2600570

Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations Author(s): Jim George
and David Campbell Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3, Special Issue: Speaking the Language of Exile: Dissidence in International Studies (Sep., 1990), pp. 269-293 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600570 . Accessed: 30/09/2011 16:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studies Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
International Studzes Quarterly (1990) 34, 269-293
Patternsof Dissent and the Celebrationof Difference:Critical Social Theory and InternationalRelations
JIM GEORGE
Australian NationalUniversity
DAVID
CAMPBELL
TheJohns Hopkins University

The voices of dissentproliferating international in studiesover the past decade are frequently understoodby negation,thatis, in termsof their criticisms and refusalsof positivist/empiricist commitments and political realist in perspectives, long dominant thediscipline. understand so To contemporary discoursesof dissentin thisway,however, to impose upon is theman undue semblanceof unity perspective of and purpose-one that mirrors illusory the of unities positivism realism.It is to failto acknowland edge the varietyof dissidentvoices thathave called to accountthe given, axiomaticand taken-for-granted "realities" prevailing of disdisciplinary courses.Concentrating upon whatmight called the "agenda of dissent" be in international studies,thispaper celebrates thatvariety, thatdifference, amongcritical voicesin international studies.In particular, locatespromiit nentthemesin critical international relations within widerarc thinking the of debates in Western social theory-interdisciplinary, intercontinental debates whose questionsinclude the Enlightenment conceptsof history, and rationality, truth;the subject/object agent/structure and oppositions; the relationship betweenlanguage and social meaning; the relationship betweenknowledgeand power; the character and function the human of for sciences;and the prospects emancipatory politics today.These debates conclusion. pointto no necessary They mandateno singleposition. Instead, theysuggestthe openingup of "thinking thatis space,"a space of thought of voiceswho would speak in replyto the exploitedby a variety dissident of life dangersand opportunities political in the late twentieth century.
Introduction Over the past decade, International Relationshas been subjectto the proliferating voices of dissent.Resisting synthesis a discreteand fixedapproach,the creative to tensionsto be found in these disparateendeavorshave led to the celebration of difference. Some scholarshave locatedthemselves amidstthesepatterns dissent of byattempting explain the natureand "potentially to powerful transformational im?) 1990 InternationalStudies Association
270
Critical Social Theory International and Relations
plications" (Lapid, 1989:7) of critical approaches to the "theory question."' Some have identified dissension paradigmatic the in terms an exemplary as globalexpression of Frankfurt School thinking (Hoffmann,1987). Othershave questionedthe of appropriateness this paradigmatic designation, emphasizinginstead important contrasts betweenthe Critical Theoryinfluences in particular,Habermas and a of, "radicalinterpretivism" (Rengger,1988) derivedfrom poststructuralist a perspective and long (see also Hoffmann,1988).2 The latteris portrayedas a fundamental overdue attackon the metatheoretical heartlandof the discipline's orthodoxy, set unities(subject/object, of upon thefoundational fact/value, self/other) post-Enlightfroma positionmost enmentWesternthinking (Der Derian, 1988). Alternatively, of influenced sociologyof sciencedebates,the enhanced theoretical by insight the 1980s has been identified part of an "acute bout of self doubt and heightened as of metatheoretical ferment" characteristic scholarship acrossthe human sciencesin era the "postpositivist" (Lapid, 1989:2; see also Campbell,1988). has This metatheoretical ferment been integralto a widersearch for "thinking social theory centeredon a broad "agenda of dissent" space" within contemporary the attitudes and the tensions (George, 1989). From this perspective, contending elementsof critical betweenthemshare four major interdisciplinary analysis.The first assertsthe inadequacy of positivist/empiricist approaches to knowledgeand the The second addresses,in more explicit society. terms, actual processof knowlin external sourcesof understanding. This involves a edge construction repudiating to or rejectionof all attempts secure an independentfoundation, Archimedean insteadthe need to point,fromwhichto orientand judge social action.It stresses and powerrelations. groundall knowledgeof social lifein human history, culture, on the The thirdelementconcentrates the language debate and stresses linguistic an of of The fourth involves extension theseissuesto the conconstruction reality. in and places particular struction meaningand identity all itsforms, of emphasison the questionof subjectivity. We willconcentrate upon thisagenda of dissentin order to explicatethe debate in the Relations. willdo We surrounding new wave of critical thinking International one so fromwhat Lapid (1989:2-5) has describedas a "celebratory" perspective, of whichseeks to counterthe simplecoherenceand illusory unity positivist/empirifor with critical a cistapproaches,dominant so longin International Relations circles, the socialtheory approach thatstresses need foran open-ended,genuinely pluralisto We tic,and contestedapproach to knowledgeand society.3 seek, in particular,
nature of the term,in its capitalized form,"InternationalRelations" ' While we acknowledge the controversial will referhere to the studyof global life as traditionally carried out in Westernuniversities.
