The so-called agent–structure debate has been important and contentious in social science (see also the chapter on Social Constructivism). It is not as complicated as it sometimes sounds. In chapter 2 we considered briefly how Waltz’s Theory of International Politics had addressed the inadequacies of realism in relation to questions of structure and agency and had tried to develop a model of both the dominant structure (the international system, the distribution of capabilities and so on, and problems of anarchy) and the main agents (‘units’ or states) in inter- national relations.
Critical Theorists have rather different views on the relationship between structure and agency. They recognise that opportunities for human intervention or agency are constrained by historical circumstance (the dominant structures and practices of the contemporary capitalist world order), but are more optimistic about the possibilities of achieving change through pol- itical action. In this model states are not privileged as the only significant actors in IR; social movements and NGOs can also serve as radical social forces that generate change. Critical Theorists argue that those committed to the cause of human emancipation can point the way forward by analysing the nature of social repression – the kinds of structures that exist – and suggesting ways in which social, economic and political systems might be changed. Rather than offering a ‘blueprint’ for a perfect or Utopian society, however, Critical Theorists pay attention to the prospects for change which are emerging in the existing order. Societies are always to some extent undergoing forms of change and transition. If these tendencies are cor- rectly understood, it is possible to intervene and influence, to some extent, the direction of change. Human beings could, then, become conscious agents of social change.
CONCEPT BOX
In the twentieth century the Frankfurt School continued to develop Marx’s analysis of capitalism as a social and economic system. Frankfurt School scholars combined Marx’s interest in capitalism with processes of rationalisation characteristic of the modern world. (In this respect, Frankfurt School
scholars also owed a significant debt to the social theorist Max Weber). The term ‘modern’ in this usage refers to interrelated historical developments such as the secularisation of political authority in the form of the state, and the development of industrial capitalism. As Marx had observed, modern societies were characterised by a complex division of labour and a high degree of social differentia- tion. People also increasingly saw themselves as individuals rather than, say, members of a particular family, community or religious group. Modernity not only changed the way in which people lived, but also the way in which people thought about themselves and their lives. The modern world was one in which people believed in progress – history was moving forward and they were ‘going’ some- where.
It is not surprising to find that this period of history also produced a prodigious legacy of social and political thought, much of which was universalist, secular and anti-authoritarian, seeing the major sources of social evils in prejudice and intolerance. Enlightenment thinkers concentrated on the possibilities inherent in throwing off the dictates of custom and tradition and organising society in a more rational way, in the interests of human progress and emancipation. In this respect, then, Marxism is very much a modern discourse. Indeed, Frankfurt School thinkers recognised that moder- nity and the Enlightenment represented a major step forward in the development of the human race, because for the first time people were able to imagine the possibility of change and progress and so, potentially, gain some control over their destinies. However, Frankfurt scholars also saw a ‘dark side’
Figure 4.2 ‘The dark side of modernity’: Stalin’s series of ‘Gulags’ (brutal prison labour camps), extensively reported on by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, reveal left-wing alternatives to not always be as progressive as their adherents would suggest.
of modernity. Drawing upon Weber’s work, the Frankfurt School developed an analysis of how the growth of large-scale economic and commercial enterprises, combined with the increasing reliance upon and deference towards scientific knowledge and technical expertise, was creating a situation in which a sort of instrumental ‘means–ends’ rationality dominated more and more areas of life.
In classical political thought, politics as an activity was seen to be directed towards realising the conditions in which it was possible to live the good life (meaning in this context, a life guided by principles of morality and justice, rather than in the material sense of a ‘good standard of living’). However, in most modern societies politics had been reduced to managerialism and finding technical solutions to a range of human problems, rather than examining the root causes of those same prob- lems. Similarly, human knowledge was not seen as something that should be used to advance the position of human beings generally, but as an instrument of control. In their everyday working lives, busy people were preoccupied with the task in hand, and spent little time reflecting on the ultimate purpose of life, or path to human happiness and satisfaction. In society at large, capitalism manufac- tured a desire for consumer goods, which meant that people were encouraged to buy into consumerism and seek fulfilment through the ownership of things. In such circumstances, the capacity of people to think critically and reflectively was gradually being lost.
As noted above, Marx believed that eventually capitalism would reach a major crisis and collapse. He also believed that the social conditions were emerging which would enable workers to develop a consciousness of their exploitation and through the process of revolution take control of their destiny. However, Frankfurt scholars began writing in the light of one major crisis of capitalism – the world- wide depression of the 1930s. In the 1930s, in some countries, rather than rallying to the socialist cause, the working class had lent their support to right-wing populist, even fascist, movements. In addition, even where socialism had triumphed – in the Soviet Union, for example – it had proved to be a travesty of what Marx had envisaged. Rather than realising the conditions for the emancipation of working people, Stalinism was characterised by widespread repression and tyranny.