Jutila, Matti. Reconstructing Global Interconnectedness: The Complementary Roles of Philosophy and Social Sciences: A conversation with Roy Bhaskar and Keikki Patomaki.
Critical Realism has a unique genealogy that can be traced back through the works of Bhakshar and Harre, among many others. "In short, the content of CR is understood with the help of three philosophical theses: ontological realism, epistemological relativism and judgmental rationalism. Ontological realism means that the world is not only real but it must also be differentiated, structured, layered and possess causal powers. This forms the basis for our knowledge of the different aspects of the world, but this knowledge is always socially produced, contextual and fallible...This interpretative pluralism does not mean that all knowledge claims are equally valid. According to judgmental rationalism, we can always compare various interpretations, explanations and models to make well-grounded and plausible judgments about their truth" (2).
The remainder of the piece is an interview with both Bhaskar and Patomaki regarding their positioning of critical theory within philosophy and social science.
Showing posts with label Critical Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critical Theory. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Patomaki: A Critical Realist Approach to Global Political Economy
Patomäki, H. 2003. A critical realist approach to global political economy. Critical realism (pp. 197Á220). London/New York: Routledge.
Cox wrote from a neo-Gramscian perspective about IPE. This derived from a critique of Wallenstein's approach to a global capitalist order, both as a critique and as an amendment. This was then built upon by Gill and Law. "...Gill and Law argued that a political economy analysis should not be narrowly limited to diplomatic relations between governments of modern nation-states, which are taken as given, and a few other actors such as NGOs and international organizations. The focus should not be on the actions of a few collective actors, particularly states, but rather on the underlying socio-economic processes and structures. Deeper and larger historical processes...determine, in part, forms of state and world orders. In contrast to Wallenstein, but in accordance with the rising literature on globalization, Gill and Law...also claimed that there is now a rather well integrated global political economy, 'whereas in the past, there was a less complex international political economy'" (2).
"GPE has opened a new perspective for fruitful studies of world politics and economy. It is the basic claim of this paper that critical realism can make a difference by enriching this approach in at least two crucial ways. Firstly, critical realism enables the building of bridges between heterodox economics and GEP...Secondly, CR can work as a philosophical 'underlabourer' for GPE by deepening basic ontological concepts such as causality, action, structure, power and open systems; by clarifying the epistemology of explanatory modeling and the role of explicitly hypotheses and empirical evidence; and by explicating the truly critical moment in social scientific explanations" (2-3).
"In the following, I make first an argument that the neo-Gramscian GPE fails to address the issues of economic theory and lacks adequate concepts of causality, explanation, hypothesis and empirical evidence. Second, I explain why the neo-classical orthodoxy in economics has become insulated from all other strands of social sciences, including political economy; and ask whether there are nay more open, pluralist and realist approaches in economics, which could enable the creation of bridges between GPE and economics. Third, in order to absent the absences of GPE, I introduce the critical realist notions of action, structure, causality and open systems; and the epistemological concepts of falsification, iconic model, existential and causal hypothesis, and evidence. I argue that these and related concepts provide a framework within which GPE can be made more systematic and open to falsification and revisions; and within which economics and political economy could be re-united. Fourth, by using explanations of the instability of global finance as an example, I take a few steps towards concretizing these suggestions in a pivotal contemporary context. Finally, I conclude by outlining briefly the relationship between causal explanations, social criticism, and transformative practice" (3-4).
Neo-classical economic theory has become separated from social science. The author traces the development of both neo-classical economic theory growth and the growth of heterodox approaches. A critical realist ontology also rejects the false method of looking at the world through closed systems in place of open systems.
Cox wrote from a neo-Gramscian perspective about IPE. This derived from a critique of Wallenstein's approach to a global capitalist order, both as a critique and as an amendment. This was then built upon by Gill and Law. "...Gill and Law argued that a political economy analysis should not be narrowly limited to diplomatic relations between governments of modern nation-states, which are taken as given, and a few other actors such as NGOs and international organizations. The focus should not be on the actions of a few collective actors, particularly states, but rather on the underlying socio-economic processes and structures. Deeper and larger historical processes...determine, in part, forms of state and world orders. In contrast to Wallenstein, but in accordance with the rising literature on globalization, Gill and Law...also claimed that there is now a rather well integrated global political economy, 'whereas in the past, there was a less complex international political economy'" (2).
"GPE has opened a new perspective for fruitful studies of world politics and economy. It is the basic claim of this paper that critical realism can make a difference by enriching this approach in at least two crucial ways. Firstly, critical realism enables the building of bridges between heterodox economics and GEP...Secondly, CR can work as a philosophical 'underlabourer' for GPE by deepening basic ontological concepts such as causality, action, structure, power and open systems; by clarifying the epistemology of explanatory modeling and the role of explicitly hypotheses and empirical evidence; and by explicating the truly critical moment in social scientific explanations" (2-3).
"In the following, I make first an argument that the neo-Gramscian GPE fails to address the issues of economic theory and lacks adequate concepts of causality, explanation, hypothesis and empirical evidence. Second, I explain why the neo-classical orthodoxy in economics has become insulated from all other strands of social sciences, including political economy; and ask whether there are nay more open, pluralist and realist approaches in economics, which could enable the creation of bridges between GPE and economics. Third, in order to absent the absences of GPE, I introduce the critical realist notions of action, structure, causality and open systems; and the epistemological concepts of falsification, iconic model, existential and causal hypothesis, and evidence. I argue that these and related concepts provide a framework within which GPE can be made more systematic and open to falsification and revisions; and within which economics and political economy could be re-united. Fourth, by using explanations of the instability of global finance as an example, I take a few steps towards concretizing these suggestions in a pivotal contemporary context. Finally, I conclude by outlining briefly the relationship between causal explanations, social criticism, and transformative practice" (3-4).
