Understanding and Classifying Critical Approaches

2019 ◽  
pp. 79-98
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Copenhagen School ◽  
Critical Approaches

This chapter argues that what various theoretical approaches to IR that describe themselves or are described as critical share in common is that they are political rather than social theories. There are no other common elements to be found across this group of approaches. Various schemas used to typify different sorts of critical theories (e.g., emancipatory/postmodern; feminist/postcolonial/poststructuralist; Copenhagen School/Aberystwyth School/Paris School) signify different political theories with different political content but share political investment in both disciplinary International Relations and global politics. They are explicitly engaged in International Relations theorizing and International Relations research as a political enterprise with political ends.

scholarly journals On the theopolitics of sovereignty: Carl Schmitt and the theopolitics of global orders

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 691-712
Author(s):  
Thomas Moore
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
World Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Carl Schmitt ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Critical Approaches

AbstractThis article considers how we can develop a reflexive reading of the theological contours of global politics through Carl Schmitt's account of sovereignty. In doing this it seeks to generate a critical architecture to understand the pluralistic registers of sovereignty within world politics. This article examines the theological dimensions of sovereignty, calling for a closer reading of the theopolitical discourses of legality and legitimacy at work within the largely secular discipline of International Relations. Tracing the pluralistic dimensions of sovereignty – juristic, popular, and theopolitical – allows us to see how sovereignty is operationalised through a range of distinct political registers. When the study of sovereignty is confused with questions of preference for modes of governing (whether secular, religious, democratic, and/or juristic) the complex historical sociology of sovereignty is overlooked. Contemporary scholarship in International Relations can benefit from closer engagement with the multiple, overlapping registers of sovereignty in global politics. We may disagree with Schmitt's reading of sovereignty as ‘theopolitics’ but there is real methodological value in engaging secular scholarship in thinking about religion as a constitutive domain for global order – alongside a rich range of critical approaches.

Permutations and Combinations in Theorizing Global Politics: Whither Realist Constructivism?

2020 ◽  
pp. 193-216
Author(s):  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Critical Theories

This chapter argues that while combinations of realisms and constructivisms provide more leverage in understanding international relations than either of the two approaches alone, two is unnecessarily limiting. It suggests that where two is an improvement, three or more might be better yet. To this end, it looks at the empirical chapters of the book and asks what might be gained by incorporating into their analyses critical theories, decolonial approaches, queer approaches, and feminisms. It concludes by arguing for trading in realist constructivism for ‘ism’ promiscuity.

Constructivism Does Not Have a Politics

2019 ◽  
pp. 63-78
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Political Theory ◽  
Social Theory ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Political Theories ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Political Structures

This chapter lays out the argument that constructivism is fundamentally a social theory of the mechanisms at work in global politics, rather than a political theory of what, in international politics, constitutes “good” and “bad.” Constructivisms provide a set of tools that can inform understandings of the substance of global political structures and decisions about how it is possible to maintain or change political structures, but constructivisms cannot by themselves inform decisions about the desirability of particular political structures. Constructivisms, as social theories, can only meaningfully inform the practice of international politics in combination with some political theory, understood as a theory concerned with the “ought” when constructivisms are concerned with the “is.” Constructivisms as such are no more “naturally” wed to critical theory than they are to realisms, liberalisms, Marxisms, or any other political theories.

International Relations' Last Synthesis?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Theoretical Perspective ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Knowledge Accumulation ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
Constructivist Epistemology

Many scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, have entangled constructivisms and critical theories in problematic ways, either by assigning a critical-theoretical politics to constructivisms or by assuming the appropriateness of constructivist epistemology and methods for critical theorizing. This book makes the argument that these connections mirror the grand theoretical syntheses of International Relations (IR) in the 1980s and 1990s, and have similar constraining effects on the possibilities of International Relations theory. These connections have been made without adequate reflection, in contradiction to the base assumptions of each theoretical perspective, and to the detriment of both knowledge accumulation about global politics and theoretical rigor in disciplinary International Relations. It is not that constructivisms and critical theories have no common ground but instead that the overstatement of their common ground that has become routine among International Relations scholars is counterproductive to the discovery and utilization of their potential dialogues. To that end, this book argues that scholars using the two in conjunction should be cognizant of, rather than gloss over, the tensions between them as approaches and the different tools they have to offer. Along these lines, the book uses the concept of affordances to look at what each has to offer the other, and to argue for a modest, reflective, specified return to (constructivist and critical) International Relations theorizing that has the potential to revive International Relations theorizing by rejecting its oversimple syntheses.

scholarly journals Different understanding of state power as a key notion within the realist theoretical approach

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-95
Author(s):  
Milan Lipovac
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Theoretical Approach ◽  
Social Constructivism ◽  
State Power ◽  
The State ◽  
Security Studies ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
Key Issues

The concept of power is not a new phenomenon, so the intellectual origin of this concept can also be found among the ancient philosophers. However, the reconsideration of this concept within the International relations and Security studies started 60-70 years ago. The representatives of the realistic theoretical approach were mostly those who dealt with the concept of power of the state, as well as representatives of other theoretical approaches (e.g. liberalism, social constructivism, critical theories, feminist approaches, etc.). But, despite the great interest in this concept, consensus exists only on two key issues related to power of the state. First, in the terms of importance everyone agrees that the power of the state is one of the key concepts, and second, in the terms of complexity. Therefore, no one should be surprised by the pluralism of viewpoints regarding the concept. Those viewpoints could be reduced on three prevailing comprehensions of power of the state: power as control over resources, power as control over actors and power as control over events and outcomes. All these prevailing comprehensions have its own advantages and disadvantages. The aim of this paper was to present the views of relevant scholars (through the theoretical discussion not only by the realists), and to offer an adequate overview of the advantages and disadvantages of each of these comprehensions. Such a review of literature could certainly be useful for researchers in the case of selecting an adequate comprehension of power of the state for their particular specific research. The researcher should make this kind of decision based on a particular school of thought that he/she prefers, his/her personal affinities, but primarily based on the object and purpose of his/her research. The conclusion of the paper could be reduced to the notion that the concept of power of the state is far beyond the scope of realistic theoretical approach, and that it represents a key concept (and according to some scholars it is the most important concept in the IR), as well as that each of these prevailing comprehensions of power of the state has its own place in the theoretical conceptual apparatus of International relations and Security studies.

