In the first instance, IR scholars drew upon Critical Theory to develop a critique of the domi-nance of positivism in IR. We will return to this critique in our concluding chapter. However, beyond this initial project of critiquing the ‘mainstream’ or ‘orthodoxy’ in IR, a number of scholars pointed to ways that Critical Theory – and the ideas of Gramsci and Habermas par-ticularly – could advance substantive research and theoretical understanding in IR. For CONCEPT BOX
Assumptions
From the above we can suggest the following assumptions common to varieties of Critical Theory:
1. ‘Human nature’ is not fixed or essential, but shaped by the social conditions that exist at any period in time.
2. These conditions, and therefore world politics, are themselves shaped by historical struggles between different social forces.
3. Individual people (subjects) can be grouped into identifiable collectivities which might in turn be said to have concrete interests.
4. Despite differences – for example, race, ethnicity, gender, class – all human beings share an interest in achieving emancipation. Critical Theory is, thus, universalist in character.
5. There are different types of knowledge. Traditional, positivist science is interested in ‘problem-solving’ knowledge. Critical Theory is interested in knowledge that will lead to emancipation.
6. Core to emancipation is the achievement of dialogue in which those communicating take each other seriously and do not try to impose their argument on the back of their more powerful status.
example, Robert Cox, an influential figure within International Political Economy (see the Author Box on p. 120), not only used key ideas from Critical Theory to criticise the dominance of ‘problem solving’ approaches to IR, but also drew upon Gramsci and others to map out a critical conception of ‘world order’ as a radical alternative to the neo-realist conception of the state system and international anarchy.
Scholars such as Andrew Linklater and Mark Hoffman, saw great promise in Habermas’s concepts of discursive ethics and communicative action in opening up new theoretical depar-tures in IR theory that would help us escape from the realist/neo-realist ‘tradition of despair’.
For example, Habermas’ concepts of communicative action and discourse pointed to possibil-ities of dialogue across international (and indeed other) boundaries as a first stage in understanding the conditions under which global justice was possible. During the 1980s scholars who embraced Critical Theory engaged in a debate with their detractors in the pages of a number of influential IR journals (particularly Millennium – see Further Reading). What emerged from such debates was a recognition that dialogue, intersubjective negotiation and respect for the ‘other’ was every bit as much the ‘stuff’ of international relations as war and oppressive practices like imperialism.
However, these debates also revealed uneasiness in some quarters about the universal aspi-rations of Critical Theory. Post-structuralists rejected the idea that ‘common understanding’
could be secured through dialogue because cultural (and other) differences meant that often people talked at cross-purposes – there was not and could not be a ‘universal’ point of view.
Moreover, rather than seek ‘common understanding’ or aim at achieving an intersubjectively negotiated ‘universalism’, we should embrace the pluralism and diversity of humanity.
On a more practical level, it was argued that the ‘ideal speech situation’ which must in theory be secured before dialogue could ensue, was impossible to achieve in reality. For example, feminists argued that ‘communication across boundaries’ often marginalised women’s voices. Furthermore, it was doubtful whether communicative rationality could over-come the problems of the pursuit of interests and power in international relations. The problem of power in IR in turn highlighted the dominance of Western states and a particular type of Western rationality in international public spheres, undermining the notion that participants in dialogue had equal access and influence.
Themes
Thus far we have been concerned to differentiate between Critical Theory in IR in the Gramscian tra-dition and Critical Theory that draws upon ideas from the work of Jürgen Habermas. We now turn to how Gramscian and Habermasian ideas have been used to help us make sense of some of our core themes in IR.
The state and power
You will recall from chapter 2 that realism takes the nature of the state and the state system as a basic starting point for theorising international relations. In so far as realists are interested in economics, it is only as it affects state behaviour, or constitutes an issue in international politics. From a critical perspective, it makes no sense to treat the state as the basic unit of analysis in international relations, nor does it make sense to separate economics from politics in this way. In the first place, the state is only one form of political organisation to exist among human beings. From a critical perspective, understanding the historical nature of the state and the state system is crucial, but this historical understanding is lost if we adopt a ‘state as actor’ approach to international relations.
