Pruebas unitarias

The changed political circumstances of the post-Cold War world and new theoretical depar-tures in IR, such as Critical Theory, have encouraged a radical rethinking of the concept of

‘security’. As we highlighted in chapter 2, for much of the Cold War period, realist, and later neo-realist, discourse dominated thinking about security. Disenchanted with what had become a realist/neo-realist ‘orthodoxy’ in IR, a new school of ‘critical security studies’ emerged in the post-Cold War period which challenged the fundamental assumptions of realisms, and argued for a radical new approach to security.

Krause and Williams have argued that the debate within security studies has arisen out of three related areas. First, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union (events which realist analysts had failed to predict, and did not appear to be able to explain convinc-ingly) meant that there was an urgent need to think about what security might mean in a post-Cold War world.

Second, and relatedly, the need to make the discipline relevant to the concerns of contem-porary international relations. For example, the resurgence of nationalisms and inter-ethnic conflicts across the post-Cold War world put issues of identity firmly back onto the agenda of International Relations, while phenomena like population growth, migration, poverty, global recession, global warming, pollution and the rapid and indiscriminate use of the world’s natural resources were increasingly being articulated as ‘threats’ to the future well-being and security of humanity as a whole.

Third, discontent with the ontological and epistemological assumptions of realism/neo-realism opened up a wide-ranging debate about what security now means, whose security matters and how security can best be promoted or achieved. We will leave debates on ontology and epistemology for the time being, but they are taken up and developed in the concluding chapter. At this stage it is enough to note that critical security studies no longer privileged the state as the fundamental referent of security and the ‘conflict and war’ dominated under-standing of security central to realism/neo-realism.

THEORY BOX

The school of ‘critical’ security studies also embraces social constructivists whose work will be dis-cussed at greater length in chapter 7.

Summary

1. Critical Theory became influential in IR from the 1980s onwards.

2. Like structuralism, Critical Theory is influenced by Marxism, though more by the early ‘human-istic’ Marx, in contrast to structuralism which takes more inspiration from later ‘econom‘human-istic’ and

‘scientific’ Marxism.

3. Critical Theorists see an intimate relationship between theory and practice.

4. Critical Theorists hold that knowledge is ideology, not truth, although some believe that it is possible to negotiate or agree upon propositions.

5. As well as roots in Marx, Critical Theory has also evolved from the ideas of the Frankfurt School (particularly Jürgen Habermas) and Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci.

6. Critical Theory is very much a ‘modern’ project, because it aims to further human emancipation.

However, Critical Theory acknowledges and seeks to overcome the ‘dark side of modernity’.

7. Many Critical Theorists recognise that class-based oppression is not the only form inherent in capitalist societies. Other oppressions include those on the basis of ethnicity, gender, nationality and so on.

8. Contemporary Gramscians see ‘counter-hegemonic’ forces (struggles to resist global capitalism) in terms of new social movements (women, environment for example) and look beyond the industrial working class for potential agents of social change. Habermas similarly believes that social movements are a radical force in international politics because they ascribe to value systems and advocate ways of living that challenge dominant (capitalist) forms of economic and social organisation.

9. Critical Theory makes us aware of the historically contingent nature of certain features of human life and reminds us, therefore, that international relations are not fixed or immutable.

10. Critical Theory makes claims in the name of all of humankind – it is universalistic. For this reason, it questions forms of exclusion or discrimination which make distinctions between dif-ferent groups of people. This necessarily raises questions about how we define ourselves, and how we distinguish ourselves from others, leading to consideration of how boundaries between communities are drawn and the consequences of this.

Criticisms

One criticism of Gramscian Critical Theory is that it concentrates too much on the significance of social class and class relationships and, in consequence, is blind to other forms of inequality and exclusion. As we have seen, this criticism is not entirely justified, as many Critical Theorists do recognise the significance of gender inequalities or that people can be discriminated against, excluded or somehow treated differently according to their sexuality, race or ethnic origins. However, it is fair to say that there is a tendency among Gramscians to continue to concentrate on (or privilege) social class in their empirical work.

