After Postpositivism? The Promises of Critical Realism

TLDR

This anti‑realism arises from the post‑Kantian‑Humean “problem‑field” of international relations that underpins most contemporary positivist, constructivist, and post‑structuralist IR approaches. The article argues that IR theory’s current self‑understanding is misconceived and calls for a metatheoretical shift beyond the stagnant positivism/postpositivism debate, proposing critical realism to transcend existing antinomies. The authors demonstrate that positivism and postpositivism are rooted in a philosophical anti‑realism discourse and propose to overcome this problem‑field by reclaiming reality through critical realism. They conclude that a middle ground between positivism and postpositivism is untenable and that critical realism offers a way to transcend the antinomies faced by IR scholars.

Abstract

This article argues that the current self-understanding of IR theory is misconceived and that it is time to move beyond the stagnant positivism/postpositivism debate. We argue that the attempt to occupy a middle ground compromise position between positivism and postpositivism is untenable because these two positions share much in common. In this sense a middle ground position between two problematic positions does not produce a less problematic position. What is needed is a metatheoretical analysis of the two extreme positions. We attempt to show how both positivism and postpositivism are embedded in a discourse of philosophical anti-realism. This anti-realism occurs as a result of what we call the post-Kantian-Humean “problem-field” of international relations from which most contemporary positivist, constructivist, and post-structuralist IR approaches stem. We then try to overcome this “problem-field” by means of radically reclaiming reality through a critical realist philosophy. Once outlined we try to show how this critical realist philosophy can help transcend some of the antinomies currently faced by IR scholars.