summary f both
convergent
nd
divergent
hemes n the new
philosophy
f
science.
6This
change is
known n the philosophical iterature s the problem of choosing a proper unit of
epistemic
appraisal (Bernstein,1983:24; Pandit, 1983:19; Campbell,
1984:28-30;
Laudan et
al., 1986:154).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
7/21
240
Prospects f
nternational
heory
n a
Post-Positivist
ra
ical ngredients.7he novelty
f this
nderlying ost-positivistroject-postulating
an irreduciblyhree-dimensionalpace
for scientific
nowledge-is
the
explicit
negationof the cardinal positivist remise
which ffirms
he eliminability
f
the
human Margolis,1987:xxii) nd places or replaces)the
scientist
at
the center
f
the social-intellectual-ethicalomplexknown s science Hooker, 1987:10).
Paradigmatism
hus
sserts
hatmeta-scientificonstructsome
and
go
in
complete
packages.
t
follows
hat
nly
broader
conjunctures
f
interrelated
heories,
nclud-
ing their nstated remises nd underlyingssumptions,
an
qualify
s
properunits
of
development nd appraisal
in
science.
It
follows, urthermore,
hat
empirical
evidence
n
the
usual
sense
of
registering objectively
hat one
sees is
of
only
limited utility
n
scientific valuative
appraisal.
For
in
sharp
contrast
with
the
phenomenic xis, the thematic xis-although challengeable
erhaps
n
some
other
way (Wisdom, 1987:160)-is not refutable y direct empirical bservation. his
partially xplains,
s Holton
pointsout, why
cience
s not
one
great
totalitarian
engine taking veryonerelentlessly
o
the same inevitable
oal
(quoted
in
Stent,
1988:37). At the same time t also raises the challengeof formulatinglternative,
rational riteria f evaluative ppraisal
which
cknowledge nd confront ather
than
deny
or
ignorethe non-empirical
ature
f
at leastone
integral omponent
f
all scientific
nowledge Wisdom,1987:160).
Returning
o our
principal oncern
with
nternational elations
heory,
submit
that
paradigmatism -in
the
specific
ense
of an
enhanced
post-positivist
oncern
withmeta-scientificonstructs hich ncorporatentegral hematic
omponents s a
precondition
f
scientific
ntelligibility-presents
tself
s
one
of
the most notable
characteristics
f
the
third
ebate.
For
even
a
cursory lance
t the
iterature eveals
that tudies nvolving ivariate nd multivariateelations, hich
lourished hrough-
out
the 1960s and
early1970s,
now
are held
n
generaldisreputeViotti
nd
Kauppi,
1987:580). The intellectualxchange s no longerbetween ndividual cholarsor
isolated theories, ut between models McKinlay
nd
Little,
1986), paradigms
(Banks, 1985; Holsti,1985a),
research
rograms Keohane, 1984;
Kratochwil nd
Ruggie, 1986; Hermann
and
Peacock, 1987),
research traditions
Biersteker,
forthcoming),
r discourses
Ashley, 989).
The
chosen
unitdiffers
n
accordance
with
respective references
or
Kuhnian, Lakatosian,Laudanian,
or other
more
fashionally post-modernist
onstructs. ut
we
find
n
each case a
remarkable
concurrencewith he
underlying enet
which
postulates
hat
ignificant
heoretical
modifications
nd choices must
always
take into account the
supportive
meta-
scientific
omains
n
which
hey
re
holistically
mbedded.
It is
in
thisgeneral context, suggest,
hatone can
best
understand he marked
popularityf countless ffortso recastthefragmentedheoreticalurnout f the
international elations
field in
terms
of
contendingmeta-theoreticalonstructs
(Banks, 1985; Holsti, 1985a; McKinley
nd
Little,1986;
Viotti
nd
Kauppi, 1987).
There
is
also
the
related
propensity
o
go beyond imple hopping
ists f
would-be
paradigms
or
perspectivesby launching
more ambitious
projects
of
paradigm
demolition
Vasquez, 1983), paradigm ynthesisMaghroori
nd
Ramberg, 982),
or
paradigmproliferationRosenau, 1980). And, arguably,
uch
is
the
ogic
that lso
informs,
or
nstance.Kratochwil nd
Ruggie's
choice
of
the
historicallyvolving
research
rogram internationalrganization)
verthe solated
heoryregimes)
s
their
prime
unit
of
evaluative
ppraisal 1986).
The commondenominatorof these endeavors is the implicit eliefthatthesubstitutionf newmeta-theoreticalonstructsormoretraditional nits fscientific
7
In this nalysis follow rguments presented by
Holton (1987) and Wisdom 1987). Holton's triad consists f
phenomentc,nalyttc,nd
themattc
xes (Stent,
1988:36-37). Wisdom's roughly imilar onstruct onsists f empirical
content,mbeddedntology,nd weltanschauungWisdom, 1987:140).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
8/21
YOSEF
LAPID
241
appraisal is somehow essential
to
locating
and stimulating
enuine theoretical
growth. ortunately-as
ndicated y the tendency o up-grade
heoretical evisions
to would-be paradigm lashes r putative
progressive r degenerative roblem-
shifts -the mpact
ofparadigmatismn current heoretical reoccupations
n the
internationalelations ieldhas started enetrating ellbeyond technical ecasting
of its fragmented heoretical orpus
into revamped nd more
fashionably olistic
blueprints.New
questions are being raised about the dynamics
f
emergence,
persistance, nd the decline
of
meta-theoretical
onstructs
n
the field Biersteker,
forthcoming). he extent
to which contending paradigms are truly incom-
mensurable -incompatible
nd even incommunicable
ith ne
another-is more
seriouslyxamined Krasner,1985).
