019 Beyond Realism and Marxism -71

7/24/2019 019 Beyond Realism and Marxism -71

1/8

Linklater, A. (1990a). Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and

International Relations. London: MacMillan Press.

Introduction

Horkheimers essay on traditional and critical theory anticipated the basic themes

in the most recent critique of realism. Horkheimer argued that traditional theory

(positivism) was distinguished from critical theory by its attempt to explain social

laws and regularities. The aim of critical theory was to understand how these

socially-created constraints upon the freedom of human subjects could be

reduced and, where possible, eliminated. (1)

Until recently, supporters of critical theory have rarely discussed international

relations. [] the realist tradition contains much that is clearly hostile to the ideaof critical international theory. Most accounts of the ascent of realism note that its

principles were shaped in response to the two perspectives which were the main

heirs of the Enlightenment: liberalism and Marxism.

The realist critique of the project of the Enlightenment effectively thwarted the

development of a critical tradition of international theory. However the recent

emergence of a critical voice in international theory suggests that this may be

about to change. (2)

The current challenge to realism began with the revival of the liberal tradition of

international political economy. [they] argued for a more comprehensive

theoretical approach which took account of the effects of industrialisation and

modernisation upon contemporary state structures had become essential in the

age of global interdependence. The growing importance of economic factors in

world politics made students of international relations more sensitive to the need

to analyse the phenomenon of change. It made them more aware of the

possibility that the state might become obliged to be responsive to an ethical

constituency which was broader than its own citizenry, and more cognisant of the

possibility that international cooperation would be strengthened by the need to

solve a number of emerging global problems. [from there Marxism came back

into discussion] (3)


2/8

In the 1980s this discussion has become relevant for the theory of international

relations. It has been argued that the main strands of international theory

resemble either positivism or hermeneutics. In other words, these strands of

thought have either analysed the repetitive and the recurrent dimensions of world

politics or focused upon the language and culture of diplomatic interaction. What

they have overlooked is the possibility of a critical theory of international relations

which analyses the prospects for universal emancipation.

What is novel about this line of argument is the point that the realist critique of

Marxism has been too preoccupied with determining the relative influence of

economic and political factors in international history. In so doing, realists

undoubtedly exposed major weaknesses in the Marxist contention that the

expansion of capitalism would revolutionise the nature of world politics. Theysuccessfully demonstrated that Marxism overestimated the importance of class

and production and underestimated the impact of strategic competition and war

on human history. But they did not invalidate the Marxian claim that political

theory ought to strive for the emancipation of the species. It is precisely this

critical dimension of the Marxian project which has been turned against realism in

recent international theory. [important! Marxism was disproven in its analysis but

not in its general orientation towards critique!] (4)

From the perspective of critical social theory, the classical distinction between

realist and idealist approaches to international relations is a false dichotomy.

On these grounds, it has been suggested that the critical theory of world politics

may prove to be the next stage in the development of international relations

theory. " If so, it is necessary to ask whether the new critical paradigm ought to

be post-Marxist by virtue of the necessity of retaining some of the themes of

statecentric realism. (5)

1. 1. Power, Order and Emancipation in International Theory

Power, order and emancipation are the primary concerns of the three main

traditions of international theory - the realist, rationalist and revolutionist

perspectives.


3/8

Martin Wight, who first described the history of international thought in these

terms, argued that the "mutual tension and conflict" between these three schools

of thought would continue to shape the evolution of international theory. The

revolutionist tradition - the perspective which most closely approximates the idea

of a critical international theory - would therefore survive as a reminder of the

moral imperfection of the system of states. It would ensure that the tension

between ethics and politics would remain important in the theory and practice of

international relations.

