Linklater, A. (1990a).

Beyond Realism and Marxism: Critical Theory and

International Relations. London: MacMillan Press.
Introduction
Horkheimers 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. 1.

Power, Order and Emancipation in International Theory

Power, 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 promote
It 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 analyses
The 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 Theory
Wight argued that revolutionism was distinguished from other patterns of
international thought by its commitment to the abolition of the international statessystem. [] 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. (26/27)
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]
[A CT of IR] ought to supersede Marxist political economy too since its emphasis
on class, property relations and production cannot provide an adequate
explanation of the constraints upon, and prospects for, the extension of moral and
political community. (33)
Conclusions
Despite 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 coexistence 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)