And
thepotential
orfruitful
ialogue
between
or
syntheses
f contending aradigmaticpproaches s more ystematically
xplored
(Keohane and Nye, 1987; S. Smith,1987:201).
Most mportant,
n
thisprocess
f
expanding
paradigmatism
he third ebate has
progressivelyaken
the format
f a
discourse
bout
the
choice of analytic rame-
works Banks,1985:20). In thismore ophisticatedenseparadigmatismocuses n
the difficult ask
of
formulating
nd
applying
valid-as opposed
to invalid-
evaluativeprocedures
at
the paradigmatic
evel (McKinley
nd
Little,1986:269).
Needless
to
say,
for the timebeing these promising evelopments
ave expressed
themselves
mainly
n a far
greater ensitivityo,
rather
han he ctual
resolution f,
new and hereto gnoredsets
of
meta-theoretical
roblems.
But
giventhis,
t
s still
possible
o
summarize
yreiteratingheremarkable ole played
bythepost-positivist
reformulation
f
the unit
of
scientific
ppraisal in determininghe specifically
inter-paradigmatic rofile
f
the current
ebate
n
international
elations heory.
This
I
submit
ifferentiates
n a
fundamental ather
han faddishwaythe current
controversy
rom
ts
two
predecessors
n the field.
The
ocus n
Premises
nd
Assumptions:erspectivism
In
addition
o
the reformulation
f
the
unit
f
scientific
chievement, ost-positivism
also invokes
a
deliberate
shift
to the
thematic
evel
of
underlying ntological,
epistemological,
nd
axiological premises
nd
assumptions.8
uch
a
refocusing
s
considered
necessary
n
view
f theremarkable
willingness
f
bothnatural
nd
social
scientists
o
disregardempirical
data
that
appear
to contradict heories hat
for
them)
have reachedthematic tatus.
ometimes, herefore,mpasses
n
the
growth
f
knowledgemay
be created
and
reproduced
ess
by
observational
mistakes
in
the
phenomenic xis)
or
by narrowly
efined heoretical
laws
in
the
analytic xis)
than
by generalized risesof basicpresuppositionsthethematicxis).9
Once a
set
of
guiding
ssumptions
s
elevated
o
thematic
tatus,
he
perspectivist
argument uggests,
t
becomes
highly
esistant
o
both vidence
nd
logical
riticism
(Laudan
et
al.,
1986:154).
And
occasionally,
nderthefiat
f
premises
hat ndure
n
the face
of
all negative tests, he entire process
of
theorizingmay
be forced to
preceed long
unacceptably
estrictive
r
misleading
ines.For
nstance,
s indicated
by
the bizarre
ack of
interest
manifested
y
Marxism owards
nationalism,
uch
malfunctions
ay
result
n an
excessive
reoccupation
ith
marginal roblems
while
even
criticallymportant
henomena
re
ignored.
8See, however,Dawson's (1985:373-80) critical istinction etween strong nd weak perspectives nd their
implications or the objectivity
f the social sciences.
For an
interesting ttempt
o differentiate etween paradigms
and perspectives,
ee DeMey
(1982:222-26).
9
Gadamer's
prejudgments,
Holton's themata, Schumpeter's
vision, Polanyi's tacitdimensioll,
or Laka-
tos's hard core are,
n
a sense,
different rticulations f the same
post-positivist
nsightwhichposits hat, lthough
it s often eft
mplicit,what s assumed by
a
given
theory an be far more significant
han what s explicitlytated.
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
9/21
242
Prospects f nternational heory
n a Post-Positivist
ra
Highlighting ssumptions s an important ourceof our scientific
gnorance s
different, owever,
from
submitting
hat
they lways erve to distort heoretical
inquiry.To the contrary,imilarsetsof assumptions nvariably erve
as enabling
sources
of
valid scientific
nowledge.'0 erspectivismubmits,
n
short,
hat
we are
encapsulated n setsof presuppositionswhichmay hinder
or
facilitateheoretical
growth.And if guiding ssumptions re the source of bothour
ignorance nd our
knowledge,t follows hat thefocalpoint f challenge n science hould
becomeour
weltanschauungen Wisdom, 1987:154).
It
should
not
be
difficult o
establish
hat the
currentdebate
in
international
relations heory lso is characterized y a shift
f
attention oward hedomain of
thematic remises
nd
assumptionsHaas, 1986).
This
refocusing xpresses tself
n
a manifest
agerness
f nternationalelations
cholars,
rom
ven
radically pposed
theoretical amps,
to
leave the phenomenic
nd
analytic lanes n order to devote
more
energetic ttention
o
the hidden
domain
of
key underlying
ssumptions.
Perspectivisms implicit,
or
nstance,
n
insights oncerning he inescapabilityf
theory nd in ensuingconcernswithbecoming theprisoner funstated ssump-
tions Keohane, 1986:4).
It
is manifest lso
in a
moreexplicit ensitivityo theneed
to
become clearly ware
of
the perspective
which
gives rise to
theorizing Cox,
1981:128). As a result, ditors nd theorists
n
thefield eem farmorewilling ow to
concede that
readers
re
entitled
o an
exposition
f
underlyingresumptions
n
theoreticalnalyses Rosenau, 1986:854). Notably, ne even hears
the echoes of
perspectivism
n
the embattledbastion
of
international
elations mpiricism, he
data
movement,
ith
prospective
ustomers
ow
dutifullydvised
o
check
which
dataset is the most suitable
n
terms
of
the nature of its underlying
heoretical
assumptions Maoz, 1988:165).
To
be
sure,
he
perspectivist
ccent s most
udible
among
a smallbut vocal
group
of post-positivist,post-structuralist,nd post-modernistritics fmainstream
international elations heory.
