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 selfdetermination. 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 selfunderstanding 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 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]

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 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)