2 has Der Derian (1988:192) has noted thatthe termpoststructuralism become the "sponge" word fora variety of approaches derived fromContinentalscholars such as Barthes,Baudrillard, Foucault, and Derrida. As Callinicos between poststructuralist postmodernist (1985) has explained, there are subtle differences and perspectives.But, as both writersmake clear, there is a shared acknowledgmentof the "constitutive nature of language" and an are reducible to binaryopposiantipathytoward "closed" systemsof knowledge "in which analysisand identity tions" (Der Derian, 1988:192). It is on this basis that the term poststructuralism be used here. The diverse will social theory.The approaches it representsare in thissense part of the broad agenda of dissentin contemporary termCriticalTheory, in itscapitalized form,refersto the workof the Frankfurt School. The concern withcritical social theoryand internationalrelationsin thispaper, however,is not the same as thatassociated withHoffmann to School scholarshipinto the narrow paradigmaticconfinesof (1987, 1988), whichseeks primarily 'fit'Frankfurt InternationalRelations as outlined by Banks (1985).
3The notion of a criticalsocial theoryemployed here is another analytically useful termwhich incorporatesa range of meanings. As Anthony Giddens (1982:5-6) has argued, social theory"is a body of theoryshared in common by all the disciplines concerned with the behavior of human beings. It concerns . . . sociology . . . anthropology, economics, politics,human geography,[and] psychology. . . it connects throughto literary criticism on the one hand and to the philosophy of the social sciences on the other." On the positivist/empiricist realist manifestation domination of the discipline in both its predominantlyNorth American scientific and its largelyBritishtraditionalist counterpartsee Walker (1980), Banks (1985), and Frost (1986).
JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL
271
of supplementthe criticalliterature the "thirddebate" witha particularkind of analytical attitude whichis concernedlesswith demandsof convention, the tradition, and dominance,and more withthe voices of the marginalized, excluded, the the dissident. To fullyappreciatethe significance critical of social theory and interpretive approachesto International Relations, acknowledge influences we the upon contemporary thought a variety dissident of of voiceswhich, thepresent in century, have called to accountthe given,axiomatic, and taken-for-granted "realities" theirdominant of disciplinary discourses.4 The first sectionof the paper willintroducesome of the more prominent themesto be foundin critical International Relationsthinking by locatingthemwithin ongoinginterdisciplinary an debate of Westernsocial theory, whichhas soughtto problematize some of the entrenched legaciesof an Enlightenmentconceptof history, relation the between and power,and thecharacknowledge terof the human sciences(see Bernstein, 1976, 1983; Craib, 1984; Hekman, 1986; Ball, 1987; Giddens and Turner, 1987). the We highlight betweenlanguage and social questionsconcerning relationship of meaning,and the issue of an interpretivist Here we actheory understanding. of of knowledgethe significance debatessurrounding efforts Wittgenstein the and On Winch to go beyond the metatheoretical limitsset by logical positivism.5 the and itsinfluence broaderquestionof positivist/empiricist thought upon the AngloAmericanintellectual we community, suggestthatthe debate sparkedby Thomas Kuhn, forall its ambiguity, an whichhas represents important pointof dissension of and thesubsequent providedspace forcritique boundaries transgression positivist acrossthe disciplines. At the forefront the criticalsocial theorydebates has been the concern to of in and ground meaningas unambiguously social,historical, linguistic construction, and to connectknowledgeto power.As a consequence,the Critical Theory of the and intertextual Frankfurt of School, and the "willto power"perspectives insights have interest. the poststructuralism, generatedincreasing Acknowledging complexitiesassociatedwiththese approachesand the debate betweenthem,we offerbrief of of that summaries the contribution Frankfurt School scholarship, particularly of
4 We are not alone in believingthata returnto some fundamental issuesof earliermetatheoretical debates can be issues associated withthe illuminating InternationalRelations.Kratochwil for (1988) returnsto theepistemological debate over the possibility and desirability a social "science" to explain some of the themesto be considered in of regime theory.