As indicated
by
Richard
Ashley's ecentwork, hese
rebels utilize deconstructive nd genealogical ools deliberately
esigned
to
automaticallytarget ssumptive
heoretical
eadquarters.
hese intellectual ech-
nologies postulate
hat
meaning
nd
understanding
re not intrinsic o the world
but,
n
the
contrary,
re
continuouslyonstructed,efended,
nd
challenged.
heir
main
purpose
s
to
problemize nswers,
make
strange
whathas become
familiar,
and
reverse he
process
of construction
n
order
to
reveal
how
problematic
re the
taken-for-granted
tructures
anarchy
for
instance)
of our
social
and
political
world
Ashley,1988, forthcoming; lker, orthcoming).
The
growing
ascination
ith
he
thematic
omponent
f our current
nowledge
of worldpolitics s byno means restrictedo an elitevanguardof post-modernist
rebels. n a
perfect xample
of
perspectivism,
s that
term s used
in
this
essay,
Robert
Jervis a leading
international elations
modernist )
as
recently
emon-
strated hatmodernists an be
quite effective-and,
of
course,
far more accessible
than their
post-modernist olleagues-in exposing major assumptivetraps
in
current
heoryJervis, 988).
To
be
sure,
unlike he
rebels, ervis
as no intention o
deconstruct he
anarchy
ramework. n the
contrary,
e is
evidentlympressed
with ts
upposedlyproven apacity
o stimulate nd
sustain alid theoretical
rowth
(Jervis, 1988:319).
But
he is nonethelessdetermined o demonstrate
how
the
simplifications
f
the
anarchy framework-especially
when
amplified
by game
theory implifications-lead s
to
concentrate
n
questions hat re
not
entral,whileat the same time,wemarginalizemany mportant ueries Jervis, 988:349).
' As Wisdom points out, What the Weltanschauung ffects s
to promote what comes within he poinlt f view
and
discourage
what falls
outside it: what
s discovered n its name can be
valid
if
satisfactorilyested;
what s
not
investigated s a loss. But what
s
gained
s
not herebynvaltd rdstorted Wisdom, 1987:138; my emphasis).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
10/21
YOSEF LAPID
243
Although
t is
possible
to
argue
that he preoccupationwithunderlying ssump-
tions s anything ut new to
international elations heory,my point s thatthis
preoccupationhas acquired new significancen the contextof the third
debate.
Perspectivism,s defined n this
tudy, enotes omethingmore fundamental han
a ritualisticnsistence hat we must examine our assumptions bout the behavior
of
the actors n internationalrenas more carefully Young, 1986:121). It
refers
more to a
rejection
f
empiricism
n
favor
of a
theoretical
pproach
that
ccepts
the place of data in a subordinate
position Halliday, 1985:412). On the basisof
these brief llustrations,t seemsreasonableto concludethatperspectivismn
the
sense
of
a
strongpost-positivistocus
on
thematic remises nd assumptionshas
been internalized
s
a
foremost haracteristicf the third
debate
in
international
relations
heory.
The
Drift
oward
Methodologicalluralism: elativism
The currentfierce ttackon science,objectivity,ruth, nd even rationalitynd
logic, says J.O. Wisdom, may
well be the fiercest ver mounted in history
(1987:159; also see Bernstein, 986). The new epistemologyssociatedwith
Fleck,
Polanyi, uhn,Feyerabend
nd
others s, ndeed, ften ttacked s having
xtremely
relativisticmplications Bunge, 1983:261). This new relativism, osits
Robert
D'Amico, s
far
moreradical
than
previous ersions ecause
t
s secondorder, hat
is, itquestionsnot ndividual
ssertions or their ack of evidencebut the
mplied
and
embedded standards, riteria, orms nd principles hatmakeudgmentsossible
and
give
them
rivilegedtatus D'Amico, 1986:139; myemphasis).By
undermining
objectivity
nd
truth,
his relativizationf
philosophical hinking
as
greatly
om-
plicated he task
of
providing ffective
egitimation
f
knowledge
nd has
rendered
problematiche demarcation f sciencefromnon-science.
The
massivemove
toward
relativism
as had at
least
three
noteworthy
amifica-
tions.
First,
ll versions
f
methodological
onism
eeking
o
institutionalize
tandard-
ized, explicit, nd unchanging riteria or
regulating
cientific
omains-including
the positivist onception
of
the scientificmethod
Tianji, 1985:415)-have
been
rendered uspect y thisnew ntellectuallimate. ar
from
onsenting
hat
pistemic
criteria re destined
o
remain
ssentially nchanged
over time nd
place,
the
new
epistemology napologetically uggests
hat t
is itself
ocially
mutable nd
histori-
cally ontingent. nd, followingmethodologically
rom uch
epistemological
elativ-
ism,
a
vigorouspluralism
s called for. When it comes to theoreticaldeas 'let the
hundredflowers
loom '
(Hooker,
1987:56).
Second, thegrowingrecognition f a multitude f potentially ruitfulesearch
strategies
lso has facilitated better
nderstanding
f science s a
polymorphic
s
opposed
to monolithic
ntity Wisdom, 1987:140).
As the end
product
f
scientific
activity,
ocial
knowledge
s now
more
typically
een
as
a
complex
of
equally
privilegedbut only loosely ntegratable
orms
Margolis, 1987).
And
since these
distinct
ypes
of
knowledge
are set
apart by
characteristic
modes
of
theoretical
growth,
t s essential
o
differentiate
hem
ccordinglyWagner
nd
Berger,1985).
Finally,
he
post-positivist
ndorsement
f
epistemological
nd
methodological
diversity
as undermined heclassic ascination
ith cientific
onsensus, esulting
n
a
new-wave
preoccupation
with
scientific issensus
Laudan, 1984:13)11
This
intriguingclipse
of consensus s
a
prime
desideratum
n
social cience
s of
primary
importance,or tsignals collapseofthehighlynfluential uhnian quationofan
This trend s fed partially y the post-modernist ortrayal f consensus as a horizon that s never reached
(Lyotard, 1984:61).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
11/21
244
Prospectsf
nternationalheory
n
a Post-Positivist
ra
inability
o achieve
paradigmatic
onsensuswith
n inability
o achieve
significant
theoretical
rowth.'
