Assess The Contribution Of Critical Theory To The Essay Example

epistemological foundations of the discipline. The Frankfurt School developed critical theory in the 20th Century, divorced from the field of IR. They strongly criticized society's mass compliance with the administrative form of capitalism. Devetak2 argued that grasping contemporary society's central features by understanding its historical and social evolution, as well as tracking discrepancies that could pave the way for transcending contemporary society and its inherent pathologies and domination, was essential to the Frankfurt School's critical theory. Therefore, instead of merely eliminating individual abuses, critical theory sought to analyze the underlying social formations that gave rise to these abuses with the intention of surmounting them. Horkheimer identified the recognition of the connection between knowledge and interests as a crucial aspect of critical theory in his 1937 essay "Traditional and Critical Theory."

According to Horkheimer, knowledge is not separate from social relations and serves a social purpose. This contradicts the traditional belief that knowledge is solely derived from human communication about the world. Horkheimer believed that traditional approaches failed to comprehensively understand the world since they lacked introspection and analysis. He stated that these approaches hinder human potential, increasing control and manipulation instead of aiding realisation of it.

Critical theory aimed to expose the correlation between knowledge and society, focusing on society itself as the subject of examination. It sought to revolutionize epistemology by uncovering the origin of knowledge in existence. However, the Frankfurt School grew disenchanted with Marxist principles as positivism gained traction. Positivism aimed to subordinate individuals to technical rationality, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the pursuit of emancipation. Horkheimer lamented that 'reason' has never truly guided societal reality and has now relinquished its duty

to assess human conduct and lifestyle.

The Frankfurt School had abandoned Marxism and their belief in the eventual liberation of capitalism to conflicting interests. However, the Second Generation of the Frankfurt School emerged in the 1950's to re-emphasize critical theory and redefine Marxist principles. Jurgen Habermas's 'Theory of Communicative Action' combined the ideas of his predecessors with a renewed belief in emancipation, focusing on the potentials inherent in human communication. Habermas built on Horkheimer's argument, contrasting traditional and critical theory, and recognizing the connection between knowledge and interests. He critiqued positivism to highlight that we've lost the classical notion of politics in modern society.

According to Habermas, politics has shifted from focusing on social order to enabling a quality life within a predetermined order. The transformative power of reason, Habermas claims, has been absorbed by scientific rationality and no longer has the potential for emancipation. Habermas also studied the influence of communication forms such as mass media on human discourse and advocated for discourse based on understanding rather than power dynamics.

According to Habermas, media-driven interaction is replacing communicative action and its function of coordinating action with money and power. The aim of critical theory is to create a rational consensus promoting an emancipatory politics where the individual is the subject and constraints on human autonomy are removed. The Frankfurt School's ideas heavily influenced contemporary critical international relations theory. Robert Cox's approach to world politics relies on historical materialism to analyze alternative paths of historical development and the prospects for universal emancipation. His distinction between problem-solving and critical international relations theories highlights the Frankfurt School's impact on his work. Problem-solving accepts the existing social, political relations, and institutions

as the framework for action.

In order to address specific sources of trouble and enable smoother functioning of relationships and institutions, the general aim of problem solving theory is to be effective. A critical perspective, on the other hand, questions the prevailing order of the world and examines its origins, potential for change, and impact on institutions, social relationships, and power structures. This approach appraises the framework of action that is set as the parameters of problem solving. Additionally, critical theory serves as a guide for strategic action towards an alternative order. Its method of immanent critique eliminates the dichotomy between idealism and realism. Cox's work has been influential in critiquing neo-realism according to Hoffman.

Cox contended that the neo-realist view of International Relations, which designated states as the primary players in politics, was outdated. This limited perspective maintained a clear separation between the state and civil society, with foreign policy serving as an unadulterated expression of state interests. Cox argued that this narrow viewpoint no longer held merit as state and society had developed a more intricate relationship. A variety of state configurations expressed different varieties of state/society complexes. Given Cox's interest in the Frankfurt School, it is evident that he considers knowledge and interests as closely linked. He posits that 'theory is always for someone and for something'. By highlighting theory as a product of context and period, Cox stresses the self-reflective nature of theory, and its potential to transform political orders. Thus, theory should not only describe and explain but also be able to identify and eliminate distortions within it that contribute to reproducing and reinforcing a particular order as universalized and ahistorical.

Challenging the dominance of existing theories, the development of a critical theory of international relations has brought attention to tensions within Banks' three paradigms. In his work 'Political Realism and Human Interests', George9 highlights Ashley's critique of the Realist paradigm, which heavily draws from Habermas. Ashley argues that since the Cold War, Realism has limited understanding and explanation in International Relations to a singular form of knowledge (scientific rationalism), a singular methodology (deductive empiricism) and a singular research orientation (problem solving). This reduction by Realism has thus narrowed International Relations to a single cognitive interest in the technical knowledge and methodology of control.

