Critical Theory of International Relations and Neorealism - Essay Example

How does a Critical Theory of International Relations challenge Neorealism Introduction: The essay discusses theories of IR such as realism, liberalism, Marxism, constructivism and shows how critical theory of International relations poses a challenge to Neorealism. Critical theory in international relations have used the social constructivist approaches using Marxist and neo-Marxist ideas as well as post colonial and feminist approaches to provide contrasting views to realism and liberalism from ontological perspectives. The Marxist approach to international relations encompass both traditional Marxist and Neo -Marxist positivist paradigms which do not support the realist view of state conflicts and emphasises on the economic aspects of society with the social class as central to Marxist interpretations of society (Linklater,1990). This essay would deal with the different approaches in the critical theory of IR and suggest why critical theories provide a more comprehensive picture of international relations or social evolution than neorealist and traditional realist approaches. Critical Theory - IR Neorealism show the triumph of social control and structure in defining international relations. The international structure provides a constraint on state actions and although essentially the international structure is decentralised and anarchic, states strive for survival, security and balance of power (Dougherty 2001). Neorealism thus emphasises structural constraints over social perceptions and collective motivations and is more constrained in its explanations of IR. On the other hand, critical theories of international relations would focus on a critical study of IR which would emphasise on origin, development and nature of historical structures of IR. Critical theories of international relations are oriented to critiquing and changing society considering wide perspectives derived from Kantian and Marxian traditions which aim to consider historical and social perspectives within a theory. According to Marxist theories, capital accumulation and explanation of international systems on the basis of such integrated capiatlist approaches is at the focus of socialist concerns. Marxist theories see colonialism as a method of capital accummulation as captive markets show new forms of dependence on more developed countries. Marxist theories suggest that developed countries penetrate developing countries with missionaries, military power, multinational companies and political advisors to integrate these economies into a larger capitalist system. Within the context of developing societies being exploited considering their markets, natural resoruces and raw materials, Marxist theories also use the concept of social class with individuals comprising of the higher class of society being exploitative of the lower class using the sole aim of capital accumulation (Linklater 1990, Burchill 1996). Another critical theory would be social constructivism which gives an epistemological dimension to postpositivist theories and lies in between positivist and postpositivist perspectives. Social constructivism focuses not on the economic aspects, unlike Marxism but on the theory of social ideas or perception showing that international structure constitutes identities and interests of state. The focus of social constructivism is on the state and actions of the state and as constructvism suggests that views and ideas are constructed, social constructivism deals with human experience and social perception. Social constructivism is of the contention that all knowledge of reality including race and gender are actively created by social relationships and interactions and that all meaning are derived from social structures (Brown, 2001, Taylor 1978). The emphasis is thus on society, social meaning and social activity giving meaning to social interactions and reality. Critical constructivism would argue that all proof or fact as seen in empirical research as in natural sciences could be considered as a social or ideological construction, a statement that would face strong opposition from realist theories within empirical research. Social constructivism and Marxist theories are critical theories that define or describe international relations either from an economic or from a social perspective considering the economic conditions of states or social perception as driven by social interactions or class (Linklater 1990). Postpositivist theories are also critical theories of international relations although they attempt to integrate broader issues of world politics, feminism, diplomacy and gender concerns. Gender and ethnicity for example could be seen as an issue of security concern as postpositivism seeks to provide an explanation for interrnational systems. Postpositivism deals with the experiential aspects of power although positivism deals with how power is used on others as we see in Marxism power is seen as exercised through capital accumulation (Burchill and Linklater 1996). Postpositivism shows how power relations are promoted and how people experience power considering the ethical approach to power relations. According to postpositivist theories all knowledge and discourse constitute reality and all knowledge is guided by power relations. Postpositivist theories show how power relations could be used to explain feminism or postcolonialism. One of the more well known postpositivist theories is an approach to feminism. Feminism in international relations highlights in promoting a more significant women's role in international relations leading to greater involvement of women at the international level. Radical feminism argues that patriarchy is the main reason for women's subordination and deconstructing definitions of men and women along with more active participation of women in war and politics. International relations as studied now is typically gendered as theories are constructed and studies are done from a gendered perspective where women still have a lesser role than men (Whitworth 1994). Gendered and sexually biased decision making is also present in international relations as in all other areas of knowledge and practice. Considering the fact that women have been victims of discrimination, assault and rape, rationality and security are increasingly considered as gendered concepts in international relations (Whitworth 1994). However there may be several criticisms to the feminist approaches as feminist international relations theories have been found to exclude the more modern roles of women and overlook the exclusion of men as possible victims. A terminology for gendered international relations rather than feminist international relations could be considered as more appropriate in highlighting gender issues in international relations and in reflecting or highlighting power structures. Within the postpositivist theories of international relations that suggests how power could be experienced or used on others, postcolonialism gives the perspective of developing countries that have been colonised by the bigger powers. The difference between postpositivist and Marxist theories is that colonialism is not considered as motivated by capital gains as claimed by Marxism but by military and economic power. Postcolonial international relations challenges the idea that western civilization is enlightened, superior and progressive and can thus dominate on lesser developing countries which are considered as backward. Thus considering feminism and colonialism, issues in international relations are both 'gendered' and 'cultured'. As far as the present theories of International relations are concerned, IR seems to have justified imperialism and colonialism and have paved the way for capitalist justification for domination of Asia as well. Conclusion: Critical theories of international relations provides considerable challenge to neorealism by suggesting that structures may be infleunced by social, economic and factors of race, gender and ethnicity. Considering feminist and positivist theories, IR may have to go beyond realism and neorealism to consider gender, ethnicity and use of power in construction of foreign policy and in defining international relations. Neorealism being limited in its apporcah, fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of social and international relations within a specific context. As Cox suggests, critical theories of IR can provide a broader comprehensive view of international relations that is opposed to traditional theories and neorealism that were narrow in their scope and applicability. Bibliography: Brown, Chris,2001. Understanding international relations /Chris Brown. 2nd ed. Chapter 8, Chapter 9. Basingstoke :Palgrave Burchill, Scott Theories of international relations /by Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater. Chapter 5 London :Macmillan,1996. Dougherty, James E. c2001. Contending theories of international relations :a comprehensive survey /James E. Dougherty, Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr. 5th ed. New York :Longman, Linklater, Andrew. 1990. Beyond realism and Marxism :critical theory and international relations /Andrew Linklater. Basingstoke :Macmillan, Taylor, T (1978) Approaches and theory in international relations /edited by Trevor Taylor 4th impression. London :Longman Whitworth, Sandra. 1994 Feminism and international relations :towards a political economy of gender in interstate and non-governmental institutions /Sandra Whitworh. Basingstoke :Macmillan. Read More