Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate

Millennium - Journal of International Studies

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 1987, Pages 231-250

  Hoffman, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84970702118     PISSN: 03058298     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/03058298870160022801     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. See M. Banks, ‘The Inter-Paradigm Debate ‘in M. Light and A.J.R. Groom (Eds.), International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory (London: Frances Pinter, 1985), pp. 7 – 26.
2. Not everyone would agree with these comments regarding the state of the discipline and could, rightly, point to the continued dominance of the realist approach in both teaching and research to support the claim that there is an agreed core in the subject. Nevertheless, in the area of international relations theory, these comments seem to be an accurate assessment of the current state of.affairs. See, for example, M. Banks, ‘The Evolution of International Relations Theory’ in M. Banks (ed.), Conflict in World Society (Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1984), pp. 3–21; M. Banks, ‘Where are we now’, Review of Iniernational Studies (Vol. 11. No. 3, 1985), pp. 220–237; Fred Halliday, ‘A “Crisis” of International Relations'. International Relations (November 1985), pp. 407–412; W. Olsen and N. Onuf, ‘The Growth of the Discipline Reviewed’ in S. Smith (ed.), International Relations: British and American Perspectives (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), pp. 1–28; H. Alker and N. Biersteker, ‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archaeologist of International Savoir Faire'. International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 28, No. 2, 1984), pp. 121–142;. 1. Rosenau, ‘Order and Disorder in the Study of World Politics’ in R. Maghroori and R. Bennct (eds.), Globalism vs Realism: International Relations’ Third Debate (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982); and K.J. Holsti, The Dividing Discipline (London: Routledge and Keegan Paul, 1985).
3. R. Bernstein, The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory (Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1976).
4. For discussion of the background and development of critical theory and the Frankfurt School see, D. Held, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas (Berkley. CA: University of California Press, 1980); T. McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1978); G. Friedman, The Political Philosophy of the Frankfurt School (Ithaca, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1981); R.J. Antonio, ‘The Origins, Development and Contemporary Status of Critical Theory'. The Sociological Quarterly (No. 24, 1983); L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, Vol. 3: The Breakdown (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 341–395; G. Lichtheim, From Marx to Hegel (New York: Herder & Herder, 1971); A. Wellmer, The Critical Theory of Society (New York: Herder & Herder, 1971); M. Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950 (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1973) and P. Anderson, In the Tracks of Historical Materialism (London: Verso, 1983).
5. M. Horkheimer, ‘Traditionai and Critical Theory’, In Critical Theory: Selected Essays (New York: Seabury Press, 1972).
6. Critical theory's Marxist credentials are not unproblematic and have been a major component of criticisms of critical theory. Kolakowski, for example, describes critical theorists as ‘para-Marxists’, (New York: Seabury Press, 1972), while Bernstein notes that Habermas's critical theory may be more of a return to Kant than a moving beyond Marx, (New York: Seabury Press, 1972), p.224. For a discussion of critical theory and Marxism see, in addition to the works mentioned in Reference 4, J. Sensat, Jr., Habermas and Marrism: An Appraisal (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979); G. Therborn, ‘Frankfurt Marxism: A Critique’, New Left Review (No. 63, 1970), pp. 65–96 and T. Flood, ‘Habermas's Critique of Marxism’, Science and Society (No. 41 Winter 1977-7$), pp. 448–464.
7. G. Friedman, ‘Habermas's Critique of Marxism’, Science and Society (No. 41 Winter 1977-7$) pp. 448–464.
8. Habermas's published works are numerous and not all are available in English translation. His most important works, in relation to this article, arc: Knowledge and Human Interests trans. by J.J. Shapiro (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1971); ‘A Postscript to Knowledge and Human Interests'. Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Vol. 3 1973), pp. 175–185; Theory and Practice trans. by J. Viertel (Boston, MA: Beacon Press. 1973); Towards a Rational Society trans, by J.J. Shapiro (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1970) and Legitimation Crisis trans. by T. McCarthy (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1975). For a discussion of Habermas's ideas, see, in addition to the works cited in References 4 and 6, J.B. Thompson and D. Held (eds.), Habermas: Critical Debates (London: Macmillan, 1982) ; G. Kortian, Metacritique: The Philosophical Argument of Jurgen Habermas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980); R. Guees, Habermas and Critical Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1982), G. Therborn, ‘Habermas: A New Eclectic’, New Left Review (No. 67, 1971), pp. 69–83 and F.R. Dallmayr, ‘Critical Theory Criticized: Habermas's Knowledge and Human Interests and Its Aftermath’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Vol. 2, 1972), pp. 211–229.
