Post-positivist approach to international relations

    Positivism (scientific approach) that spread across branches impacted International relations as well. Hume’s conception of all knowledge being gained through observation and interpretation was adapted to international relations theory as well. Scientific empiricism through observation and testing implied that the happenings in international relations could also be observed and then generalizations should be made so as to predict the future happenings.

    Post-positivism brought back the importance of normative approach to international relations. It also focused on low politics such as welfare, trade, economic activities which were neglected by positivism. These low politics mattered to the Third World countries; development and prosperity were a priority to these nations. Events such as Cuban missile crisis were reinterpreted to the study the role of Cuba in the in the crisis. Post-Positivism in a way rejects the rigid empiricist framework proposed by positivism and looks beyond high politics. Post positivist (or reflectivity) theories of International Relations (IR) attempt to integrate a large variety of security concerns. It not only considers state but also studies the role of non-state actors such as NGOs, MNCs, terrorist organizations, stateless people, etc. It suggests paying attention to the everyday world and to understand how it is shaped.

    Post-positivism is skeptical against generalizations (a phenomenon of positivistic observational hypothesis) and also rejects meta-narratives. It states that there cannot be an all encompassing grand theory that can claim to explain international relations. It argues that theories such as liberalism and realism provide only one side of the story. Post-positivism provides a different perspective to international system. While theories such as liberalism and realism have focused on how power is exercised, post-positivism looks into how power is experienced. They focus on different subject matters and agents. Post-positivism does not provide a panacea to all ills plaguing International Relations. Instead of trying to provide a universal answer, Post-positivism seeks to ask the right questions.

    Post-positivism has favored normative approach to International Relations, by considering ethical discourse. It encourages  a ‘Socratic method’, and drifts towards methodological pluralism. It does not provide a unitary philosophical platform. It raises the discussion by questioning paradigms, questioning perspectives, and questioning methodology. Post-positivists believe that no free knowledge exists. All information is interpreted by subjective experts and their opinions are not free from bias. Their social, cultural and political upbringing influences their world view. Robert Cox stated that, “theory is always for someone and has some purpose.” The theories that are postulated can never be value-neutral as they purport to be. They conclude that it is not possible to be truly independent and to distinguish facts from opinion is difficult.

    The Post-positivist approach does not try to be as objective or methodological as the Positivists. They do not attempt to be either a scientific discipline or social discipline. It attempts to provide an in-depth analysis of the individual occurrences in order to understand international phenomena by looking into relevant aspects.

    Post-positivism has liberated International Relations from the rigid framework that positivist scholars placed it in. It has allowed for normative approach and increased its relevance by bringing the study closer to day to day happenings. Post-positivism has enabled the explanation of post cold-war happenings in the international domain. Instead of viewing International Relations from the prismatic view of traditional theories it has liberated the field to explore and analyze the varying power diffusions and manifestations across the system.