scholarly journals Interlocuting classical realism and critical theory: Negotiating ‘divides’ in international relations theory

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hartmut Behr ◽  
Michael C Williams
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
History Of ◽  
Common Problems ◽  
Classical Realism

The history of the discipline of International Relations is usually narrated as a succession of theories that would pursue different ontologies and epistemologies and focus on different problems. This narrative provides some structure to a multifaceted field and its diverse discussions. However, it is also highly problematic as it ignores common problems, intersections and mutual inspirations and overemphasizes divides over eventual commonalities. Rather than such overemphasis, we suggest instead negotiating between ‘IR theories’ and elaborating their shared foci and philosophies of science in order to provide new perspectives on and approaches to international politics. We here negotiate between the two theoretical movements of classical realism and critical theories that are typically treated as opposites, yet which nonetheless are characterized by shared concerns about political and social crises, modernity and humanity.

Happy Anniversary! Time and critique in International Relations theory

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 71-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
KIMBERLY HUTCHINGS
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Critical Theories ◽  
International Theory

ABSTRACTAll critical theories lay claim to some kind of account not only of the present of international politics and its relation to possible futures, but also of the role of critical theory in the present and future in international politics. This article argues that if critical international theory is to have a future that lives up to its revolutionary ambition, then it needs to listen more carefully to the voices of postcolonial and feminist critics and take on board the heterotemporality of international politics.

scholarly journals Time in International Relations Theory

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Hom
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Theoretical Development ◽  
English School ◽  
Power Shifts ◽  
It Impacts ◽  
Open Time

Temporal phenomena like power shifts, wars, and confounding events characterize international politics. Yet for decades academic international relations (IR) did not consider time worthy of research or reflection. Recently things have changed, especially in critical IR, where scholars developed numerous arguments about time’s political importance. However, none of that work pursued a synoptic account of time in IR theory. This chapter does so, using an ideal typology of closed and open time to understand realism, liberalism, constructivism, English School, feminism, Marxism, and critical theory. In each, tensions between open and closed time distinguish the theory from its competitors but also animate explanatory and normative debates among its proponents. The historically overlooked issue of time—our assumptions about it, visions of it, and claims about how it impacts politics—drives theoretical development across and within IR theories, which we can understand as attempts to time international political life.

A Case against the Constructivist–Critical Theory Synthesis

2019 ◽  
pp. 122-146
Author(s):  
J. Samuel Barkin ◽  
Laura Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
The Core ◽  
Critical Theories

This chapter builds on the understandings of constructivist and critical International Relations theories laid out in the book so far to make an argument that constructivisms and critical theories are not the same thing, naturally aligned, or necessarily productive bedfellows. Furthermore, there are both analytical and political downsides to the constructivist/critical theory nexus, which are evident in work in international relations that pairs the two unreflectively. In fact, many of the intersections between constructivisms and critical theories in the current International Relations theory literature are contrived at the expense of some or even most of the core tenets of either theory. This chapter suggests that the “end of International Relations” and the lost, confused nature of International Relations theory (particularly progressive International Relations theory) can find their origins in the underspecification and overreached application of pairings between constructivisms and critical theorizing in International Relations. These implications make it necessary to critically evaluate figurations of constructivist and critical International Relations.

scholarly journals Exeunt Omnes? Survival, Pessimism and Time in the Work of John H. Herz

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 283-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Stevens
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Late Modernity ◽  
Human Survival ◽  
Classical Realism ◽  
Intellectual Legacy

John H. Herz (1908-2005) is better known for his theorisation of the security dilemma than for his conviction that human survival is threatened by the conditions of late modernity. This article explores extinction and survival in his work to interrogate his persistent characterisation as an incorrigible pessimist. In his preoccupation with extinction, Herz would seem a first-rank pessimist, but his intellectual commitments belie this easy categorisation. Specifically, his appeals to interdisciplinary ‘survival research’ suggest a qualified pessimism that does not foreclose on the potential of humankind to overcome structural, political and normative obstacles. This is consistent with current understandings of pessimism within the broader realist tradition. Herz expressed an ‘open’ and ‘linear’ temporality that challenges cyclical and linear-progressive temporalities inherent to realism and liberalism, respectively. Herz articulates, therefore, a ‘productive pessimism’ that charts a different path for pessimist thought beyond its pejorative connotations. This article contributes to the literature on classical realism, to a growing interest in Herz’s intellectual legacy, and to the developing appreciation of time and temporality in International Relations theory and practice. It also provides a foundation for rethinking our assumptions about pessimism and international politics.