5 This is of course too complex an issue to be covered here. We acknowledge,forexample, the contribution to theseissues over a number of yearsof figures such as Austin,Ryle,Strawson,Searle, and othersassociated withthe school of thoughtknown as AnalyticalPhilosophy.There is also no doubt that much of the impetus for critical social theoryin InternationalRelationshas come fromthe worksof Continentalscholarssuch as Sassure, Derrida, and Barthes. Our claim here, however, is that for Anglo-Americanscholarshipin general it was the dissent of in in thatwas mostinfluential opening an effectively closed philosophical Wittgenstein the earlypartof the century and in so doing helped create the conceptual space and intellectual atmospherein debate on language and reality, which theoriesof ordinarylanguage and speech acts mightflourishand in whichserious analysisof Continental scholarship might take place. The same general argument applies to the choice of Kuhn's contributionto the philosophyof science over someone like Bachelard. is of It is also importantto note that more continuity to be found at the intersections contemporarycritical the debates than mostdetractors(and some advocates) care to admit. For all theirdifferences, post-Wittgensteinian tradition, philosophical hermeneutics(Gadamer, Ricouer), the CriticalTheory of Habermas, and poststructuralsubject.All define social ism repudiate positivist/empiricist approaches which privilegethe mind of an objectified it and culturally, precedes the intentional as activity intrinsicto meaning and identity.Engendered historically of activity speakers and authors, and serves to constituteand interpret(via language games, paradigms, or between Anglo-Americanand discourses) the "reality"of the world. One of the implicationsof thisintersection Continentalscholarshipis thatit becomes possible to do what manydetractorssuggestis necessary-to presenta work on criticaltheoryand InternationalRelations in a language thatcan be understood. It followsthat having literatures protesting need fora thorough the cannotexcuse theirneglectofcritical critics done so, self-respecting by groundingin Continentalphilosophyto comprehend the arguments.
272
Habermas,and poststructuralist approaches to modernity. then seek to locate We theseand othernarratives dissent they of as havebeen articulated thediscipline in of in International Relations the 1980s.We do so in thehope thatin readdressing some of the most important themesin modern, post-Cartesian Westernthought-the of of questfora scientific philosophy humansociety; questions rationality, objectivity and truth; agencyand structure, of for subjectand object;the prospects emancipatorypoliticsand the issue of power-we mightunderstanda little betterhow and and speak as we do about International in whywe think Relations thelate twentieth
century.6
From a New Theory of Language to a New Language of Theory

to Dissent fromWittgenstein Foucault
Ludwig Wittgenstein's contribution contemporary to social theory commonly is acknowledged.His later work,particularly Philosophical Investigations, represents the textual bridgebetweenlogicalpositivism thedialectical and of sociology thelanguage debate following the "linguistic turn"(Phillips,1977; Giddens, 1979; Thompson, 1981; Bernstein, 1983).7 at and The logicalatomism theheartof theworkof theearlyWittgenstein others, of such as BertrandRussell,providedthe positivist orthodoxy theday itsrationality At and (social) scientific levelthiswas achievedvia a credibility. the metatheoretical whichallowed for the propositionthat lansophisticated empiricist epistemology in guage and the "real" worldcorrespond a logicalsense.Wittgenstein's earlywork, was characterized a simple configuration centeredon the direct consequently, by and theindependent obbetweenelementary sensory correspondence propositions to as jectsof theworld,whileRussellattempted explainthisessential correspondence froma mathematical matrixin whichthe real meaningof an objectwas resulting or derivedfromits linguistic symbol name (Thompson, 1981:220; Pears, 1987). It was withthe publicationof Wittgenstein's later works,however,that the interpretivist themein the language debate became thecentraltenetof counter-posiof tivist dissent.It underminedthe logical positivist understanding language and at core-its empiricist More specifically, it reality its metatheoretical epistemology.