Returning
o
our
main focus of interest,
we note
that the post-positivist
ent
towardrelativism
nd
itsensuing
methodological
amifications
ave clearly
nflu-
enced the toneand substance fthe third ebate n nternationalelationsheory.t
is
hardly ccidental,
or
nstance, hat
despitehigh
motional
nd intellectual
takes,
the
currentontroversy
as
not
been
characterized ythe
focused
ntransigence
hat
marked he two
previous
debates. n tune
with he
post-positivist
plea
for
olerance
in matters
heoretical
Ball,
1987:34),
scholars
have resisted
he temptationo seize
upon
the current
ntellectual ransition
s
an
opportunity
o
impose
a new
set
of
exclusive pistemological
rinciples
nd prescriptions.
Reflecting
deepening
suspicion
of methodological
monism, ven
scholars
who
are otherwise ympathetic
o
positivist
rthodoxy
ow
feel obliged
to concede
the
dangers f monolithic
ogmatism
J. Snyder,
988:190).
The
discipline
s a whole
now seems
favorably
isposed
to consider
alternative
pistemologies
rather han
replacement fone kindof scienceby nother R. Snyder, 985:531). In tunewith
the newpolymorphic
mage
ofscience, t
s nowpossible o posit
hat
both
old
and
new
willbe sciences
lthough
he
purposes
nd
evaluations
will e
different
or
ach
(R. Snyder,
1985:531).
The growing
cceptance
of
methodological
luralism
lso
is
manifest,
n the
endorsement f pluralist
igor
s
the
most
promising
methodologicalosture
for
the fieldof
international
elations
Jervis, 985),
n
the nsistence
n
openness
to
criticism
t every
turn
(Ashley,
1989:30),
in the vision
of thriving
multiple
disciplines
f
international
elations Alker
and
Biersteker,
984:123),
or, even
more explicitly,
n
promptings
o adopt
the
dictum
f
let a thousandtheoretical
flowers loom
Beal, 1980:55).
In
summary,
he present
osition
s indeed
one of
ferment nd transition,markedby pluralismn values,methods, echniques nd
perspectives
Dunn,
1987:79).
Finally,
t
was perhaps
nevitable hat
he
expanding
cceptance
f
a
polymorphic
image
of
science
nd
the
growing
opularity
f
methodological
luralism
lso would
lead
to
reexamination
f cientificissensus
nd ts elationship
o
cientificrogress.
As a result, he earch
for un-Kuhnian
ersions
f
progress
s already
well
underway
in
international
elations
heory Beal,
1980;
Mansbach
nd
Ferguson,
1986).
Irre-
spective
f
other
disagreements
oncerning
he
theoretical
rospects
f the
field,
ne
now finds
onsiderable
onsensus hat
the way
forward or international
elations
theory] hat inds
tself
n
difficultiess
notto
pursue
normalcy'
f
the
Kuhniankind
but to
work
owards diversity
f
strong
aradigms Halliday,
1985:412).
The
Grounds
for Post-Positivist
ptimism
Granted hat ome
post-positivist
essages
have
been
trickling
own
from
he new
philosophy
f science,
why hould
these enets
ranslatentogreater
ptimism
bout
the prospects f
nternational
elations heory?
n
what
basis
and
in what ense
can
one posit
hat he
third ebate provides
timulus,
ope, and
even
excitement
n
the
demandingbusiness
of
analyzing
nternational
elations ?Banks,
1985:20).
What
are
the new
promises
of
international
elations theory
from a
post-positivist
standpoint,
nd
what
s
the
post-positivist
ubstitute
or
the embattled
nd
rapidly
fadingEl Dorado ofpositivistcience?
In
seeking
n
answer
o this
uestion
twillbe useful o take second ookat the
threepost-positivist
hemes
hat urfaced
n our
previous
iscussion.
loser scrutiny
12
Ball
(1987:15-16)
identifies hree
more or less distinct
hases
in Kuhn's reception
by political cientists,
ith
the
current tagebeing
one
of outright epudiation.
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
12/21
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
13/21
246 Prospects f
nternational
heory
n a Post-Positivistra
summarize,
n
both their
hindering
nd their
nablingcapacity,
hematic
ssump-
tions
an
inspire onsiderable ptimism
bout
the
growth
nd
prospects
f
nterna-
tionalrelations heory.
The belief that social scientists re invariably
etter
quipped
to
cut through
assumptive s opposed to empirical mpasses is perhaps overlyoptimistic.'5 y
pointing, onetheless, o the nonempirical phere
of
thematic remises
nd
pre-
suppositions,perspectivism
as
facilitated relative
liberation
f
theory
from
observation Gergen, 1987:2). And this iberation
was
destined
o
be interpreted y
at
least some
scholars s a
good
reason
for renewed
hopefulness. Having passed
through
a
phase
in
which
facts have
dominated
theory,
ne of them
notes
approvingly,
the
ogic
of
our
scholarship
s
carrying
s into
phase
n which
heory
dominates
acts
Banks, 1986:9).
This takes
us
directly
o
perhaps
the
richestmine
of
optimism
mbedded
n
the
post-positivistredosof the thirddebate. Like
other
socialscientists,nternational
relations heorists
an
deriverenewed
onfidence
n
their
cientificredentials
rom
the post-positivist ove toward relativismnd methodological luralism.For the
positivist cientific romise was arrogant
nd brutal
n
its simplicity:This is the
modelof a scientificnterprise,ake t
or
leave
it
Elias, 1987:xix).