9. J. Habermas, Theory and Practice, Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Vol. 2, 1972), pp. 211–229.
10. J. Habermas, Towards a Rational Society, Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Vol. 2, 1972), pp. 211–229.
11. J. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, Philosophy of the Social Sciences (Vol. 2, 1972), pp. 211–229.
12. For a discussion of this relationship see D. Held, R.K. Ashley ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 25, No. 2, 1981), pp. 221 – 226 and J. Habermas, Legitimation Crisis, Knowledge and Human Interests.
13. J. Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 25, No. 2, 1981), D. Held, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 25, No. 2, 1981) and R. Bernstein, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, pp. 173 – 236.
14. For a discussion of the normative aspects of critical theory see R. Bernstein, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 25, No. 2, 1981).
15. See R.W. Cox, ‘Ideologies and the NIEO: Some Reflections on Recent Literature’, International Organization (Vol. 33, No. 2, 1979), pp. 257 – 302;
16. ‘Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol. 10, No. 2, 1981), pp. 126–155.
17. ‘Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method’, Millennium Journal of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 2, 1983), pp. 162–175.
18. J. Maclean, ‘Marxist Epistemology, Explanations of Change and the Study of International Relations ‘in B. Buzan and R. J. Barry Jones (eds.), Change in the Study of International Relations (London: Frances Pinter, 1981); ‘Political Theory, International Theory and the Problem of Ideology’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol. 10, No. 2,1981), pp. 102–125 and ‘An Ideological Intervention’ in R.J. Barry Jones and P. Willets (eds.), Interdependence on Trial (London: Frances Pinter, 1984).
19. R.K. Ashley, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 25., No. 2, 1981), pp. 204 – 236 and ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organization (Vol. 38, No. 2, 1984), pp. 225–286. An abridged version of the latter is reprinted in R. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), pp. 255–300.
20. V. Kubalkova and A.A. Cruickshank, Marxism and International Relations (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985).
21. S. Brucan, The Dialectics of World Politics (London: Macmillan, 1978).
22. E. Krippendorf, International Relations as a Social Science (Brighton: Harvester Press, 1982).
23. A. Linklater, ‘Realism, Marxism and Critical International Theory’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 2 1986), pp. 301 – 312 and Marxism and the Critical Theory of International Relations (forthcoming).
24. K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
25. R.K. Ashley, Theory of International Politics (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
26. R.W. Cox, Theory of International Politics There is, in addition, a second ‘external’ source in the form of writers outside of the international relations discipline who bring a critical theory perspective to bear on issues and problems central to international relations. See, for example, A. Giddens. The Nation-State and Violence: Volume Two of a Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985).
27. Kubalkova and Cruickshank argue that the ‘point of departure for fully fledged “critical studies of International Relations” ‘came with the publication of and reactions to E.P. Thompson, ‘Notes on Exterminism, the Last Stages of Civilization’, New Left Review (No. 121,1980). See V. Kubalkova and A.A. Cruickshank, ‘The “New Cold War” in “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), pp. 163 – 185. It is difficult, if not impossible, to point to one single source of the development of critical international relations theory. What is of greater interest is that it appears to have emerged from a variety of independent sources for a variety of reasons in approximately the same period of 1980-81
28. The reprinted version also includes a ‘Postscript’ with a useful discussion of how Cox's ideas developed and how he sees them standing in relation to the study of International Relations in general and to Neorealism in particular. See R.O. Keohane, “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), pp. 204 – 254.
29. Kubalkova and Cruickshank argue that Cox's notion of critical theory is different from that of Horkheimer's or Habermas's. While there are important differences between the three, there are also important points of similarity that allow us to point to an element of continuity between the three. In addition, Kubalkova and Cruickshank overstate Cox's views on Habermas. Rather that dimissing Habermas as a ‘theorist irrelevant for an understanding of international behaviour’, Cox criticises Habermas (and others) for failing to explore the implications of different forms of state/civil society relationships. See V. Kubalkova and A.A. Cruickshank, “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), p. 181, n.9.
30. Cox points to the importance of these roots in his ‘Postscript’ in R.O. Keohane, pp. 240 – 243. Kubalkova and Cruickshank make a similar point, “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), pp. 181 – 182, n.15.