6 We are cognizantof criticisms thatmightbe aimed at a projectsuch as this.It mightbe arguted thatreturning to in thinkers and themesonce at the centerof dissentbut now marginalizedis somewhatincon-grtuous the present context.It mightalso be argued (see Biersteker,1989) thatwe don't need "anotherpreface,"thatitis time"to move beyond introductions . . to concrete applications . . . [to workson] some concrete issue or subject." Two brief . responses are in order. First is that for all the currentcentrality the debates sparked off by figuressuch as of Wittgenstein, Winch, and Kuhn, there is littleevidence that they have received anythingbultthe scantiestof attentionby mainstreamInternationalRelations specialists. Indeed, as Frost (1986) has charged, InternationalRelations remainsan intellectualbackwaterof the main currentsof Westernsocial theory.Consequently,prominent scholarsof the "classical"realistperstuasion speak in the late 1980s of "factdriven theory"(Holsti, 1989), can and assert that a crucial test of any new paradigm is whetheror not the criticalquestions it generates have a "reasonable correspondencewiththe observed factsof international politics"(Holsti, 1985:vii). The second issue, concerningthe need for more "concrete" research,is dealt withbelow. But perhaps for those uirging quick-fire concreteapplicationof theoretical is approaches, the following worthpondering. Speaking of the "god's-eyeview" of those who want "hard nosed, concrete soltutions particularproblems,"Walker (1988b:7) arguiesthat it is an to withthe empirical evidence" of contemporaryglobal life. Such evidence, he sug"arrogance that is inconsistent of gests,"requiresa willingness face up to the uncertainties the age, not withthe demand forinstantsoltutions to . of . . [or] concrete policyoptions . . . but mor-e for crucially, a seriotus rethinking the ways in whichit is possible for human beings to live together."
7The Wittgensteinian critiquewas not the onlycontribution the dissentagainst positivist to orthodoxyin AngloAmericanintellectual circlesthroughoutthe late nineteenth century.For a broader viewwhichtakes into account, of among others,the contributions phenomenological and hermeneuticscholars,see Bernstein(1976).
JIM GEORGE AND DAVID
CAMPBELL
273
logic of an approach to knowledgewhichtook as underminedthe phenomenalist the between objectsof "theworld"and natureof therelationship giventheatomistic conpropositions. Wittgenstein, linguistic theirmeaningas expressedin elementary cerned to explain the way thatsuch sentencesare actuallyused in social activity, throughlanguage was to engage in complex concluded thatto understandreality explanations whichdefiedtheatomizedlogicand positivist/empiricist socialpractices he It momentin understanding. was necessary, argued,to concenof the empirical relationship but on the systemic tratenot on the logical independenceof things, 1968: section themwithsocial meaning(Wittgenstein, betweenthemwhichinvests was compliThis dissentagainst the atomized foundationof logical positivism This argument just as devaswas critiqueof essentialism. mentedby Wittgenstein's thinking because it underminedthe perceivedcorrespondence tatingfor positivist and the "objective"situationit verifiable statement factually betweena synthetic, proposed thata described(Wittgenstein, 1968; see also Austin,1970). Wittgenstein of understandings general theoryof language which sought to reduce everyday of meaningmissedthe point about the multiplicity termsto a singularessentialist Accordingly, meaningof a term/word/ the meaningsto be found in social activity. and externally derived could notbe assumedto correspond some essential to symbol role it constitutive foundationor object,but was dependent upon the particular or systems "languagegames." playedin socio-linguistic for withimplications counter-positivist later appregnant Wittgenstein's position, proposiwas centeredthuson a set of interlocking proachesacross the disciplines, tionswhichmaintainedthat:
There are no independent or objective sources of support outside of human (always thoughtand human action . . . There is no standardor objectivereality fixed,never changing) against which to compare or measure a universeof discourse . . . nothingexistsoutside of our language and actionswhichcan be used tojustify,for example, a statement's The only possiblejustificatruthor falsity. tion lies in the linguisticpracticeswhich embody them: how people thinkand speak, and how theylive. (Phillips, 1977:30) 65).8
mediumbut as a descriptive Language conceivedthisway-not as an exclusively a to "formof life,"a processintrinsic human social activity-represents significant to social scientific alternative mainstream thinking (Giddens, 1979:240-48; Mento delson, 1979:40-55). To understandlanguage in thissense is, in effect, convert To nouns intoverbs.9 "speak"in thissense is to "do": to engage in a speech act is to whichmakeup socialreality. Language thusno longer givemeaningto theactivities social it describessome essentialhidden reality; is inseparablefromthe necessarily of the of In construction thatreality. thiscontext, starting pointforan investigation of betweenthe rules and conventions specific is "language reality the relationship and of games"or "forms life"and theirsocio-historical culturalmeaning. thusopened up dissentagainstlogical positivist The Wittgensteinian orthodoxy closed offunder the intellectual forcritical inquirymuch thathad been effectively His and society. of approach to knowledge imperialism the modern,post-Cartesian morethana discourseof words,someof represents sociology language perspective the realm. Rather,the rules governing way how detached fromthe nondiscursive
