‘Turtles All the Way Down’: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations

Millennium - Journal of International Studies

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 1994, Pages 213-236

  Brown, Chris ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84973201076     PISSN: 03058298     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/03058298940230020901     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Martin Wight. ‘Why is there no International Theory?’ in Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight (eds.), Diplomatic Investigations (London: George Allen and Unwin. 1966). p. 26.
2. Sec for example, Brian Barry, Democracy, Power and Justice: Essays in Political Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).
3. Charles Beitz. Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1979).
4. Mervyn Frost, Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986).
5. Onora O. Neill. Faces of Hunger (London: Allen and Unwin, 1986): and
6. Terry Nardin, Law. Morality and the Relations of States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983).
7. John Rawls. A Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1971). p. 51. The relationship between Kant and Hume in Rawls's work is. of course, more complex than this, and in
8. Political Liberalism (New York, NY: Columbia University Press; 1993) the Kantian side certainly predominates.
9. Works such as Q. Skinner (ed.). The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) and
10. Richard Bernstein. The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory (London: Methuen, 1979) are the best way into all this material.
11. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (London: Unwin Hyman. 1989 (20th. Impression)).
12. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism., p. 181.
13. Friedrich Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil, trans. RJ. Hollingdale (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971). p. 26.
14. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. RJ. Hollingdale (London: Penguin, 1971), p. 46, translation slightly altered.
15. Martin Heidegger, The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, trans. W. Lovitt (New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks, 1977). This is a complex text and it is a bit misleading to suggest that the human subject disappears as a result of ‘technology’; for Heidegger it is doubtful whether the human subject existed in the first place.
16. This is, I think, true of Pauline Rosenau in ‘Internal Logic, External Absurdity: Postmodernism in Political Science’, Paradigms (Vol. 4, No. 1. 1990); and
17. ‘Once Again into the Fray: International Relations Confronts the Humanities’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol. 19, No. 1, 1990), pp. 83–110.
18. On the Frankfurt School in general, see Bernstein, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, in note 4. and
19. Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination (Boston. MA: Little Brown, 1973). On Habermas the best critical studies, upon which the following account draws heavily, are
20. Bernstein, Giddens in Skinner, in note 4.
21. Thomas McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas (London: Hutchinson, 1978) and
22. Richard Bernstein (ed.). Habermas and Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985). This latter collection is particularly useful for the relationship between Critical Theory and other post-modernisms. Key texts by Habermas are (‘early/middle’)
23. Knowledge and Human Interests (London: Heinemann, 1972) and (‘late’)
24. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vols. 1–2 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984).
25. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment (London: Verso, 1979).
26. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (New York, NY: Sea bury, 1975). Habermas’ review of Truth and Method is conveniently reprinted in an excellent collection
27. Fred R. Dallmayr and Thomas A. McCarthy (eds.). Understanding and Social Inquiry (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press. 1977), pp. 334–363. The nub of Habermas’ criticism is that
28. ‘Gadamer's prejudice for the rights of prejudice certified by tradition denies the power of reflection’, p. 358. For a recent application of Gadamer's ideas lo the study of international relations see
29. Richard Shapcott, ‘Conversation and Co-existence: Gadamer and the interpretation of International Society’. Millennium (Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994), pp. 57–83.
30. It is this ontological claim that distinguishes Habermas’ notion of an ‘ideal speech situation” from the superficially similar thought experiments of writers such as’ Rawls and Scanlon. The ‘Original Position’ and the ‘veil of ignorance’ behind which Rawls’ contractors reach agreement is not intended to have ontological significance. See John Rawls, Millennium, in note 3, Chapter 3. Similarly, when Scanlon writes of a ‘system of rules for the general regulation of behaviour which no one could reasonably reject as a basis for informed, unforced general agreement’ he is coming very close to Habermas-, but again, without the ontological assumptions of the’ latter. See
31. T. M. Scanlon. ‘Contractualism and Utilitarianism’ in A. Sen and B. Williams (eds.). Utilitarianism and Beyond (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1982), p. 110.