A related criticism is that Gramscians privilege class in their conception of ‘interests’. We might regard ourselves as having concrete interests which derive from our gender or nationality. Moreover, our notion of where our interests lie might also change significantly over time. Even within capital, there might be different interests depending on whether the capitalist is an industrialist or involved in commerce and this undermines to some extent the notion of transnational class alliances.

In relation to Critical Theory inspired by Habermas, critics have argued that the ‘dialogic’ model

is flawed because access (the ability to have one’s voice heard) is inevitably restricted by existing inequalities. It is impossible to establish an ‘ideal speech situation’. By and large, the poor (those with little education or access to technology) are likely to be seriously under-represented. A related criticism is that the dialogic model of politics fails to take into account the fragility of a moral point of view in a world characterised by massive inequalities: that is to say, the powerful are unlikely to concede their advantage, under critical review, even if ‘justice’ demands a redistribution of resources and wealth.

Finally, the universalistic aspirations of Critical Theory have been challenged. For example, post-modernists argue that it is impossible to establish what is morally right or just, even through the process of intersubjective dialogue, because there is no agreement about these issues across cultures.

The most likely result of a (critical) project of this kind would, then, be a profoundly Western, middle-class and gendered conception of a ‘good society’, masquerading as a ‘universal’ point of view.

Common misunderstandings

1. Critical Theorists are so-called because they criticise other perspectives like liberalism or realism. No. It is certainly the case that critique and criticism is an important aspect of Critical Theory. It is only through critique and criticism that the interested, partial and ideological nature of knowledge claims can be exposed. However, Critical Theorists are also interested in going beyond criticism, and so concentrate mainly on how theory can be used to inform an emancipa-tory project.

2. Critical Theory is the same as postmodernism. No. As you will see in the following chapter, post-modernism and Critical Theory are different in many important respects. However, confusion arises because the term ‘critical theory’ is sometimes used in a generic sense to describe a number of post-positivist approaches including the Frankfurt School, postmodernism, feminism and even Green thought.

3. Critical Theorists believe that the collapse of capitalism and worldwide socialism is inevitable.

No. While this view of history is found in much orthodox Marxist thought (see preceding chapter), Critical Theorists argue that economic, social and political change is something which must be struggled for. A much greater emphasis is placed, therefore, on the need for human inter-vention – agency – and political struggle, in bringing about change.

4. Critical Theorists argue that there is no ‘real world’. No. In contrast to postmodernists (see fol-lowing chapter), Critical Theorists emphasise the existence of real material structures and power relations. However, Critical Theorists contend that our understanding of the nature of this reality is always mediated through ideas and concepts, which are in turn related to concrete interests.

Therefore, Critical Theory – while not neglecting the material realm – places much greater emphasis on the ideational dimension of international politics.

5. Critical Theorists hold that social class is the only significant division which exists in human society. Not quite. Certainly, Critical Theorists are interested in class divisions and social inequalities rooted in social class. Some might even believe that these are indeed of major sig-nificance. However, most Critical Theorists now accept that there are many forms of social inequality and many forms of oppression, discrimination and social exclusion.

Further reading

Ashley, R.K. (1981), ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 204–36 (a very early and still influential article on the need to develop a Critical Theory of IR).

Cox, R.W. (1986), ‘Social forces, states and world order’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 126–55, reprinted as ‘Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory’

in R. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics, New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 204–54 (another influential piece within the Critical IR literature, particularly useful in setting out the distinction between problem solving and Critical Theory).

Diez, T. and Steans, J. (2005), ‘Habermas and International Relations: A Useful Dialogue?’ Review of International Studies, 31, 1, January, pp. 127–40.