For too
ong thetragedy
f nternationalelations
cholarswas,
of
course,
hat
hey
proved incapable of either fruitfullydoptingor decisively ejecting he grail of
positivist cience.
Via
positivism
he
discipline
became locked
in a
sterile
and
frustrating orshipful elationship
o
the
natural
ciences. resentlymerging rom
this elf-imposed ositivist rap,many cholars
re
favorablympressed y the new
latitude
f
maneuver ffered y
multitude f
post-positivistdioms
f
enquiry.And
althoughnotably acking he exclusive
uster f the
positivistmantle
f
science, he
post-positivistounterpart-or counterparts-are
far
more ccommodating
n
their
acknowledged ostureoftolerance nd humility.
The endorsement
f
methodological luralism,
he
emergence
f
a
polymorphic
image
of
science,
and the
reassuring
notion
that
in
the social sciences even
permanent
issensus s
not a
scientific
isasterhave
neutralized
he
once
intimidat-
ing bite of the positivist anti-scientificabel. Small wonder thatcurrentlyssued
verdicts
f condemnation o a lifeof intellectual
luralism Holsti, 1985b:695)
no
longer carrytheirtraditionalmessage
of
scientificespair. Following necessary
period
of
digestion
f
post-positivistdeas,
it s
now
more fashionable
o
posit
that
'much f the strength f the discipline omes
from
he pluralityf its theoretical
orientations Walker,1987:8).
Arguably
t s this
feeling
f an
exceptional openingup
of international
heory
whichabove all sustainsthe hope that,by presenting nprecedented heoretical
potentialities,
he
mpact
f
the
third ebate
may
xceed
by
far
he
ignificance
f
the
two
previousones.
For
some the
main
opportunity
s
to overcomeU.S.-inspired
nationalistic arochialism
nd
create genuinely nternationalheory pplicableto
all
(Holsti, 1985a;
S.
Smith,1987:204).
Others eem
more concerned
with
related
problems
f
paradigmatic ectarianism,dentifyingpportunities
or
new
and
more
energetic yntheses
f
realism
nd
Liberalism
Nye, 1988)
or
realism nd Marxism
(Linklater, 986; Halliday, 1987b).
Still others have identified
pportunities
or
revamping
he
empiricist-positivist
orthodoxy
with holistic
Snyder,1988)
or
interpretive Kratochwil
nd
Ruggie,
1986) correctives;grounding political
realism
and
international heory
n
the
supposedly superior principlesof a realist philosophyof science (Wendt,
15
In
fact,
as Wisdom
points out, problems at the
weltainschauungen
evel
may
prove
far more
difficult
o
overcome
than
problems at theoretical r empirical
evels see Wisdom,
1987:153-54).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
14/21
YOSEF LAPID 247
1987:369); endorsing he epistemological oundations f criticalheory s the next
stage
n
the development f International elations heory
Hoffman,1987;
see
also Ashley, 987); and adopting post-structuralistiscourse
which,we are told,
expands the agenda of social theory, osingquestions hatotherdiscourses
must
refuse
o ask (Ashley, 989: 1).
Other interpretationsf the precise nature
of
the post-positivist
romise are
readily vailable.What eems common o many f thesetheoretical
rojects s their
striking
mbition. n their
ombined ffect he
themes f
paradigmatism, erspec-
tivism, nd relativism-inconjunctionwith he post-positivistlea fortolerance n
matters heoretical-apparently ave generated reservoir f
energywhich eemsto
be
best released by theorizing n a grandiose cale. Indeed,
as
Rosenau remarks,
this s not a timefornit-picking,orfinding aultwith ogue
definitions,mprecise
formulationsnd skeweddata (1986:850).
The Limits ofPost-positivist ptimism
How durable and consequentialwill the current eason of hope
be in the interna-
tionalrelations iscipline?Are we truly n the verge
of
a new era in international
theoryr s tmore ikely hat he drenaline ush fthethird
ebate, ike thers,will
have only negligible ong-term mplications? definitivenswer
to
this
question
would be risky nd premature t this point,for we must keep in mindthat the
current urge
of
optimisms admittedly euristic.
t
is,
n
otherwords,
n
enthusiasm
of
newly nitiated epartures ather han sobercelebration
f
safe arrivals.Hence
prudence and fairness nd the post-positivistpirit f tolerance tself emand a
patient waiting f further,more substantive,esearch indings.
Having acknowledged his t snonethelessppropriate o add some observations
on
the hazards
of
excessive post-positivistptimism.
n
referring
o
possible
problems
nd
difficulties, ypurpose s
not to
deprecate
he
revitalizing
heoretical
energy eleased by the
third
debate.
It
is rather
o further elimit
ts
scope
in the
spirit
f
constructiveriticism.
or
clarity
nd
consistency
e
will
return,
or
he ast
time,
to
the three post-positivistrademarks
f
the third debate.
Starting
with
paradigmatism,
ne
should notice
n
particular
he
danger
of
misappropriating
thisvaluable post-positivistorrective or propaganda
and
polemical
uses. Philoso-
phers
of
science
have
long suspected,
n
fact,
hat ne
major
reason social
scientists
turn o philosophys to fabricate
more
respectable
nchor
for
he laim
f
being
progressive
cience
Rosenberg, 986:340).
There are reasons
o
suspect
hat uch
a line of reasoning may stand behind some current ttempts o reconstructhe
corpus
of
international heory
n
terms
f
paradigms,
research
programs,
nd
othermeta-scientificnitsof analysis.