32. Robert Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World Order Beyond International Theory’. Millennium (Volume 10, No. 2. 1981), pp. 126–55, and
33. Production. Power and World Order (New York. NY: Columbia University Press. 1987).
34. Andrew Linklater, Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory- and International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1990).
35. Mart, Hoffman, ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, Millennium (Vol. 16, No. 2. 1987). pp. 231–49; and
36. Mark Neufeld, ‘Reflexivity and International Relations Theory’, Millennium (Vol. 22. No. 1, 1993). pp. 53–76: and
37. ‘Interpretation and the “Science” of International Relations’. Review of International Studies (Vol. 19. No. 1. 1993). Both refer also to a wider range of critical theories, but each expresses the aspiration of Critical Theory’ to create new foundations.
38. See Andrew Linklater, ‘The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View’. Millennium (Vol. 21, No. 1, 1992), pp. 77–98.
39. Habermas. The Philosophical Discourses of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press. 1987).
40. William Connolly. ‘The Critical Theory of Jürgen Habermas’, in Politics and Ambiguity (Madison. WI: Wisconsin University Press. 1987). p. 71. For a generation Habermas has been an active participant in German public life: his essays in this role---see for example, his recent collection on
41. German politics and the Gulf War, Vergangenheit als Verkunft (Zurich: Pendo Verlag, 1991) ---often remain untranslated, which perhaps skews the perception that Anglo-American writers have of this important thinker. There is a wider point here concerning the vagaries of translation: Anglophone thinkers sec Habermas as a ‘pure’ philosopher because only his philosophical works are regularly translated, but. conversely, other German philosophers who have made major contributions to ‘Discourse Ethics’ remain untranslated. Thus, such important collections as
42. Karl-Otto Apel, Diskurs und Verantwortung (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988) and
43. Klaus Günther, Der Sinn für Angeniessenheit (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1988) are not available in English. 1 am grateful to Matthias Albert of the University of Frankfurt am Main for pointing this out to me.
44. Some of what follows is drawn, much amended, from Chris Brown, International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1992). Chapter 8. and
45. Chris Brown ‘Critical Theory and Postmodernism’, in A. J. R. Groom and Margot Light (eds.). Contemporary International Relations Theory (London: Pinter Publishers. 1994).
46. See G. C. Spivak. Introduction to Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology (Baltimore. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976) for the most coherent account of this procedure--and the best general introduction to Derrida's work.
47. The way in which these two authors---Der Derian and Ashley--have been chosen for consideration requires some defence. As will be clear enough below, even the scope I have to discuss these two authors is inadequate and it clearly would not be possible to discuss them and others, such as R. B. J. Walker, Inside / Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
48. Michael J. Shapiro. Reading the Post-Modern Polity (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 1992).
49. David Campbell. Writing Security (Manchester Manchester University Press. 1992); and figures such as Jim George. Bradley Klein. Michael Dillon, and Simon Dalby. I have chosen Der Derian and Ashley because they are unambiguously post-sirucluralist in their approaches (unlike Walker, whose genealogical studies of political thought are perhaps closer to conventional modes than he would like to admit) and because they address agendas closer to the centre of international relations than the other authors listed above. It should be noted that I do not equate post-structuralism with post-modernism or late modernism; post-modernists such as Christine Sylvester and Richard Rorty and late modernists such as William Connolly arc discussed in a later section.
50. What follows is horribly inadequate: for fuller accounts see, Vincent Descombes, Modern French Philosophy, trans. L.Scott Fox and J. M. Harding (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).
51. C. Norris, The Contest of Faculties: Philosophy and Theory after Deconstruction (London: Methuen. 1985).
52. J. Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (Ithaca. NY: Cornell University Press. 1982) and for less sympathetic accounts.
