Linklater, A. (1990a). Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and International Relations. London: MacMillan Press.IntroductionHorkheimers essay on traditional and critical theory anticipated the basic themes in the most recent critique of realism. Horkheimer argued that traditional theory (positivism) was distinguished from critical theory by its attempt to explain social laws and regularities. The aim of critical theory was to understand how these socially-created constraints upon the freedom of human subjects could be reduced and, where possible, eliminated. (1)Until recently, supporters of critical theory have rarely discussed international relations. [] the realist tradition contains much that is clearly hostile to the idea of critical international theory. Most accounts of the ascent of realism note that its principles were shaped in response to the two perspectives which were the main heirs of the Enlightenment: liberalism and Marxism.The realist critique of the project of the Enlightenment effectively thwarted the development of a critical tradition of international theory. However the recent emergence of a critical voice in international theory suggests that this may be about to change. (2)The current challenge to realism began with the revival of the liberal tradition of international political economy. [they] argued for a more comprehensive theoretical approach which took account of the effects of industrialisation and modernisation upon contemporary state structures had become essential in the age of global interdependence. The growing importance of economic factors in world politics made students of international relations more sensitive to the need to analyse the phenomenon of change. It made them more aware of the possibility that the state might become obliged to be responsive to an ethical constituency which was broader than its own citizenry, and more cognisant of the possibility that international cooperation would be strengthened by the need to solve a number of emerging global problems. [from there Marxism came back into discussion] (3)In the 1980s this discussion has become relevant for the theory of international relations. It has been argued that the main strands of international theory resemble either positivism or hermeneutics. In other words, these strands of thought have either analysed the repetitive and the recurrent dimensions of world politics or focused upon the language and culture of diplomatic interaction. What they have overlooked is the possibility of a critical theory of international relations which analyses the prospects for universal emancipation.What is novel about this line of argument is the point that the realist critique of Marxism has been too preoccupied with determining the relative influence of economic and political factors in international history. In so doing, realists undoubtedly exposed major weaknesses in the Marxist contention that the expansion of capitalism would revolutionise the nature of world politics. They successfully demonstrated that Marxism overestimated the importance of class and production and underestimated the impact of strategic competition and war on human history. But they did not invalidate the Marxian claim that political theory ought to strive for the emancipation of the species. It is precisely this critical dimension of the Marxian project which has been turned against realism in recent international theory. [important! Marxism was disproven in its analysis but not in its general orientation towards critique!] (4)From the perspective of critical social theory, the classical distinction between realist and idealist approaches to international relations is a false dichotomy.On these grounds, it has been suggested that the critical theory of world politics may prove to be the next stage in the development of international relations theory. " If so, it is necessary to ask whether the new critical paradigm ought to be post-Marxist by virtue of the necessity of retaining some of the themes of statecentric realism. (5)1.Power, Order and Emancipation in International TheoryPower, order and emancipation are the primary concerns of the three main traditions of international theory - the realist, rationalist and revolutionist perspectives.Martin Wight, who first described the history of international thought in these terms, argued that the "mutual tension and conflict" between these three schools of thought would continue to shape the evolution of international theory. The revolutionist tradition - the perspective which most closely approximates the idea of a critical international theory - would therefore survive as a reminder of the moral imperfection of the system of states. It would ensure that the tension between ethics and politics would remain important in the theory and practice of international relations.The contemporary argument for a critical theory of international relations differs from the earlier defence of revolutionism in one major respect. The former does not start from the philosophical contention that there are immutable and universal moral principles of international relations which other perspectives have overlooked. The crucial point is that the critical project is based on a method which avoids the epistemological and methodological limitations of other modes of inquiry. By the terms of this argument, the only adequate theory of international relations is one which is committed to the emancipation of the human species. (8)The hermeneutic approach insists therefore on the distinction between the cultural and the natural sciences. Critical social theory is distinguished from these perspectives by the supposition that human subjects possess a unique capacity to transform their social environment in the attempt to achieve a higher level of self-determination. A critical approach to society aims to determine how far social relations are a superfluous constraint upon the freedom of human subjects, and it seeks to understand how far the dominant culture is an impediment to human autonomy.-'Habermas has argued that each of these traditions of inquiry is predicated upon a particular "knowledge-constitutive interest". The positivist strand of sociology is constituted by a technical interest in increasing the control of social behaviour. Positivism therefore resembles the physical sciences which produce knowledge that enables human beings to acquire mastery of nature. The hermeneutic analysis of the values and meanings which structure human conduct reflects a practical interest in preserving social consensus. Critical social theory is possible because subjects have an interest in transcending the limits upon their capacity for self-determination. It is constituted by an emancipatory cognitive interest in understanding the possibility of freeing social actors from unnecessary constraints and from institutionalised forms of distorted thought and communication.One of the main developments of this line of argument suggests that positivism, hermeneutics and critical sociology form a dialectical sequence of approaches to society. Positivism emerged because of a growing confidence that human beings could acquire a level of self-understanding which would equal the knowledge which science gave them of nature. However it obscured the distinction between conscious action and unreflective behaviour which necessitates the division between the cultural and the natural sciences. The hermeneutic approach is a more advanced perspective because it stresses the cultural and linguistic dimensions of social behaviour. Its main shortcoming is the failure to search the cultural realm for evidence of distorted thought and communication. Critical theory surpasses both perspectives because its inquiry is oriented towards the realisation of truth