31. This list is distilled from Cox's discussion of critical theory. See R.W. Cox. “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), pp. 129 – 130.
32. R.K. Ashley, ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986)
33. See K. Waltz, ‘Reflections on Theory of International Politics: A Response to My Critics’, In R.O. Keohane, (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), pp. 322 – 346.
34. R.K. Ashley, “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), pp. 210 – 215.
35. This is something that Ashley is also aware of. “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), pp. 209 – 210.
36. This point is made by A. Linklater, “critical International Studies”’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 12, No. 3 1986), p.312, n.57, though he refers to ‘rationalism’ which I have equated here with the English School. For a discussion of the ideas of the English School see R. Jones, ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 7 No. 1, 1981); H., Suganami, ‘The Structure of Institutionalism: An Anatomy of Mainstream International Relations’, International Relations (Vol. 7. No. 5, 1983); S. Grader, ‘The English School of International Relations: A Repiy to Professor Jones’, Review of International Stuclies (forthcoming) and P. Wilson, ‘Is There an English School of International Relations?’, MSc Disssertation, University of Southampton. 1987. The exemplar of this approach remains H. Bull, Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977) For discussion of the development of the norms and institutions which underpin international society and their expansion in the international system see M. Wight, ‘Western Values and International Society’ in M. Wight and H. Butterfield (eds.). Diplomatic Investigations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966) and H. Bull and A. Watson (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985).
37. R.K. Ashley, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 222 – 225.
38. ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’. The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) In the former article, Ashley points to the potential within realism, as seen in the writings of John Herz, for ‘reflective reason’ or critical theory. In the latter article, his outline of a ‘Dialectical Competence Model’ seems to be in line with his earlier argument that the transformation of realism, and a return to its classical roots, is possible only if the ‘true tradition’ espoused by ‘technical realism’ is undermined. It is for these reasons that I have described Ashley's efforts as ‘critical realist theory’, though it should be noted that there is a fair degree of ambivalence on Ashley's part, particularly in ‘Political Realism and Human Interests’, as to whether such an enterprise is possible.
39. K. Waltz, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 337 – 338.
40. These are problems that Ashley, himself, points to. See R.K. Ashley, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 232 – 235.
41. R. Gilpin, ‘The Richness of the Tradition of Political Realism’, International Organization (Vol. 38. No. 2, 1984), pp. 287 – 304 and reprinted in R.O. Keohane, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), pp. 301 – 321.
42. K. Waltz, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985) pp. 301 – 321.
43. J. Herz, ‘Comment’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 25, No. 2. 1981), pp. 237 – 241.
44. Despite realism's inability to provide the basis for a critical theory of international relations, Linklater and others argue that it is the dialogue between Realism and Marxism that provides the necessary starting point for a critical theory of international relations. See, A. Linklater, ‘Realism, Marxism and Critical International Theory’, (Vol. 25, No. 2. 1981), pp. 237 – 241.
45. R.W. Cox, ‘Realism, Marxism and Critical International Theory’, p. 127.
46. J. Vasquez and R. Mansbach, In Search of Theory (NY Columbia University Press, 1981).
47. R.O. Keohane and J. Nye, Power and Interdependence (Boston, MA: Little, Brown, 1977).
48. S. Krasner (Ed.), International Regimes (New York; Syracuse University Press, 1983).
49. Sec, for example, R.O. Keohane and J. Nye, Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972) and J.N. Rosenau, The Study of Global Interdependence (London: Frances Pinter, 1980). The epistemological tie to technical cognitive interests is also manifested in the effort in the 1960s and early 1970s to develop a ‘science’ of international relations modelled on the idea of science found in the natural sciences.
50. The literature produced by WOMP is large and by no means homogeneous. The core volumes detailing the WOMP perspective are R. Falk, A Study of Future Worlds (New York: Free Press. 1975); J. Galtung, The True Worlds (New York : Free Press, 1980)’, S. Mendlovitz, On the Creation of a Just World Order (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1981): L. Beres, People, States and World Order (New York: Peacock Press, 1981) and R. Falk, et.al. Studies on a Just World Order 2 vols. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982, 1983).
51. It is interesting to note that Giddens points to the need to draw on a similar set of values to those espoused by WOMP to provide the teological basis for a critical social theory. See, A. Giddens, Studies on a Just World Order 2 vols., pp. 310 – 340.