Consider the
fact
that,
s
typically pplied
to the international elations
field,
Lakatos's methodology f scientific ppraisal has consistentlyesulted
n
rather
optimisticeadings
f both
tspasttheoretical rowth
nd
itsfuture
rospects.'6
his
mightbe a fortunate oincidence,but one is alerted by
Hermann and Peacock's
candid confession
hat the main
reason
for
theirdecision
to move
from
he
two
prevailing ogics
of
inquiry the neo-positivist
nd Kuhnian
methods)
to
a
Lakatosianmethodology
f
scientific
ppraisal
s that he first wo-but
presumably
not the third-lead invariably
o
negative ssessments
f
the
comparative
tudy
f
foreign olicy.The excessivelyavalier nterpretationf Lakatos'smethodologys
16
Such is, ndeed, the warrant orthe passports
f
hope recently ssued
forneorealism
Keohane, 1984), regimes
analysis Kratochwil and Ruggie, 1986), and the comparative study of foreign policy Hermann
and
Peacock,
1987:16-22).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
15/21
248 Prospects f
nternational
heory
n a Post-Positivistra
particularlytriking
n
thiscase.
For
one
looks n vain
foreven gestures
o
the key
term of progressive r degenerativeproblem-shift. et in the absence of this
concept t s virtuallympossible o accomplishwhat hese wo cholarshave explicitly
set out
to
do, to refermeaningfully
o
Lakatos'smethodforpurposes f theoretical
appraisal Hermannand Peacock,
1987:16-22).17
But the problemgoes far beyondcavalier nvocations f would-bephilosophical
authorities.
With
the consolidation
f
international
elations s
a
dividing
disci-
pline, contending ets of criteriafor udging scientific cceptability roliferate.
Ironically,
his
pens up tempting pportunities
or
nstant cientific
edemption
f
vast bodies
of
theoretical iteratureby simple
shifts
f epistemic tandards
of
appraisal.
Would-be scientific ontributionsuch
as
Allison's models
of
foreign
policy ecision-making, hichmight e consideredunacceptable
f
udged by strict
positivistriteria,may appear more promising
f
interpretive
r
hermeneutical
standards re invoked Ball, 1987:104-09).
Without
uestioning he considerable
merits
f
multiple riteria
or
valuating laims,
cholars n
the field hould beware
lest they ome to resemblethe proverbial rcherwho shoots his arrow and then
draws a bull's
eye
around it.
. . .
Especially
if
seen
as a
miracle
drug,
enthusiastic
paradigmatism
hich
makes ight
f the critical istinction
etweenpromising nd
misleading
ines
of
nquiry
t
the
meta-scientificevel
might
ead us
straight
ntonew
butequally damagingtraps t theparadigmaticevel.
A
more ober
ook at
the truemerits
f
post-positivisterspectivismeveals t east
three noteworthy isks.First, he preprogrammingapacity f assumptive rame-
works s oftenvastly xaggerated r reified. erspectivisman play a constructive
role only n so far s it acknowledges he historic nd dynamic haracter f cognitive
schemes nd assumptive rameworks. therwise, we lock the subject nto himself
unable ever
to
see more than he knows DeMey, 1982:225). This reminder eems
particularly ertinentn viewof the stillpopular rehearsals f rigid matrixes f
underlying ssumptions
which
mechanisticallyncapacitate ealist hinking
bout
contemporary
world affairs
O'Meara, 1984:250; Taylor, 1984:4). Seen
in
this
simplistic
manner-but not
otherwise-perspectivism
s
revealed
n the
debate over
realism
may ustifiably
e dismissed s
a sourceof
confusion
Goldmann, 988).18
This takesus
to
a second set
of
hazards,namely
hat
f
embedding
hefixation
n
guiding ssumptions
n a
superficial nderstanding
f
the
ramificationsf whathas
been
popularized by
Kuhn and
by Feyerabend
s the
incommensurability
hesis.
This
in
turn an result
n
equallydamaging
denials
or
exaggerations
f the
problem
of
comparison nd communication etween
ets
of
thematic
ssumptions.
Rather
than
defining
he
problem wayby ssuming
utomatic ommensuration
portraying
models as merelydifferent facets of the same complex reality Young,
1986:120]
and instead
of
building up
the
problem
to
suicidal
proportions by
insisting
hat
genuine paradigms
are defined
y
their undamentalncommensu-
rabilities
with
ther nterpretations Biersteker, orthcoming)],
cholars nterested
7
In
fairness, hese
scholars do acknowledgethat It
may
be
stretching
oo
far to call these various
contributions
a researchprogram
n the spirit fLakatos
Hermann and Peacock,
1987:30). But the fact
remainsthat hey
do invoke
Lakatos's authorityfor
what can be
uncharitablyportrayed as
propaganda purposes. For to
take
Lakatos's scheme
seriously would involve among
other things that we
distinguishbetween core and
auxiliary
assumptions,directing
our defenses and/or criticisms
ccordingly
. . that our criticisms e
retrospective nd
directed against adjustments in the
protective belt of the
program
in
question; and . . .
that we
udge
the
success-to-datef research raditionnd of the heonesomposingt n termsfprogressivenessr degenerationf uccessive
adjustmentsnd auempts
tproblem-solvingBall,
1987:34-35, my emphasis).
18
Fortunately thers
have acknowledgedthefact
that ssumptions
do not
stayunmodified ver time
and have
approached realism
as a
knot of
historically
onstituted tensions and
contradictions which
might
be
re-
constituted n a more critical nd creativemanner
Walker, 1987;
see also
Ashley,1984).
As
Musgrave points
out
(1981:378),
it s
necessary
not
only
to
distinguish
etweendifferent
ypes
f
assumptions
ut also to remember
he
possibility
f a
concealed change
in
the nature
of a
single assumption
due
to
ongoing
criticism.
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
16/21
YOSEF
LAPID
249
in understanding
he implications
f
post-positivisterspectivism
or nternational
theory
must pay considerably
more attention
to philosophical
efforts o devise
new
roads to commensurability
Pearce,
1987;
Rengger,1988a).