8 The connectionwithSassure here is veryclear. See the discussionby Macdonell (1986) on the transference of his Coursein General Lznguzstacs a broader readership in the 1960s. to
9 This themefiguresprominently poststructuralist of theory.As Michael Shapiro has put it,the "substitution a in of verb fora noun . . . [turnsa] factabout the world into somethingimposed, into the making a world" (Shapiro, 1987:52-53, emphasis added).
274
Relations and Critical Social Theory International
of and limita specific and organization understanding speech acts both constitute the social life. Consequently, studyof language (broadlydefined)and its rules of in an of grammar become,simultaneously, investigation reality the world.'0Imporof and therelationdoubtupon thecorrespondence theory truth tanttoo in casting is attention subject and the externalobject,analytical ship betweenthe thinking and psychological and towarda processes, focusedaway fromindividualcognition of people describeand enacttheir theory actionforthe wayin social circumstances thattherecan be no purelyprivate In language the reality. thiscontext, proposition liberalaxifor but powerful critical implications the hackneyed has had important oms concerningthe real nature of individualsand the notionof a public/private dichotomy.
The QuestionofRationality:Winchand theSearchfor "PracticalWisdom"
legacyby the contribuAn important dimensionwas added to the Wittgensteinian the tionsof PeterWinch(1972) and thedebatebegunbyhis workthroughout fields (Beehlerand Drengson,1978; Hollisand of philosophy, and anthropology sociology argument referred a to of Lukes, 1982). The "languagegames"at thecenter Winch's rulesof interpretaconnectedbyan adherenceto particular complexweb of activity in and cultures, identified directed"normal"and/or"rational" tionwhich, different in that workis of mostrelevance the behavior.It is on thisissueof rationality Winch's and thinking an interpretivist present context, itis herethatpost-Wittgensteinian for of tradition Dilthey of and Weber) the (derivedfrom Verstehen sociology modernity enjoined as part of a critiqueof the dominantAnglo-American are mostpotently socialscienceorthodoxy. was,it seems,loston manyof The pointof Winch'sdissent of on his critics who concentrated the frailties the Verstehenapproach in order to appeal for"practiin analysis. Winch's But buttress their faith hypothetico-deductive betweenNacal wisdom"(1972:43) was more than a reformulation the conflict of and more with what between scientific and social interpretation compatibility or, Maclntyre (1971:252) has called the "genre"of interpretation in contemporary and classify way the used to categorize critical the strategy terminology, interpretive of Winchsoughtto "we" understandthe social activities "they."More specifically, underminepositivist/empiricist approaches to knowledgeand societyby problethe as appliscientific genreofinterpretation a universally matizing modernWestern metatheoretical: to cable standardof rationality. focusin thissensewas primarily His and the questionthe way that''we" in the processof constructing defining "other" of close off so much that mightallow a more completeunderstanding different in "realities" the world. If the dissensiondiscussed above sowed the seeds of discontent withinAnglobetween on American academiccircles thequestionoflanguageand therelationship
10 In InternationalRelations the workof Kratochwil and Ruggie on regimesinvokesa number of these themes. As Ruggie (1982) has argued, regimesare akin to language, known not by a descriptionof theirelementsbut by arrangetheirgenerativegrammar-the underlying principlesof order and meaningthatgive rise to international mentsand conditiontheirtransformation. They are whatAndrews(1979) has called "the language of stateaction." of withthe positivist epistemology most This gives regimesan ontologyof intersubjectivity produces a conflict but regimetheorists. While starting froma metatheoretical positionassociated withordinarylanguage philosophyand the epistemologythen transferred found in the work of Friedreich Kratochwil(1982, 1984, 1989), the positivist meaning fromactors' behavior analyticorientationof regimes to a concern withthe inferenceof intersubjective had to epistemology (Kratochwiland Ruggie, 1986:764). For Kratochwiland Ruggie, thismeant thatthe positivist sciences" (1986:771), but the extentof interpretive influencewas to be open up to insightsfromthe "interpretive severelyconstrained. They noted, in termsakin to the "Cartesian anxiety"(discussed below), that their analysis should not be taken as "advocating a coup wherebythe reign of positivist explanation is replaced by exploratory anarchy"(1986:768).
