Validación del diseño propuesto

Through the critical analysis or investigation of a text or writing, it is possible to draw out the hidden assumptions that underpin attempts to understand or explain certain events. The func- tion of critique is to demonstrate how theories that profess to be based upon universal categories or basic ‘truths’ about the human condition inevitably produce a partial or distorted view.

Taking the example of realism. Realists claim that states, like ‘men’, are self-interested ‘actors’. Moreover, the international realm is like a ‘state of nature’. Therefore, states must always look to their own security and act prudentially, which means safeguarding the ‘national interest’. In this way, realism makes certain claims about what can be said to exist – what is ‘real’ or tangible – a system of states, a precarious or stable ‘balance of power’, genuine threats to security, concrete national interests and so forth. Realists also claim to ‘know’ something

This is not to say that postmodernist scholars simply reject everything as bias, perverse or a reflec- tion of the perspective of the powerful. Postmodernists are not necessarily cynics or nihilists. However, postmodernists are different from, say, liberals or Critical Theorists, because they are more willing to admit that ultimately there might not be any solid grounds, or ultimate source of appeal, on which to establish the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of particular value systems, beliefs, or world views. They certainly do not claim to have an insight into the ‘truth’ about the human condition, or the inherent virtue or wickedness of a particular action or event. Instead, they see it as the defining nature of politics that there is a choice between various ‘truths’. Indeed, one could even argue that the emphasis on what William Connolly once called the ‘ethos of pluralization’ (in contrast to a mere belief in pluralism) makes postmodern thought deeply ethical, although in a different sense from other critical or normative theories.

about this world. This knowledge is based on a mixture of age-old ‘truths’ about the human condition, which philosophers have recorded, historical analysis (the preponderance of wars, perhaps, or shifts in the balance of power) and empirical observation (we can see people and states behaving like this on a daily basis).

However, if we unpack, or deconstruct each of these assumptions, we find that they are all problematical. For example, states are ‘real’ in the sense that they are constituted by a territory, government, a people and sovereign jurisdiction recognised by international law. However, the state is not ‘real’ in the sense of being a unified ‘actor’ with a concrete identity or single purpose. The state is made up of an array of institutions and bodies, and within those institutions there are very many decision makers. Moreover, within that given territory there might well be numerous groups and individuals who have access to power, or, conversely, are without influ- ence. In order to make the notion of the state as a unified, coherent actor ‘real’, realists resort to claims about the selfish nature of ‘man’, but this view is surely coloured by how ‘human nature’ has been understood in certain cultures and perhaps in different periods of time. For example, some feminists argue that the kind of behaviour realists ascribe to the state as ‘man writ large’ – aggressive, dominating – is commonly associated with male, and not female, ‘nature’.

The notion of threats, danger and an international state of nature is constructed by drawing upon powerful images of anarchy, and metaphors which present the natural world as hostile and disorderly. Insecurity arises from a fear of not being in command or able to control our environment, and in which the body politic is, consequently, in constant danger of being over- whelmed, invaded or otherwise violated. This analogy of international relations as a ‘state of nature’ is based on a distinctly modern view of our relationship to nature (see chapter 8 for a fuller discussion of this point). Some might argue that the individualism inherent in realism – isolated, bounded, autonomous states – constitutes a rather strange understanding of how people (or, indeed, states) form relationships with others and how they behave towards others. Furthermore, we need only recall our earlier discussion of liberal pluralism or structuralism or Critical Theory to realise that the nature of world order is disputed – there are many views of what can be said to ‘really’ exist. Also, the concept of ‘national interest’ is difficult to pin down. Liberal pluralists, for example, claim that there are always competing visions of what is in the ‘interest’ of the people or nation, while structuralists argue that the state reflects the interests of élite classes. We will return to this idea of critique later in the chapter. At this stage, suffice it to say that postmodernist critique aims to show how, in this case, realism offers at best a partial view of international relations. At worst, we could say that the claims that it makes about the world are based on the world view of powerful men in the West at a particular period in history and are both distorting and exclusionary.

We are running ahead of ourselves here, however. We return to postmodern critique of established perspectives or ‘stories’ of IR and their celebration of value pluralism and diversity later. First, though, while recognising that it is difficult to present this collection of approaches, authors and topics as a coherent theoretical perspective, we endeavour to make good our promise to make the complex accessible, and attempt to identify some of the core themes which recur in the postmodern IR literature, even though those scholars often labelled ‘postmodernists’ are themselves reluctant to accept pigeon-holing and labelling.

From a postmodernist perspective, the study of world politics (a term preferred to International Relations for reasons which are elaborated on below):

I investigates the ways in which power operates in the discourses and practices of world politics;

I maps the many and varied ways that political space is constructed and utilised by individuals and groups;

I unpacks the complex processes involved in the construction of political identities;

I celebrates differences and diversity among people and across cultures;

I encourages a proliferation of approaches and world views, because this has the effect of dis- placing or undermining ‘orthodox’ or hegemonic forms of knowledge and power;

I highlights issues or concerns frequently dismissed as trivial or insignificant in order to give a voice to, or empower, people and groups who have been marginalised in the study of IR.

Origins

The body of work labelled ‘postmodern’ has made an important contribution to the study of International Relations since the 1980s. However, as already indicated, the intellectual origins of postmodernism go back further. A diverse array of thinkers have influenced/inspired contemporary postmodern scholars. In this chapter we concentrate mainly on the ideas of two – Foucault and Derrida.