Ashley aimed to alter the blinkered neo-realist approach and adopt a more traditional realist perspective, where power and knowledge were viewed as byproducts of history, culture and politics. This shift would allow for global life to be devoid of the constraints, relations of domination and distorted communication that hinder humans from making decisions through free will and consciousness. Ashley explores this theme in 'The Poverty of Neo-Realism' and goes on to identify different forms of realism, including technical and practical forms. He believes that technical realism is driven by the desire to acquire knowledge to expand one's control over an objectified environment, as exemplified by Waltz's neo-realism, which is viewed as a scientific version of power politics.

According to Ashley, using neo-realism as a method leads to defining politics as technical efficiency. The emphasis is on the means of achieving an end rather than the validity of the end itself. This results in a reduction of statecraft to figuring out technical adjustments that states can make without considering their impact on other states. Neo-realism,

being driven by a technical interest, offers a theory for the state's power, security and control in the international arena.

Practical realism and neo-realism have different approaches to obtaining knowledge. Practical realism focuses on historical and moral lines, while neo-realism is guided by positivism. Practical realism's logic of inquiry is interpretive and it aims to maintain international order by respecting common traditions, institutions, rules, and norms. The goal is to avoid conflict and war through principles and practices. This theory of international order is centered around sustaining the inter-subjective background necessary for dialogue between states, making practical realism a valuable perspective in maintaining communication and mutual understandings.

Ashley argues that the interdependence of different aspects of realism results in the inability to address matters related to change or advancement. According to Ashley, practical realism cannot detach itself from technical realism and is confined within limitations set by an emphasis on control.

The possibility of a global transformation is not possible according to Ashley. He doesn't aim to criticize the two types of realism, but instead wants to develop a theory in international relations that combines both practical and technical realism called the 'Dialectical Competence Model'. This model emphasizes the need to maintain the valuable insights into international political practice found in classical realism, while also highlighting the limitations and conditions of this tradition's potential for change.
This model, however, has received criticism from writers such as Waltz who believes that Ashley's model is very similar to his own approach and only differs in terms of a capitalist world economy gloss.

According to Waltz, there is currently no true aspect of liberation in international relations. Hoffman argues that critical

theory and realism are so fundamentally different that attempting to merge them would be contradictory. Ashley, however, has strengthened critical theory in international relations by exposing the limitations of realism, ultimately benefiting the pursuit of emancipation. While critical theory critiques have primarily targeted the Realist paradigm, Banks' inter-paradigm debate also includes pluralist and structuralist paradigms. In his 1987 article, Hoffman analyzes both paradigms and finds that while the pluralist paradigm shares similarities with Cox's work, it has had little interaction with critical theory, which is surprising.

Pluralism is focused on creating and describing an alternative view of world order rather than accepting it as is. Hoffman identifies the structuralist approach as having developed outside of IR and critiquing positivism, making it closely aligned with critical theory. The World System Analysis Approach, a widely known attempt by structuralists to provide an alternative explanation, shares many tenets with Cox's criteria for critical theory. However, it lacks practical cognitive interests and an explicit normative element except for what is implied by Marxism and action guidance.

Therefore, the two paradigms have restrictions as they form an essential part of the critical theory of IR, but cannot make up a theory independently. Linklater15 summarized the accomplishments of critical theory in the interparadigm debate on IR and gave a four-fold interpretation of the critique. As per Linklater, firstly, critical theory opposes positivism by stating that knowledge always mirrors existing social objectives and interests which has resulted in forceful criticisms of rationalist theory - a 'gradual recovery of a project of enlightenment and emancipation reworked to escape the familiar pitfalls of idealism'. Secondly, critical theory contradicts assertions that the current existing world structures

are unchangeable and 'examines the prospects for greater freedom immanent within existing social relations'.

Thirdly, critical theory acknowledges and addresses the limitations in Marxism by focusing on various modes of social education. It heavily relies on Habermas's reinterpretation of historical materialism, ultimately presenting a new avenue to create a "historical sociology with an emancipatory purpose." Fourthly, critical theory evaluates societal structures based on their ability to welcome inclusive communication with all individuals. It envisions the application of unrestricted dialogue to determine the ethical implications of national borders and explore the potential for post-sovereign methods of political existence.