The assumption of anarchy in international relations theory: a critique

1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Milner
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
International System ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Fundamental Assumption ◽  
Ambiguous Words

‘Anarchy is one of the most vague and ambiguous words in language.’ George Coreewall Lewis, 1832.In much current theorizing, anarchy has once again been declared to be the fundamental assumption about international politics. Over the last decade, numerous scholars, especially those in the neo-realist tradition, have posited anarchy as the single most important characteristic underlying international relations. This article explores implications of such an assumption. In doing so, it reopens older debates about the nature of international politics. First, I examine various concepts of ‘anarchy’ employed in the international relations literature. Second, I probe the sharp dichotomy between domestic and international politics that is associated with this assumption. As others have, I question the validity and utility of such a dichotomy. Finally, this article suggests that a more fruitful way to understand the international system is one that combines anarchy and interdependence.

scholarly journals Racial sovereignty

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 39-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerem Nisancioglu
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
International Politics ◽  
17Th Century ◽  
Constitutive Relationship ◽  
World Today ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of

This article explores how International Relations (IR) might better conceptualise and analyse an underexplored but constitutive relationship between race and sovereignty. I begin with a critical analysis of the ‘orthodox account’ of sovereignty which, I argue, produces an analytical and historical separation of race and sovereignty by: (1) abstracting from histories of colonial dispossession; (2) treating racism as a resolved issue in IR. Against the orthodox account, I develop the idea of ‘racial sovereignty’ as a mode of analysis which can: (1) overcome the historical abstractions in the orthodox account; (2) disclose the ongoing significance of racism in international politics. I make this argument in three moves. Firstly, I present a history of the 17th century struggle between ‘settlers’ and ‘natives’ over the colonisation of Virginia. This history, I argue, discloses the centrality of dispossession and racialisation in the attendant attempts of English settlers to establish sovereignty in the Americas. Secondly, by engaging with criticisms of ‘recognition’ found in the anticolonial tradition, I argue that the Virginian experience is not simply of historical interest or localised importance but helps us better understand racism as ongoing and structural. I then demonstrate how contemporary assertions of sovereignty in the context of Brexit disclose a set of otherwise concealed colonial and racialised relations. I conclude with the claim that interrogations of racial sovereignty are not solely of historical interest but are of political significance for our understanding of the world today.

Introduction: Diversity and Disciplinarity in International Relations Theory

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Steve Smith
Keyword(s):  
Critical Theory ◽  
Social Science ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
International Theory ◽  
The World

This text argues that theory is central to explaining International Relations (IR) and that the discipline of IR is much more relevant to the world of international relations than it has been at any point in its history. Some chapters cover distinct IR theories ranging from realism/structural realism to liberalism/neoliberalism, the English school, constructivism, Marxism, critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism, green theory, and postcolonialism. Oher chapters explore International Relations theory and its relationship to social science, normative theory, globalization, and the discipline’s identity. This introduction explains why this edition has chosen to cover these theories, reflects on international theory and its relationship to the world, and considers the kind of assumptions about theory that underlie each of the approaches.

School for Statesmen?

1953 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 242-262
Author(s):  
William W. Kaufmann
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Politics ◽  
Diplomatic History ◽  
Effective Training ◽  
The Future ◽  
Long Time ◽  
History Of ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Gaining Insight

The history of international relations has lent itself to many uses. Its narrators have employed the tangled web of intention, maneuver, alliance, and war to vindicate or besmirch men's reputations, prove the guilt or innocence of nations in conflict, enrich traditions, furnish precepts for the present, and provide guides to the future. Their activity has gone on for a very long time and the product of their research has grown enormous. Presumably such a vast and varied output reflects a number of needs and interests. But is its perusal a useful way of gaining insight into the varied problems of international politics? More, as diplomatic history customarily is written, does it constitute an effective training ground for statesmen?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document