52. For a discussion of the utopian aspects of WOMP see I. Clark, ‘World Order Reform and Utopian Thought: A Contemporary Watershed?’, The Review of Politics (Vol. 41, No. 1, 1979), pp. 96 – 120;
53. H.D. Laswell. ‘The Promise of the World Order Modelling Project’, World Politics (Vol. 29, No. 2. 1977)
54. J.J. Farer. ‘The Greening of the Globc’, International Organization (Vol. 3 No. 1, 1977).
55. For a reply to some of these criticisms see R. Falk, ‘WOMP and Its Critics: A Reply’, International Organization (Vol. 32, No. 2, 1978).
56. The publications of John Burton are numerous and span almost three decades of constant publishing in the form of papers. monographs, articls and books. The core of his views and the manner in which they have developed over time can be found in his major books: International Relations: A General Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967); Systems, States, Rules and Diplomacy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968); Conflict and Communication (London: Macmillan. 1969): World Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Deviance, Terrorism and War (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1978); Dear Survivor (London: Frances Pinter, 1983) and Global Conflict (Brighton: Wheatsheaf,. 1985). For an informed, sympathetic but not uncritical discussion of Burton's work and ideas see M. Banks (ed.), Conflict in World Society (Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1985).
57. J.W. Burton, Conflict and Communication, Conflict in World Society (Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1985).
58. See J.W. Burton, Deviance, Terrorism and War, and Global Conflict, Conflict in World Society (Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1985).
59. For a more detailed discussion of these problems see R. Coate and C. Murphy, ‘A Critical Science of Global Relations’, Inrernational Interaction (Vol. 12, No. 2 1985), pp. 109 – 132.
60. This approach is most widely associated with the work of Immanuel Wallerstein. See, for example, I. Wailerstien, The Modern World System, in two volumes (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1976); The Capitalist World Economy (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1979) and World Systems Analysi.s (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1982). There have been numerous discussions, commentaries and criticisms of Wallerstein's approach. See, in particular, A. Zolberg, ‘Origins of the Modern World System: A Missing Link’, World Politics (Vol. 33, No. 2 1981), T. Skocpol, ‘Wallerstein's World Capitalist System: A Theoretical Critique’, American Journal of Sociology (No. 82,1977); A. Aronowitz, ‘A Methodological Critique of Wallerstein's The Modern World System’, Theory and Society (Vol. 10, No. 4 1980)-, C.H. George, ‘The Origins of Capitalism: A Marxist Epitome and a Critique of Immanuel Wallerstein's Modern World System’, Marxist Perspectives (Summer 1980) and R. Brenner, ‘The Origins of Capitalist Development: A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxists’, New Left Review (No. 104, 1977).
61. For a discussion of the question of divergent logics within the international system see. C. Chase-Dunn, ‘Interstate System and Capitalist World Economy: One Logic or Two’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 25, No. 1, 1981), pp. 19 – 42.
62. See, P. Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974) and In the Tracks of Historical Materialism (London : Verso, 1983).
63. Cox argues that historical materialism is a theoretical corrective in the study of international relations in four ways: (1) its use of the dialectic, (2) its incorporation of a vertical as well as horizontal dimension of power, (3) its emphasis on the relationship between state and civil society and (4) its focus on productive processes as the central element in the explanation of particular forms of state/civil society. Sec R.W. Cox, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974) See also the discussion of historical materialism in A. Giddens, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974); P.Anderson, and by B.K. Gills in this issue.
64. K. Waltz, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974), p. 340.
65. Linklater makes the point that a critical theory of international relations will have to combine ‘philosophical, empirical and practical concerns'. At the philosophical level, it will have to provide an alternative world order grounded in concepts of freedom and universality that are historically derived. Empirically, it has to construct a sociology of the constraints upon the realisation of these concepts, and practically, it has to provide us with strategies of transition to bridge the gap between the two. See, A. Linklater, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974), p. 310.
66. The idea that it will have to be post-realist is evident in the above discussion; the post-Marxist component is derived from Horkheimer's argument that critical theory, while developing out of the Marxist tradition, needs to build on the spirit and not the letter of Marxism. See, A. Linklater. Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974)
67. The development of critical social theory is evident in the large volume of literature making use of a critical theory perspective in other areas of the social sciences. See V. Kubalkova and A.A. Cruickshank, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974), p. 181, n.11 for a listing of some of this literature. 69. This point is made by E. Krippendorf, Lineages of the Absolutist State (London: New Left Books, 1974)
68. S. Wolin, ‘Paradigms and Political Theories ‘in B.C. Parekh and P. King (Eds.), Politics and Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968).