The contemporary argument for a critical theory of international relations differs

from the earlier defence of revolutionism in one major respect. The former does

not start from the philosophical contention that there are immutable and universal

moral principles of international relations which other perspectives haveoverlooked. The crucial point is that the critical project is based on a method

which avoids the epistemological and methodological limitations of other modes

of inquiry. By the terms of this argument, the only adequate theory of international

relations is one which is committed to the emancipation of the human species. (8)

The hermeneutic approach insists therefore on the distinction between the

cultural and the natural sciences. Critical social theory is distinguished from these

perspectives by the supposition that human subjects possess a unique capacity

to transform their social environment in the attempt to achieve a higher level of

self-determination. A critical approach to society aims to determine how far social

relations are a superfluous constraint upon the freedom of human subjects, and it

seeks to understand how far the dominant culture is an impediment to human

autonomy.-'

Habermas has argued that each of these traditions of inquiry is predicated upon

a particular "knowledge-constitutive interest". The positivist strand of sociology is

constituted by a technical interest in increasing the control of social behaviour.Positivism therefore resembles the physical sciences which produce knowledge

that enables human beings to acquire mastery of nature. The hermeneutic

analysis of the values and meanings which structure human conduct reflects a

practical interest in preserving social consensus. Critical social theory is possible

because subjects have an interest in transcending the limits upon their capacity


4/8

for self-determination. It is constituted by an emancipatory cognitive interest in

understanding the possibility of freeing social actors from unnecessary

constraints and from institutionalised forms of distorted thought and

communication.

One of the main developments of this line of argument suggests that positivism,

hermeneutics and critical sociology form a dialectical sequence of approaches to

society. Positivism emerged because of a growing confidence that human beings

could acquire a level of self-understanding which would equal the knowledge

which science gave them of nature. However it obscured the distinction between

conscious action and unreflective behaviour which necessitates the division

between the cultural and the natural sciences. The hermeneutic approach is a

more advanced perspective because it stresses the cultural and linguisticdimensions of social behaviour. Its main shortcoming is the failure to search the

cultural realm for evidence of distorted thought and communication. Critical

theory surpasses both perspectives because its inquiry is oriented towards the

realisation of truth and freedom. (9)

Its proponents do not deny that those working within other traditions are capable

of making perfectly valid observations about the nature of society. They are more

concerned to take issue with the philosophical foundations of other approaches

and to contest the social purposes which their observations tend to promote

It has been argued that the idea of a dialectical sequence of approaches to

sociology also applies to the three patterns of international theory. Richard

Ashley has developed this argument in the following way. One branch of realism -

technical realism - resembles positivism because it analyses the recurrent and

repetitive patterns of international relations. The technical realist has a cognitive

interest in understanding how far states can influence the constraints which most

deeply affect their security and survival. A second kind of realism - practicalrealism - resembles hermeneutic sociology because it analyses the language and

culture of diplomatic practice and the conventions which states obey as members

of an international society. The practical realist has a cognitive interest in

strengthening the consensual foundations of international order. Ashley argues

that a third approach to international relations is present in Herz's argument that


5/8

a series of interlocked crises may bring about the transformation of the modern

international system. Herz's claim that a radically different form of world order

may already be immanent within the existing states-system is, Ashley argues,

reminiscent of the method of critical social theory. A cognitive interest in freedom

and universalism underlies both analyses

The three dominant perspectives in international relations do not merely disagree

about the empirical nature of world politics - they possess radically different

conceptions of the nature of international theory and contrasting notions of the

right relationship between theory and practice. The idea of a dialectical

development of the three sociologies suggests one method of resolving the

differences between realism, rationalism and revolutionism. It suggests that

realism, rationalism and revolutionism (for which critical international theory willbe substituted below) form a sequence of progressively more adequate

approaches to world politics. If this is so, a theory which analyses the language

and culture of diplomatic interaction in order to promote international consensus

is an advance beyond a theory of recurrent forces constituted by an interest in

manipulation and control. And an account of world politics which seeks to

understand the prospects for extending the human capacity for self-determination

is an even greater advance in this sequence of approaches. The remainder of

this chapter defends this proposition by examining realism, rationalism and thecritical theory of international relations in greater detail. (10)

