Still critical after all these years? The past, present and future of Critical Theory in International Relations

Abstract

Twenty-five years ago, theoretical reflection on International Relations (IR) was dominated by three broad discourses. In the United States the behavioural revolution of the 1950s and 1960s had helped to create a field that was heavily influenced by various assumptions allegedly derived from the natural sciences. Of course, variety existed within the behaviourist camp. Some preferred the heavily quantitative approach that had become especially influential in the 1960s, while others were exploring the burgeoning literature of rational and public choice, derived from the game theoretic approaches pioneered at the RAND corporation. Perhaps the most influential theoretical voice of the late 1970s, Kenneth Waltz, chose neither; instead he developed his Theory of International Politics around an austere conception of parsimony and systems derived from his reading in contemporary philosophy of science.

Ir Theory as an ‘Areligious’ Research Field: The Sources of and Critical Prospects to Overcome the Intellectual Failure

“…With the wide adoption of positivism in IR, scholars have argued for the application of scientific rules such as falsification, parsimony, objective engagement to theorizing and focused specifically on quantitative methods in IR. For instance, Waltz was also inspired from the move towards the scientific tradition and applied his own understanding of the contemporary philosophy of social sciences 17 and structural realism became one of the most dominant approaches to the study of IR.…”

Toward a Post-Western IR: TheUmma,Khalsa Panth, and Critical International Relations Theory1

“…As Rengger and Thirkell‐White (2007:8) point out, obvious parallels exist between Cox’s neo‐Gramscian framework and the Frankfurt School inspired critical international theory of Andrew Linklater in particular. However, whereas Cox took his inspiration from Gramsci and early Frankfurt School theorists such as Horkheimer, Linklater has helped introduce Habermasian “discourse ethics” to IR where they have been influential in the development of constructivist, poststructuralist and feminist perspectives (Diez and Steans 2005).…”

Conventional and Critical Constructivist Approaches to National Security

“…One camp (critical theory) has employed its critical project in the context of "emancipation,"and the other camp (poststructuralism) has been suspicious of any kind of designed project in the name of "progress"and "modernity. "See Devetak (1995) and Rengger and Thirkell-White (2007). 119) , p. x.…”