and freedom. (9)Its proponents do not deny that those working within other traditions are capable of making perfectly valid observations about the nature of society. They are more concerned to take issue with the philosophical foundations of other approaches and to contest the social purposes which their observations tend to promoteIt has been argued that the idea of a dialectical sequence of approaches to sociology also applies to the three patterns of international theory. Richard Ashley has developed this argument in the following way. One branch of realism - technical realism - resembles positivism because it analyses the recurrent and repetitive patterns of international relations. The technical realist has a cognitive interest in understanding how far states can influence the constraints which most deeply affect their security and survival. A second kind of realism - practical realism - resembles hermeneutic sociology because it analyses the language and culture of diplomatic practice and the conventions which states obey as members of an international society. The practical realist has a cognitive interest in strengthening the consensual foundations of international order. Ashley argues that a third approach to international relations is present in Herz's argument that a series of interlocked crises may bring about the transformation of the modern international system. Herz's claim that a radically different form of world order may already be immanent within the existing states-system is, Ashley argues, reminiscent of the method of critical social theory. A cognitive interest in freedom and universalism underlies both analysesThe three dominant perspectives in international relations do not merely disagree about the empirical nature of world politics - they possess radically different conceptions of the nature of international theory and contrasting notions of the right relationship between theory and practice. The idea of a dialectical development of the three sociologies suggests one method of resolving the differences between realism, rationalism and revolutionism. It suggests that realism, rationalism and revolutionism (for which critical international theory will be substituted below) form a sequence of progressively more adequate approaches to world politics. If this is so, a theory which analyses the language and culture of diplomatic interaction in order to promote international consensus is an advance beyond a theory of recurrent forces constituted by an interest in manipulation and control. And an account of world politics which seeks to understand the prospects for extending the human capacity for self-determination is an even greater advance in this sequence of approaches. The remainder of this chapter defends this proposition by examining realism, rationalism and the critical theory of international relations in greater detail. (10)Revolutionism and Critical Social TheoryWight argued that revolutionism was distinguished from other patterns of international thought by its commitment to the abolition of the international states-system. [] Wight and Bull, who also characterized revolutionism in these terms, accepted part of this moral critique of the states-system. However they disagreed with revolutionism on two grounds. In the first place, they argued that its moral absolutism was linked with violence and fanaticism; and secondly, they claimed that the notion of the primacy of horizontal conflict threatened to undermine the fragile diplomatic practices which made international order possible. In their view, the limited progress that is possible in international relations cannot occur unless mechanisms for limiting inter-state conflict are securely in place.Kants revolutionist perspective recognized the force of this point. [] the experience of the French revolution persuaded Kant that a politics of human emancipation should seek to release the universal potential that was latent in existing international institutions rather than destroy the achievements of the past. The Kantian political project took account of the way in which the struggle for power constrained the development of moral freedom. (21)[]The Frankfurt School abandoned Marxism without establishing the basis for an alternative form of critical social theory. By contrast, the leading figure in the second generation of the Frankfurt School, Jrgen Habermas, has sought not only to recover critical theory but to do so within the Marxist tradition. [critical theory] must diminish the part that capital accumulation played in classical Marxism; and more deeper still, it must correct Marxs understanding of the nature of human development. [] Habermas distinguishes between labour and interaction in order to draw attention to the part that language and culture have played in the formation and development of human society. For Habermas, a modern philosophical history must be as interested in the moral development of the species as Marx was in its progress towards the conquest of nature. (25)[] The emancipatory project in this context must seek to extend the realm of social interaction which is governed by universalisable moral principles. (26)[] by identifying the conditions which may engender universalistic social movements, Habermas has shown how a contemporary critical theory can overcome the impasse which led Horkheimer and Adorno to abandon the emancipatory project. It is interesting that Habermas method of recovering critical theory should focus upon the same global problems and crises which Bull cited in his argument for new principles of international legitimacy. This suggests one way in which social theory and the study of international relations might be combined to produce a more comprehensive account of society and politics. The Critical Turn in International Theory[] the discovery of critical theory in the study of IR has been quite recent. In the latter field, more so than in sociology, it has been necessary to begin by breaking down the resistance to radical, idealist or critical modes of inquiry. As a result, much of the literature has been concerned with exposing the methodological limitations of classical approaches. The recent critical turn in international theory has been profoundly influenced by the Frankfurt Schools critique of mainstream sociology. (27)[discusses Cox]ConclusionsDespite its assorted shortcomings, Marxism foreshadowed a project which is superior to realism: a project which brings an emancipatory interest to the analysis of the factors which have been responsible for the expansion and contradiction of human community. The main question is how to reconstruct this project. In the first place, the normative interest in defending the extension of moral community deserves rather more discussion than it has received within the Marxist tradition. In the second place, this project requires a more complex sociology of how production, state-building, international relations and developments in the realm of culture and ideology have shaped and reshaped the moral frontier at different points in human history. [] realism and Marxism have an important place in the sociological project outlined above. But neither perspective contains a comprehensive analysis of the expansion and contraction of moral community. An inquiry into the widening of moral and political community in particular has to take account of two phenomena which realism and Marxism have ignored. (171) The means by which independent political communities have established the principles of their co-existence is the first of these phenomena. The second is the means by which moral principles have been universalized in the course of human history. The interplay between these four phenomena is the starting point for a critical theory of international relations. (172)