53. T. Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983): and
54. P. Dews, Logics of Disintegration (London: Verso. 1987).
55. C. Norris in Derrida (London: Fontana. 1987) argues that Derrida's slogan (‘Il n'y a pas de hors-texte’) has been misinterpreted. According to Norris, ‘|l]here is no excu. sc for the sloppy misreading of Derrida that represents him as some kind of transcendental solopsist who believes that nothing “real” exists outside the written text’, p. 158. 24. In so far as one can discern Derrida's intentions this is probably true, but the misreading is one that Derrida himself has done much to promote, and ii is not clear how one can get ‘outside’ of. or beyond, the text without reintroducing a transcendental signified.
56. Der Derian James. On Diplomacy: Genealogy of Western Estrangement (Oxford: Blackwell. 1987).
57. Der Derian, ‘Spy versus Spy: The Intertextual Power of International Intrigue’, in J. Der Derian and M. Shapiro (eds.), International/Intertextual Relations: Postmodern Readings of World Politics (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1989).
58. Der Dorian. ‘The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance and Speed’, International Studies Quarterly (Vol. 34. No. 3. 1990), and other essays collected in
59. Derr Derian. Antidiplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed and War (Oxford: Blackwell. 1992) address similar subjects. C. M. Constantinou helpfully reviews Der Derian's work in
60. ‘Late Modem Diplomacies’. Millennium (Vol. 22, No. 1, 1993). pp. 89. 96.
61. Der Derian. Millennium, in note 25.
62. See for example, M. Poster (ed.). Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writings (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988): and
63. P. Virilio. Speed and Politics (New York, NY: Semiotext(e). 1986). In Antidiplomacy. Der Derian applies the ideas of these writers to the Gulf War. an event seen in terms of cyberspace and virtual reality: this is a line of argument heavily criticised in
64. C. Norris. Uncritical Theory: Postmodernism. Intellectuals and the Gulf War (London: Lawrence and Wishart. 1992) although Der Derian's book was not available in time to attract Norris’ censure.
65. Richard Ashley. ‘Living on Borderlines: Man, Poststructuralism and War’, in Der Derian and Shapiro, in note 26. William Connplly's paper in the same volume (‘Identity and Difference in Global Politics’) makes similar points to those made here, rather more sympathetically. See also.
66. Connolly, Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca. NY: Cornell University Press, 1991)
67. Ole Waever, Tradition and Transgression in International Relations:. A Post-Ashleyan Position (Copenhagen: Centre for Peace and Conflict Research. Working Paper 24. 1989) is an excellent account of the evolution of Ashley's thought.
68. Kenneth Waltz, Man. The State and War (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1959).
69. Ashley. Man. The State and War, in note 30. p. 263.
70. Man. The State and War., p. 312.
71. See especially. Ashley's discussion in Man. The State and War., pp. 274–80.
72. Man. The State and War., p. 312.
73. Ashley. ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’, International Organisation (Vol. 38, No. 2. 1984). pp. 225–286.
74. The debate is collected in R. O. Keohane (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, NY: Columbia University Press. 1986).
75. Paul Ricoeur. Histry and Truth (Chicago. IL: Northwestern University Press. 1965). p. 27X.
76. M. M. Bakhtin, The Dialogic Imagination (Austin. TX: University of Texas Press. 1981). For accounts of Bakhtin's work see.
77. T. Todorov. Mikhail Bakhtin: The Dialogic Principle (Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1984): and
78. R. Kirsehkop and P. Shepherd (eds), Bakhtin and Cultural Theory (Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1989).
79. T. Todorov, The Conquest of America, inns. R. Howard (New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks, 1987).