16. Critical Approaches to Global Politics

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Postcolonial Theory ◽  
Karl Marx ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Major Influence ◽  
Global Order ◽  
Critical Approaches ◽  
Friedrich Engels

This chapter examines seven critical approaches to global politics: Marxism, Critical Theory, constructivism, feminism, postmodernism, postcolonial theory, and green theory. In their book The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels address the implications for global order of the rise of capitalism and the role of the bourgeoisie as controllers of capital. Their ideas have had a major influence on critical approaches to virtually all aspects of both domestic and global politics. The chapter considers some major strands of Marxist-influenced theory of direct relevance to global politics, including dependency theory, world-system theory, Gramscian theory, and Frankfurt School theory. It also discusses gender theory and compares postmodern/poststructural approaches to global politics with Critical Theory and constructivism in International Relations.

Critical Theory Is Ontologically Promiscuous and Methodologically Agnostic

2019 ◽  
pp. 99-121
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Research Methods ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
The World ◽  
Critical Approaches ◽  
Political Commitments

Do critical approaches to International Relations have some ontological commonality? Is there some tenet about what the world is (or should be) that critical approaches share? Does critical International Relations scholarship have methodological, perhaps even constructivist, commonality? This chapter makes the case that critical theories are sets of political commitments, not ontologies or sets of research methods. To read critical theories as ontology or method is to do injustice to their ties to politics; to read critical theories as methodologically bound is unfairly limiting to them. The chapter provides an overview of the range of ontologies and methods that are useful to the spectrum of International Relations critical theories, suggesting that this spectrum is broad, varied, and not necessarily internally consistent. While constructivisms can be methodologically useful to critical theorizing, they are only some among many of the tools that can be employed fruitfully in service of the various ends of International Relations critical theories.

Critique and Alternativity in International Relations

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 678-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gëzim Visoka
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Conflict Studies ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Critical Knowledge ◽  
Peace And Conflict Studies ◽  
Peace And Conflict ◽  
Critical Approaches ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This article critically interrogates the episteme of alternativity in international relations (IR) to rethink the purpose of critical knowledge in global politics. It questions what critical knowledge is for and whose purpose it serves. While alternativity is the very condition that has given rise to critical approaches, there is a deep-rooted division among critical scholars regarding the relationship between criticality and alternativity. This article argues that alternativity provides an opportunity for critical scholars to remain relevant without being affiliated with positivist logics of inquiry. In examining the potential of alternativity, the article explores three modes of alternativity in peace and conflict studies: critique-without-alternative, critique-as-alternative, and critique-with-alternative. It probes the merits and limits of the episteme of alternativity in generating new possibilities for advancing emancipatory interests and saving critical theory from losing its original transformative impetus. In the final part, the article explores future directions for rejuvenating the purpose of critique by exploring the nexus between criticality and alternativity on postparadigmatic and practical grounds.

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Zürn
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
Political System ◽  
Global Politics ◽  
Governance System ◽  
Causal Mechanisms

This chapter summarizes the argument of the book. It recapitulates the global governance as a political system founded on normative principles and reflexive authorities in order to identify the legitimation problems built into it; it points to the explanation of the rise of societal politicization and counter-institutionalization via causal mechanisms highlighting the endogenous dynamics of that global governance system; and, it sums up the conditions under which the subsequent processes of legitimation and delegitimation lead to the system’s decline or to a deepening of it. In addition, the conclusion submits that the arguments put forward in this book are in line with a newly emerging paradigm in International Relations. A “global politics paradigm” is increasingly complementing the “cooperation under anarchy paradigm” which has been dominant for around five decades. The chapter finishes with suggestions of areas for further research.

scholarly journals Quantum and systems theory in world society: Not brothers and sisters but relatives still?

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 434-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Albert ◽  
Felix Maximilian Bathon
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Systems Theory ◽  
World View ◽  
Social World ◽  
Critical Engagement ◽  
The Social ◽  
Social Theories ◽  
Entire World ◽  
And Function

This article provides a sympathetic, yet also somewhat critical, engagement with the notion of ‘quantizing’ by exploring substantive overlaps between quantum and systems theory. It is based on the observation that while quantum theory is ‘non-classical’ in its entire world-view, there is a danger that when it comes to the social world it is simply laid on a world-view of that world, which remains at its core ‘classical’. This situation calls for engaging quantum with existing non-classical social theories. Resemblances between quantum and systems theory are obviously given through similarities around the concepts of observation and meaning, whose status and function in both bodies of theory is explored. We then probe the degree to which obvious analogies in fact could be read as overlaps and similarities that could be put to complementary analytical use: in a sense, we argue that systems theory ‘does’ quantum theory, and vice versa. The article concludes with some vistas of this discussion for the field of international relations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document