Devetak: Critical Theory

Devetak, R. 1997. “Critical Theory.” Theories of International Relations, Basingstoke 145-178.

“Critical international theory, building especially on the lineage of emancipatory politics extending from Kant via Marx to Habermas, sought to inquire into the possibilities of transforming international relations in order to remove unnecessary constraints on achieving universal freedom and equality” (155). What holds disparate scholars together under the banner of Critical Theory, “…is the idea that the study of international relations should be oriented by an emancipatory politics” (155).

CT came from Kant, Hegel and Marx, it is typically argued. This is not universal, as some argue it goes back to the Greeks, and others that it incorporates Nietzsche and Weber. It is most clearly associated with the Frankfurt school, the work of Horkheimer, Adorno, Benjamin, Marcuse, Fromm, Lowenthal, Habermas, etc.

The point is not to look out at the world and say what is, to interpret it, but to change it.

In Cox’s 1981 article, he makes a distinction between problem-solving theories and critical theories. “Problem-solving theories are marked by two main characteristics. First by a positivist methodology; second, by a tendency to legitimize prevailing social and political structures” (160). “Problem-solving theory, as Cox defines it, ‘takes the world as it finds it, with the prevailing social and power relationships and the institutions into which they are organizes, as the given framework for action” (161).

Critical theory, on the other hand, problematizes prevailing power and knowledge relationships. It does not believe that the re is a world out there that we need to approach, but embraces different starting points that provide for different kinds of inquiry. It embraces “theoretical reflectivity, or, “…a willingness to be open about our philosophical and political starting point and facing the challenge of clarifying ‘how our commitments and values are consistent with our (meta-)theoretical starting points’” (161).

“Critical theory is essentially a critique of the dogmatism it finds in traditional modes of theorizing” (161).

How does one determine ethical positions without an objective market?

“Critical theory’s emancipatory interest is concerned with ‘securing freedom from unacknowledged constraints, relations of domination, and conditions of distorted communication and understanding that deny humans the capacity to make their future through full will and consciousness’” (163).

Booth and emancipation: “…’freeing people from those constraints that stop them carrying out what freely they would choose to do’” (163).

“To conclude this part of the chapter, critical international theory makes a strong case for paying closer attention to the relations between knowledge and interests” (164).

“Informing critical international theory is the spirit, if not the letter, of Marx’s critique of capitalism” (164).

“This section elaborates three dimensions on which critical international theory rethinks political community. The first dimension is the normative and pertains to the philosophical critique of the state as an exclusionary form of political organization. The second is the sociological dimension and relates to the need to develop an account of the origins and evolution of the modern state and states-system. Third is the praxeological dimension concerning practical possibilities for reconstructing international relations along more emancipatory and cosmopolitan lines” (165).