All too many students of international relations tend to dismiss postpositivist discourse, Richard Ashley writes, as “new wave,” “Parisian jargon,” and a “passing trend.” Yet, postpositivism is not entirely new wave, it is more than the sum parts of its jargon and its method, and it is proving to be other than a passing trend in international relations. Neither postpositivist nor assuredly modernist, this paper is an overview of the third debate in international relations and a call to engage and counter the postpositive challenge. It is an effort at mediation between the postpositivist discourse and the discipline of international relations, identifying common areas of interest and knowledge which may help to make this discourse less obscure and remote. The thesis advanced is similar to that of Pauline Rosenau who suggests that the immediate relevance of postpositivism for an understanding of international relations lies in its “substantive themes.” In fact, some postpositivist themes have parallels in both the classical and positivist discourses of internat