We suggested above that Critical Theory is oriented towards the project of human emancipation.
It follows from this that, when Critical Theorists engage in the process of thinking about the forms of political, social and economic organisation that exist in the world, they are explicitly seeking to answer the question: how far do existing arrangements constrain or facilitate the project of human emancipation? In relation to the current ‘world order’, key questions for Critical Theorists are: What is the state? Why did the state become the dominant form of political organisation globally? What kind of world order might there be in the future? What tendencies can we see in the existing order that point the way to future changes?
Before the world was constituted as a system or society of nation-states, there existed many dif-ferent forms of political organisation across the world. We have become accustomed to thinking about the state and the state system as a European invention, but something akin to what we would now recognise as a system of states emerged in Northern Africa betweenAD900 and 1500, closely linked to the expansion of trans-Saharan trade. During roughly the same period, much of the world was divided into large empires, e.g. the Mongol Empire (1206–1405), or the Ottoman Empire (1301–1520). In much of what we now call Western Europe, there existed a system of Feudal Monarchy between 1154 and 1314. What we would now recognise as the modern state system gradu-ally evolved in Northern Europe between 1500 and 1688 and was consolidated by the rise of nationalism in Europe between 1800 and 1914.
At the time that the state system was emerging, European merchants and traders were embarking on a voyage of ‘discovery’, seeking out new trading opportunities in far-flung corners of the world.
This, in turn, saw the emergence of Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America, parts of India and in South East Asia between 1500 and 1600. Between 1600 and 1713 waves of British, French and Dutch expansion occurred, resulting eventually in the colonisation of territories throughout Africa, the Indian sub-continent, South East Asia and the West Indies. Here the trade in luxury goods like spices was central to the expansion of world trade and the emergence of a new form of political organisation around the world. The Industrial Revolution only intensified the search for new markets, and generated new forms of political control, as Europe came to dominate much of the globe during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Many former colonies did not achieve formal independence until after the Second World War.
We will not labour the historical development of the different kinds of ‘world order’ here; suffice to say that the state appears to be a particular kind of political organisation, which emerged at a time of early capitalism in Europe and has gradually been adopted all over the world. Regardless of pre-cisely how this relationship is conceived, the close connection between the emergence of the state system and capitalism is central to critical approaches to International Relations. The state system has developed in conjunction with, or alongside, a capitalist world economy and an over-arching culture of modernity. For this reason, from a critical perspective it makes no sense to view economics and politics as distinct realms of human activity – political and economic forms of organisation are inti-mately connected. Moreover, a critical conception of world order does not begin and end with different types of political organisation. World order also includes economic forms – patterns of trade and commerce and emergent markets – and the particular configuration of social forces – merchants, traders, industrialists and workers – who are all, in some way or other, drawn into this global system.
The state clearly performs a number of roles which are vital for a capitalist economy, including the provision of a system of law to regulate contracts between individuals and companies, and a police force to ensure that society remains orderly. Orthodox Marxists hold that the state mediates conflict resulting from class struggle. In this way, the state legitimises and ensures continuing class rule. The state also maintains conditions conducive to economic growth (‘capital accumulation’ in Marxist jargon). While there are some similarities, there are important differences between Critical Theory and orthodox Marxist views of the nature and role of the state.
First, Critical Theorists pay much closer attention to the role of ideology in maintaining the rule of dominant groups. The concept of hegemony expresses the idea that dominant groups establish and legitimise their rule through the realm of culture and ideas. Hegemony is seen to rest on a broad measure of consent; nevertheless, it functions according to basic principles that ensure the continuing supremacy of leading social classes, within the state. The stronger the ruling group, the less need it has to use force. Hegemony is the outcome of class struggle and serves to legitimise capitalist rule.
Gramscians use the term ‘hegemonic project’ to refer to the way in which classes present their par-ticular interests as the interests of all people – that is, universal interests. In this way, parpar-ticular classes are able to maintain their power.
Second, hegemony is used in Critical Theory to describe the dominance of certain major states in the world. Critical Theorists argue that, while we now live in a state system in which all members are formally equal, different states perform different functions to facilitate the opening-up of global markets and the operations of capitalist enterprises, and have different power and influence. So, for