A third anger
whichmerits
riefmention n
this ontext
urksn the
often-voiced
concern hat he shift ffocus oward he ofty omainof guiding ssumptions ill
come at the
expense of empirical
r lower
eveltheoretical
tudies. hould it
drift
into
such parasiticdirections,
he post-positivist
liberation f
theory romdata
could indeed
lead us into
the dead end of
metatheory
Skocpol,1987:12).
Finally,we willbriefly
xamine the
notorious itfalls
f
post-positivist
elativism.
To be sure, methodological
pluralism
richlybenefits
from all the virtues
of
relativism. nfortunately,
t
also suffersrom
omeof tsworse
vices Gellner,
985).
If adopted
uncritically
r
taken
to
its ogicalconclusion,
methodological
luralism
may
deteriorate
nto condition
f
epistemological
narchy
nderwhich
lmost ny
position
an legitimately
laim
qual hearing.
And to the xtent
hat uch an equality
between different
ypes of knowledge
prevails,
mere theoretical
proliferation
becomes practicallyndistinguishableromgenuinetheoreticalrowth.
It is hardly
secret, f
course, that the
international
elations ield
s already
seriously
fflicted y
some
of
the
hazards
of unreflective ethodological
luralism.
Within ertain imits,
he
field
eems
well advised
to distance tself
rom
conomics
and follow n the
footsteps f
sociology
n
reinterpreting
ts
own
lack
of
definition
and theoretical
acophony
s
selective
dvantages Hirsch
t al., 1987:333).
For,
like
sociology,
he field
f international elations
must
ypicallyeal with
multiple
realities Holsti,
1986). Hence it
must resolutely
esist
the seductive ure
of
economics
with its self-imposed
ncapacity
o
see
more
than
singledimension
f
most
phenomena
Hirsch
t
al., 1987:333).
Having
aid
that,
ne
must dd
that
he
Newton syndrome
nd the
seemingly niversal
desire
to
engage
in grandiose
theorizinghave alreadyresulted n an excessive fragmentationf the field.To
borrow
an apt metaphor,
he field
of international
elations ndeed
resembles
nothing
s much as
the Learnean
Hydra;each
time
ne
conceptual
head
is lopped
off,
nother
wo
ppear
in its
place Rengger,
988b:81).
f the relativisticxcesses
of
methodological
pluralism
and fickle llegiances
ead
to
hopeless
theoretical
incoherence,
he optimistic
message
f post-positivistluralism
ronicallymayresult
in
a
backlash
f
some
new
dogmatic
ersion
f
methodological
monism.
In
Lieu of Conclusion:
A
Pianissimo
Bravo?
Much more could be
said on the
promises
and hazards
of
post-positivism
n
international elations heory. t is certainly sefulto note that the thirddebate
offers s
many
dead ends
as
it
opens promising
aths
for
future
research.But
acknowledging
uch hazards
s not
to
deny
that heoretical
reativity
ay
be
greater
today
than
at
any
time
ince
the emergence
f
international
elations
s
a
distinct
discipline.
or
we must
keep
in mind saiah Berlin's
brilliantnsightoncerning
he
propensity
f
all great
liberating
deas to turn into
suffocating
traitjackets
(1979:159).
When
all
anglesare
carefully onsidered,
he
hazards
are
not
sufficient
to
seriously
hallenge
the conclusion
hat
the
third
debate has
indeed generated
some
unparalleled
theoretical otentialities.
ndeed,
the
next decade
could be
an
exciting
imefor
cholarship
Keohane
and
Nye, 1987:753).
Whether hesetheoretical otentialities illbear fruitn theforeseeable uture
remains to
be
seen,
but
one
thing
seems
reasonably
lear.
For
many years
the
international
elations
iscipline
as had thedubioushonor
of
being
mong
the east
'9
To appreciate
how
compelling he fear
of disciplinary aralysis
hrough xcessive
pluralism
nd relativism
an
become, consider
Peter Rossi's 1980
presidential ddress
before
the AmericanSociological Association
n
which
he
argues
for a dominant
model even if such
a model were to exclude
his
own work
cited
n
Crane,
1986:443-44).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
17/21
250 Prospects f
nternational
heory
n a Post-Positivist
ra
self-reflexivef the Western ocial sciences Frost, 1986:11). In the words of one
critic,
hefield
has
allowed tself
o deteriorate o the evelof a
welcoming epository
forphilosophical
nd
theoretical aricature Walker,1988:84). The third ebate s
the beginning
of
a slow
but progressive
oss of
patience with this posture
of
intellectual ibernation. he debate has stimulatedheoretical nd epistemological
ferment n
international elations theory,forging inks
with
other disciplines
undergoing
similar
process.
t has
called
attention o
new notions
of
scientific
objectivity,orcing reconsideration
f therole
of
the
nternationalelations heorist
in
the
scientific
rocess.
t has
called
into
questionreceived riteria
or
evaluating
theoretical
onstructs
such
as
empirical validity, rediction, nd explanation),
allowing theories
to
be reexamined in terms
of
their historical ontext,their
ideological nderpinnings,he forms
f
society
which
hey oster
r
sustain,
nd
the
metaphors
nd
literary ropes
hat nform heir onstruction.
Although the controversy ueled by post-positivistdeas in some ways has
aggravated he dangersof epistemologicalnarchism,
t
also has alerted cholars o
the problemof understanding thenotionof criticism hereknownmethodsof
refutation re inapplicable Wisdom, 1987:136). Althoughwe may be unable to
disprove
a themata r
a
weltanschauung
ith
traditional
mpirical
r
logical
methods,we may findthemto be overly estrictive
r
impossible o workwith, s
shown
byJervis's ritique f the anarchy/gameheory rameworkr by Kratochwil
and
Ruggie's
rebuff
f
positivism
n thecontext
f
regime nalysis 1986:766).2 One
would think hat
nalyses uch as Jervis's1988)
would
reducethevery eal threat
f
the international
elations field being seduced by economics. And although
positivism
s still
erymuch live
n
thefieldAlker
nd
Biersteker, 984),
t
has been
retreating
o
ever thinner nd more tolerant ersions, s indicated yJackSnyder's
(1988) advocacy
f
hybridmethods.