80. Sec, M. Foucault, The History of Sexuality. Vols. 1-3. trans. R. Hurley (Harmondsworth: Penguin. 1981–1987).
81. See A. W. H. Adkins. From the Many to the One (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1970).
82. Sylvester has contributed to a number of important collections on feminist international relations and post-positivist international relations theory, such as V. Spike Peterson (ed.). Gendered Stales: Feminist (Revisions of International Relations Theory (Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner, 1992), and
83. J. N. Rosenau (ed.), Global Voices: Dialogues in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993) as well as editing a special issue of Alternatives on
84. ‘Feminists Write International Relations’ (Vol. 18, No. 1. 1993). However her most important contribution is
85. Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Along with Jean Bethke Elshtain. she is, from the point of view of international relations, the most important ‘postmodern feminist’--as opposed to ‘feminist postmodernist’, a distinction discussed below.
86. The original classification was made by Sandra Harding in The Science Question in Feminism (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1986): and elaborated in her
87. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991); but has now been employed very widely by. for example.
88. Robert Keohane, ‘International Relations Theory: Contributions of a Feminist Standpoint’, Millennium (Vol. 18, No. 2, 1989). pp. 245–53.
89. Marysia Zalewski, ‘Feminist Theory and International Relations’, in M. Bowker and R. Brown (eds.). From Cold War to Collapse: Theory and World Politics in the 1980's (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and by Sylvester in earlier papers and most recently in Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, op. at., in note 43.
90. As Harding acknowledges, in Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women's Lives, Phenomenology of Spirit, in note 44, p. 120, the argument here goes back to Hegel's account of Lordship and Bondage in G. F. W. Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit. trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1977). In terms of international relations theory, a good source of (largely) standpoint feminist writings is the Millennium Special Issue.
91. ‘Women and International Relations’ (Vol. 17, No. 3, 1988).
92. Sylvester. Feminist Theory, Feminist Theory, in note 43, citing
93. K. Ferguson. The Man Question: Visions of Subjectivity in Feminist Theory (Berkeley. CA: University of California Press, 1993), p. 3.
94. Keohane, The Man Question: Visions of Subjectivity in Feminist Theory, in note 44. p. 249.
95. The best discussion of this distinction is in Sylvester. Feminist Theory, Feminist Theory, in note 43, p. 52.
96. Feminist Theory., p. 52.
97. Jean Bethke Elshtain. Women and War (Brighton: Harvester Press. 1987).
98. See Sylvester. Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era. Feminist Theory and International Relations in a Postmodern Era, in note 43, Chapter 5.
99. Richard Rorty, ‘Postmodern Bourgeois Liberalism’, in Objectivity. Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
100. William James. ‘What Pragmatism Means’. Selected Papers on Philosophy (London: Dent, 1917). p. 215.
101. Rorty. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Oxford: Blackwell. 1980).
102. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature., p. 367.
103. M. Oakeshott, ‘The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind’, in Rationalism m Politics (London: Methuen. 1962).
104. Rorty, Contingency. Irony and Solidarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). What follows is largely drawn from p. 56 of that work.
105. Both quotations come from Rorty. ‘Method, Social Science and Social Hope’, Consequences of Pragmatism (Brighton: Harvester. 1982).
106. Rorty. ap. cit., in note 57, p. 59.
107. See Rorty. ‘Human Rights, Rationality and Sentimentality’, in S. Shute and S. Hurley (eds.). On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures. 1993 (New York. NY: Basic Books. 1993).
108. See On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures. 1993., where he links this demand for assurance with the Nietzschean notion of resentment. ‘We resent the idea that we shall have to wail for the strong to turn their piggy little eyes to the suffering of the weak. We desperately hope that there is something stronger and more powerful that will hurt the strong if they do not. ‘, p. 130. emphasis in original.
109. In Connolly, in note 19, p. 116. The whole of this section of my essay owes much to Connolly's thought, although he would not always agree with the conclusions reached.
110. Rorty. In Connolly, in note 60, p. 128.
111. See for example, Frederic Jameson, Postmodernism, or. The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (London: Versp, 1991); and
112. David Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).
113. See Jean Baudrillard. Selected Writings, Mark Poster (ed.) (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988).