Neo-classical economic theory has become separated from social science. The author traces the development of both neo-classical economic theory growth and the growth of heterodox approaches. A critical realist ontology also rejects the false method of looking at the world through closed systems in place of open systems.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Booth: Theory of World Security
Booth, K., 2007. Theory of World Security, Cambridge University Press.
Booth claims that we live in a world that is quite different from the worlds that had existed before. We have the capability to destroy on a larger scale than is easily conceivable. We have the ability to work with precision in our destruction. All of this operates within a milieu of globalization, regionalization and generally conflictual trends.
The author claims, echoing EH Carr’s famous text, that we are living in a new Twenty Years’ Crisis that he calls The Great Reckoning. “If a series of key decisions about world security are not made in the first two decades of the century, and are not made sensibly, then by mid-century human society faces the prospect of a concatenation of global turmoil unlike anything in the past” (2). “In other words, a critical theory of security seeks to be both realistic and emancipator” (2). “The framework of the theory to be elaborated derives from a body of ideas I call critical global theorizing” (3). “…world security refers to the structures and processes within human society, locally and globally, that work towards the reduction of the threats and risks that determine individual and group lives. The greater the level of security enjoyed, the more individuals and groups (including human society as a whole) can have an existence beyond the instinctual animal struggle merely to survive. The idea of world security is synonymous with the freedom of individuals and groups compatible with reasonable freedom of others and universal moral equality compatible with justifiable pragmatic inequalities” (4-5).
The book consists of four sections: Context, Theory, Dimensions and Futures. In the first section, the author expands upon the concept of the Great Reckoning and how this relates to Carr’s earlier work. In the second section, Booth explores in more depth what is meant by critical theory of world security. In the third section, the theory is applied empirically, specifically as a critique of US power, violence, human security and the state4 of nature (6). In the final section, there is a call for urgent action to mitigate the dilemmas highlighted.
Ch. 1:
“This chapter introduces six themes that carry through the book: a world that is not working for most of its inhabitants; a body of regressive ideas that continue to dominate politics, economics, and society globally; a growing world crisis that is not being attended to by the globally powerful; a particular set of challenges resulting from the convergence of traditional ideas and new material conditions created by environmental despoliation and population expansion; a regressive realist hegemony in the way policymakers and academics think about security; and the need to reconceptualise world security in the light of a self-consciously critical perspective with an emancipator orientation” (12).
Ch. 2:
“The previous chapter identified where a critical theory of security should start…A radically different world politics is conceivable, though is complete achievement may ultimately elude humankind. International politics must become the art of the impossible, for the alternative is almost too unpleasant to contemplate. With this in mind, the present chapter begins to sketch a map of sites of ideas to help create the political conditions for a more secure future. These ideas are not to be found in the national ghettos of realism, but in the cosmopolitan spirit of the unfinished work of the enlightenment” (37).
The following represent the core of a critical global theory: universalist, inclusive, normative, emancipatory, progressive and critical (38-9).
Booth claims that we live in a world that is quite different from the worlds that had existed before. We have the capability to destroy on a larger scale than is easily conceivable. We have the ability to work with precision in our destruction. All of this operates within a milieu of globalization, regionalization and generally conflictual trends.
The author claims, echoing EH Carr’s famous text, that we are living in a new Twenty Years’ Crisis that he calls The Great Reckoning. “If a series of key decisions about world security are not made in the first two decades of the century, and are not made sensibly, then by mid-century human society faces the prospect of a concatenation of global turmoil unlike anything in the past” (2). “In other words, a critical theory of security seeks to be both realistic and emancipator” (2). “The framework of the theory to be elaborated derives from a body of ideas I call critical global theorizing” (3). “…world security refers to the structures and processes within human society, locally and globally, that work towards the reduction of the threats and risks that determine individual and group lives. The greater the level of security enjoyed, the more individuals and groups (including human society as a whole) can have an existence beyond the instinctual animal struggle merely to survive. The idea of world security is synonymous with the freedom of individuals and groups compatible with reasonable freedom of others and universal moral equality compatible with justifiable pragmatic inequalities” (4-5).
The book consists of four sections: Context, Theory, Dimensions and Futures. In the first section, the author expands upon the concept of the Great Reckoning and how this relates to Carr’s earlier work. In the second section, Booth explores in more depth what is meant by critical theory of world security. In the third section, the theory is applied empirically, specifically as a critique of US power, violence, human security and the state4 of nature (6). In the final section, there is a call for urgent action to mitigate the dilemmas highlighted.
Ch. 1:
“This chapter introduces six themes that carry through the book: a world that is not working for most of its inhabitants; a body of regressive ideas that continue to dominate politics, economics, and society globally; a growing world crisis that is not being attended to by the globally powerful; a particular set of challenges resulting from the convergence of traditional ideas and new material conditions created by environmental despoliation and population expansion; a regressive realist hegemony in the way policymakers and academics think about security; and the need to reconceptualise world security in the light of a self-consciously critical perspective with an emancipator orientation” (12).
Ch. 2:
“The previous chapter identified where a critical theory of security should start…A radically different world politics is conceivable, though is complete achievement may ultimately elude humankind. International politics must become the art of the impossible, for the alternative is almost too unpleasant to contemplate. With this in mind, the present chapter begins to sketch a map of sites of ideas to help create the political conditions for a more secure future. These ideas are not to be found in the national ghettos of realism, but in the cosmopolitan spirit of the unfinished work of the enlightenment” (37).
The following represent the core of a critical global theory: universalist, inclusive, normative, emancipatory, progressive and critical (38-9).
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
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).
“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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