In the space cleared by the weakening f deeply rooted urges for firm ounda-
tions, nvariant ruths, nd unities f knowledge, n optimistic ope is
now
being
planted-as hinted ythedemandtomakeroom
for
new problematiques Ashley,
1988:189)
and
to
open up the field
o critical
pproaches
whichhave hitherto een
marginalised, eglected, r dismissedbythediscipline Der Derian, 1988:189)-
that,
s
in
other ocial
disciplines, nowledge
n
the field
f
international elations
may
be cumulative not in
possessing ever-more-refinednswers
about fixed
questions
ut n
possessing
n ever-rich
epertoire
f
questions Cronbach, 986:4).
In
this
process, hediscipline'sevel
of
reflexivity
nd its
means
for
ustaining
ritical
and self-conscious
irection ave been
vitally
nriched.And
as
Der Derian
says
n a
different
ontext, Taking
into
account
the
complexity
nd the breadth
of
the
subject, ne is inclined obe intellectuallyver-ratherthanunder-equipped for
the task
Der Derian, 1987:5).
The task,
s
highlighted y the
third
debate,
s
neither he discovery
f some
ahistorical nd
universal cientificmethod
nor the
attainment
f some
objectively
validated
ruth bout
worldpolitics.
t
s rather matter
f
promoting morereflexive
intellectual nvironmentn which
debate, riticism,
nd
novelty
an
freely
irculate.
The international
elations cholarly ommunity-like
ll
communities
f
nquiry-is
communicativelyonstituted,
nd its success s
partially
onditioned
y
ts
ability
o
sustain nd enhance
the
quality
f
argument
n the
context
f
deeply
entrenched
paradigmatic iversity.2'
he
proper
attitude
or
uch
situations,uggests
erence
Ball, is less one
of
live and let ive thanoftalkingnd listening 1987:4).
20
Wisdom calls this the
cenablinig
r-iterion. t asks whether
weltanschauting cani
do its ob or gets n the wvay
of
its
own
goal (Wisdomii, 987:161).
21
Reflexivitys buiilt, bove all, on a dialogical niotionif scientific -ationalityColapictro, 1987:283). Fol all
attempt
o
go beyond dialogical reflexivityn the direction f praxis, eeJackson anidWillmott1987).
This content downloaded from 198.162.100.53 on Sat, 30 Nov 2013 17:19:47 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
8/18/2019 Yosef Lapid--The Third Debate
18/21
YOSEF
LAPID
251
The
international
elations
discipline
must ocate
and
eliminate
Rosenau-type
MABS (related
research
reas separated
by
redundant
walls
of
mutually
ssured
boredom ).
Those
who
labor
hard
to integrate
econstruction
nto
the
normal
business
of international
elations
cholarship
must
be
on alert
not
to
give
the
impression hat to show a subject to be a construction s to render its de-
construction
mperative
Connolly,
984:164).
Should
that
happen,
Rosenau's
more
familiar
MAB-type
mines
could
be
accidentally
eplaced
by
MAD-type
ooby
traps
paradigms
or
discourses
ocked
in
a deadly
embrace
of
mutually
ssured
deconstruction ).
As it delights
n the
ight
f its newly
ound reflexivity,
he
field
must ake
care
not
toburn
up
in the
heat
of hyper-reflexivity
Rose,
1979).
To an
unprecedented
degree,
however,
nternational
elations
cholars
now
seem
ready
to concede
that
they
must
ome
tounderstand
what
hey annot
r will
notembrace
Geertz,
1986).
Arguably,
here
is
some
cause
for
optimism
n the realization
hat
the
current
intellectual
ransition
portends
new pluralism
s the cutting-rather
han
the
polemical-edge of internationalheory Der Derian, 1988:190). On that ccount
alone
wecan
agree,
hope,
that he
exclusive
nd chloroforming
orld
f the
1950s
.
. .
is one
to
which
few
friends
of
International
Relations
or social
science
more
generally
wouldwant
to return Halliday,
1987a:216).
And
on this
minimal
asis
for one am
prepared
to add
a
pianissimo
bravo
to the cheers
of those
already
celebrating
he
would-be
splendors
of
post-positivism
n international
elations
theory.
References
ALKER,
H.
R. (forthcoming)
he
Presumption
f
Anarchy
n
World
Politics
mimeo).
ALKER,
H. R.,JR., AND T. J.
BIERSTEKER.
(1984) The DialecticsofWorldOrder. Internationaltudies
Quarterly
8:121-42.
ASHLEY,
R. K.
(1984)
The
Poverty
f
Neorealism.
nternational
rganization
8(2):225-86.
ASHLEY,
R. K. (1987)
The Geopolitics
of
Geopolitical
Space.
Alternatives
2(4):403-34.
ASHLEY,
. K.
(1988)
Untying
he Sovereign
State:
A Double
Reading
of the Anarchy
Problematique.
Millennium
7(2):227-62.
ASHLEY,
R. K.
(1989)
Living
On
Border
Lines:
Man,
Poststructuralism,
nd War.
In
Internationall
Intertextual
elations:
The Boundaries
f
Knowledge
nd
Practice
n World olitics,
dited
byJ.
Der
Derian
and
M. Shapiro.
Lexington,
Mass.: Lexington
Books.
BALL,
T., ed.
(1987)
Idioms
f
nquiry.
Albany:
State