Gill, S. (2003), Power and Resistance in the New World Order, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan (a good example of the treatment of globalization from a Critical Theory perspective, investigating the emergence of new forms of resistance).

Hoffman, M. (1988), ‘Conversations on critical international relations theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 91–5 (along with Rengger – below – an important article in taking the debate about Critical Theory and IR forward).

Jones, R. W. (2000), Critical Theory and World Politics, Boulder, Col: Lynne Rienner Publications Inc.

Linklater, A. (1988), The Transformation of Political Community, Oxford: Polity Press (an important work that applies Habermas’s Critical Theory to IR).

Linklater, A. (2007), Critical Theory and World Politics: Sovereignty and Humanity, London: Palgrave.

Rengger, N.J. (1988), ‘Going critical? A response to Hoffman’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 81–9 (a cautious response to Hoffman – above – that alerts us to some of the problems in using Critical Theory in an international/global context, inherent in its universalist claims).

Rengger, N. J. and Thirkell-White, T.B.(2007), Critical International Relations Theory after Twenty-Five Years, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roach, S.C. (2009), Critical Theories and International Politics, London: Routledge.

5

Introduction

Postmodernism has become something of a buzzword in the social sciences and humanities, and one that often provokes very strong reactions: many oppose it, and those labelled ‘postmodernists’ also tend to reject the label. It is hardly surprising then that the student engaging with postmodern thought for the first time encounters a number of difficulties. First, the very term ‘postmodern’

creates some confusion. It is sometimes used to connote a cultural change, a difference (although not necessarily a purely temporal one) from modernism. In other contexts it is used synonymously with

Figure 5.1 Postmodernism is about more than wacky building design, and can be used to critique many central ideas and concepts in ‘mainstream’ International Relations.

Source: Jose Fuste Raga/Corbis.

poststructuralism, which is a particular philosophical approach grounded in a critique of, but also building on, structuralism in linguistics. Second, postmodernism challenges, or subverts, many of the ideas central to International Relations theory. Relatedly, a third difficulty lies in the complexity of the work itself. The student needs a fairly sophisticated understanding of the political institutions, forms of social organisation and social practices associated with modernity, and the philosophical underpinnings of modern social and political thought, in order to fully appreciate postmodern cri-tiques of IR. Finally, there is a question of definition. What is postmodernism? Is postmodernism a critical theory, and if so, how is it different from Critical Theory as discussed in chapter 4? Is post-modernism really synonymous with poststructuralism? Do these scholars share a distinctive approach to the study of world politics?

A good starting point for understanding the origins of postmodernism is the wave of political rad-icalism that swept across the Western world in the late 1960s. Just as (post-Marxist) Critical Theory (see chapter 4) was, in part, born of the politics of the New Left, the origins of postmodernism can be seen in the identification with a range of disaffected groups such as student protesters, feminists, environmentalists and gay liberationists. While advocating political radicalism, many on the Left were dissatisfied with the continuing emphasis on the importance of economically determined social class in left-wing political movements. They believed that this emphasis neglected other issues such as racial or gender discrimination. As we will see in the following chapter, during this period femi-nists were drawing attention to the repressiveness of social relations previously dismissed as

‘private’. It was also a time of nationalist struggles against colonial and imperialist domination, with people in many parts of Asia, Latin America and Africa demanding the right to self-determination in the name of ‘the people’, while minorities in Western countries were documenting the ways in which they suffered forms of discrimination or exclusion from the mainstream of society.

To the New Left, oppositional or radical politics involved often novel forms of resistance to myriad practices of domination and exclusion. As we saw in chapter 4, the experience of widespread perse-cution and political violence in the Soviet Union had generated scepticism towards the promise of Marxism, even amongst those committed to the cause of human emancipation. In attempting to understand social inequality, Marxists had pointed to the divisiveness and exploitative nature of cap-italism, and offered up a vision of a socialist society as a panacea for contemporary ills. Many of the