Revolutionism and Critical Social Theory

Wight argued that revolutionism was distinguished from other patterns of

international thought by its commitment to the abolition of the international states-

system. [] Wight and Bull, who also characterized revolutionism in these terms,

accepted part of this moral critique of the states-system. However they disagreed

with revolutionism on two grounds. In the first place, they argued that its moralabsolutism was linked with violence and fanaticism; and secondly, they claimed

that the notion of the primacy of horizontal conflict threatened to undermine the

fragile diplomatic practices which made international order possible. In their view,

the limited progress that is possible in international relations cannot occur unless

mechanisms for limiting inter-state conflict are securely in place.


6/8

Kants revolutionist perspective recognized the force of this point. [] the

experience of the French revolution persuaded Kant that a politics of human

emancipation should seek to release the universal potential that was latent in

existing international institutions rather than destroy the achievements of the past.

The Kantian political project took account of the way in which the struggle for

power constrained the development of moral freedom. (21)

[]

The Frankfurt School abandoned Marxism without establishing the basis for an

alternative form of critical social theory. By contrast, the leading figure in the

second generation of the Frankfurt School, Jrgen Habermas, has sought not

only to recover critical theory but to do so within the Marxist tradition.

[critical theory] must diminish the part that capital accumulation played in

classical Marxism; and more deeper still, it must correct Marxs understanding of

the nature of human development.

[] Habermas distinguishes between labour and interaction in order to draw

attention to the part that language and culture have played in the formation and

development of human society.

For Habermas, a modern philosophical history must be as interested in the moral

development of the species as Marx was in its progress towards the conquest of

nature. (25)

[] The emancipatory project in this context must seek to extend the realm of

social interaction which is governed by universalisable moral principles. (26)

[] by identifying the conditions which may engender universalistic social

movements, Habermas has shown how a contemporary critical theory can

overcome the impasse which led Horkheimer and Adorno to abandon the

emancipatory project. (26/27)

It is interesting that Habermas method of recovering critical theory should focus

upon the same global problems and crises which Bull cited in his argument for

new principles of international legitimacy. This suggests one way in which social


7/8

theory and the study of international relations might be combined to produce a

more comprehensive account of society and politics.

The Critical Turn in International Theory

[] the discovery of critical theory in the study of IR has been quite recent. In the

latter field, more so than in sociology, it has been necessary to begin by breaking

down the resistance to radical, idealist or critical modes of inquiry. As a result,

much of the literature has been concerned with exposing the methodological

limitations of classical approaches.

The recent critical turn in international theory has been profoundly influenced by

the Frankfurt Schools critique of mainstream sociology. (27)

[discusses Cox]

[A CT of IR] ought to supersede Marxist political economy too since its emphasis

on class, property relations and production cannot provide an adequate

explanation of the constraints upon, and prospects for, the extension of moral and

political community. (33)

Conclusions

Despite its assorted shortcomings, Marxism foreshadowed a project which is

superior to realism: a project which brings an emancipatory interest to the

analysis of the factors which have been responsible for the expansion and

contradiction of human community. The main question is how to reconstruct this

project. In the first place, the normative interest in defending the extension of

moral community deserves rather more discussion than it has received within the

Marxist tradition. In the second place, this project requires a more complex

sociology of how production, state-building, international relations and

developments in the realm of culture and ideology have shaped and reshaped

the moral frontier at different points in human history.

[] realism and Marxism have an important place in the sociological project

outlined above. But neither perspective contains a comprehensive analysis of the

expansion and contraction of moral community. An inquiry into the widening of


8/8

moral and political community in particular has to take account of two

phenomena which realism and Marxism have ignored. (171) The means by which

independent political communities have established the principles of their co-

existence is the first of these phenomena. The second is the means by which

moral principles have been universalized in the course of human history. The

interplay between these four phenomena is the starting point for a critical theory

of international relations. (172)

Documents

019 Beyond Realism and Marxism -71