The critical theorist approach has undoubtedly contributed to the inter-paradigm debate. However, there is a critical area of International Relations that requires interpretation of differing theoretical approaches in an empirical perspective - globalisation. The term globalisation is contested, with David Held16 defining it as a spatial phenomenon that lies on a continuum with 'the local' at one end and 'the global' at the other. Held states that globalisation represents a shift in the spatial form of human organization and activity, resulting in transcontinental or interregional patterns of activity, interaction, and exercise of power. Social relations and institutions stretch and deepen, such that daily activities are increasingly influenced by events happening on the other side of the globe, and the practices and decisions of local groups or communities can have significant global reverberations.

According to the realist paradigm, the focus of international relations is on states and their interactions, as they prioritize power over other motivations. Internal and external politics are distinct forms of activity, and comprehensive understanding of a state's behavior requires consideration of its relationship with other states. Internal

factors are insignificant except insofar as they determine the power base. Social group interactions that transcend state boundaries are unimportant. Realists believe that globalisation involves competition, conflict, and cooperation between nation-states, with the state playing a crucial role in global relations.

Although realists would argue that the state is the primary actor in international relations, supporters of the pluralist paradigm contend that other entities such as multinational corporations, religious groups, and cross-border organizations hold considerable weight. Pluralists do acknowledge the state's role as an actor, but differ in their perspective regarding its significance. Meanwhile, structuralists maintain that comprehending international behavior requires an examination of social, political, and economic frameworks, with economic structures regarded as the most dominant. Such views demonstrate a considerable influence of Marxist ideology.

When considering both paradigms, globalisation pertains to the conflicting interests of the nation state, both globally and nationally. From a critical theorist standpoint, an analysis of the globalisation debate entails combining criticism towards other paradigms, while emphasizing the critical theory approach's emancipatory goal. Critically assessing globalisation would argue that states and national governments are not maintaining power but instead becoming weaker within an increasingly globalised world. This is due to transnational corporations and companies holding a tighter grip over forms of political, economic and cultural power. Therefore, we are being increasingly influenced and controlled by a worldwide culture of consumerism and capitalism.

Cox17 argues that in the current global economy and era of globalisation, states' primary role is to adapt domestic economic practices to fit the requirements of the neo-liberal global economy. Cox17 believes that allowing free rein to the global economy serves domestic interests best, and regulations such as

those implemented by the WTO and World Bank aim to limit states' ability to interfere with the functioning of the neo-liberal economic order. Meanwhile, Stevenson18 observes a growing trend of 'McDonaldisation' in global society, which reflects concerns about the growth of bureaucratic and rational decision-making processes that are erasing human difference, meaning, and spontaneity. According to Stevenson, the fast food industry embodies four components of formal rationality: efficiency, predictability, quantification, and displacement of human labor.

According to the Frankfurt School and writers such as Weber, bureaucratic organisation principles have permeated society and have resulted in expert systems that rationalize and order modern life. This creates an impersonal trap for individuals. McDonaldisation is a phenomenon that specifically replaces human culture with mediation and control, resulting in easily consumed sound bites and well-tested formats that appear superficially different despite being part of a daily flow of television news programmes. Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action can be used to examine how mass media shapes identities, controls, and oppresses modern society. This is particularly relevant in the context of the globalisation debate.

The 20th Century saw the emergence of mass media, which rapidly developed from a local and print-centric medium. For most of this time, the media was national and centralized, controlled hierarchically. However, technological advances, globalization, and deregulation resulted in more information, a smaller "knowable world," and new consumer communities. These factors gave rise to global civil society ideas, decreased nationalism and state regulation, and the downfall of conformity-based mass culture. As a result, society is losing its freedom due to a power-based discourse propagated by the mass media.

Habermas focused on the potential for protest against the current

global order. The advent of globalization led to the emergence of new social movements that facilitate protest and exploration of alternative forms of social economy, seeking to revitalize civil society and establish a more responsive state. Such groups bypass formal electoral channels and state structures, as exemplified by Mexico's Zapatista uprising which aims at democratizing the state while garnering international support. Other movements advocating environmentalism, women's rights, or anti-capitalism have established non-governmental organizations contributing to novel forms of geo-governance that move away from traditional state-centered governance.

Despite the apparent limitations of these groups in the context of the global economic and political system, society has not yet achieved Habermas's vision of emancipation. However, critical theorist approaches remain a valuable tool for comprehending and interpreting the world, as well as identifying opportunities for transformation. In essence, critical theory has contributed to advancing the inter-paradigm debate in IR by challenging dominant theories' legitimacy and emphasizing knowledge and values' significance. Ultimately, critical theory aims to confront and eliminate social structures that restrict human freedom, thereby promoting progress in International Relations.