It turwissenschaften Geisteswissenschaften.was concerned less with any logical inand
275
the naturaland social sciences, Thomas Kuhn's workincreasedthe critical momentumand gave it a more explicit direction.
The Kuhnian Challenge: Towardsa Sociology Science of
In The Structureof Scientific Revolutions(1970), Kuhn challengedthe authority of scienceand the scientific methodwithan explanationof the processof knowledge construction did not emphasizeatheoretical that experimental techniques methor odological directives. His focus,instead,was on the shared rules of paradigmatic interpretation whichprovidedscientific communities, different in timesand places, withan a prioriframework meaningand understanding of about the "real" nature "I of theworldthattheirobservations, hypotheses, testing and ostensibly discovered. is Kuhn's centralproposition-thai knowledge constructed socialcommunities by and following agreed upon norms,traditions, rules of readingand interpretation, and not byan atheoretical processof testing observations-has theory-impregnated for the obviousimplications a critical issues approach acknowledging philosophical raisedbyWittgenstein Winch.Equallyimportant, and thoughperhapsless obvious, is Kuhn's proposition thatparadigms(likeWinch'srule-governed linguistic communities)are notconnectedbysome external realmof scientific but have a fundafact, of mentalincommensurability (Kuhn, 1970:92- 111). For theless discerning Kuhn's (and Winch's)critics, incommensurability the notionrepresents less than a nothing retreat into meaningless relativism (see Gutting, 1980). But, as in the case against it thanitsintended thatlacks Winchon cultural relativism, is thechargerather target meaning.The distinction betweenparadigms,as presentedby Kuhn, does not exclude comparison and critical evaluation between anymorethandoes thedistinction societies and cultures understoodbyWinch.Whatis excludedin bothcases is the as of or possibility comparisonand evaluationin termsof some neutral,atheoretical, an realmof factualevidence. non-normative methodology reflecting "independent" Kuhn sought to explain that different paradigmsexplain the world in waysthat correspondnot to some illusory externalrealm but to the knowledgerules at its in metatheoretical heart.The notionof incommensurability, thissense, soughtto establishthe parametersand grounds that enabled comparisonacross time and space, rather than to declare such comparison impossible (see Kuhn, 1970: 175-2 10).12 theme in Kuhn's work is integralto his discussionof The incommensurability of change, which-again, despite its problems-has opened a variety conceptual the and socialtheorists. doors forcritical Rejecting notionof a cumulative incremenor talmodelof progress towards "truth" ultimate Kuhn'sargument "reality," compliand the of mentedthoseofWittgenstein Winchin emphasizing importance language the between"different communities" or, more precisely, conflicts language-culture was dependentnot on context (Kuhn, 1970:205). Progressin thislanguage-culture of the efforts "independent"scientists engaged in a process of observationand
" There is no doubt that much of what Kuhn has said on these issues is ambiguous and controversial(see Masterman, 1970; Suppe, 1977; Gutting,1980; Ball, 1987). But, keeping the problemsin mind, thereis much in Kuhn thatis of significance the presentdiscussion,particularly questions his work opened up for debate. for the On the question of rationality, example, his criticalattitudeis well representedwhen he suggests (in terms for similar to Winch) that "if historyor any other empirical discipline leads us to believe that the development of science depends . . . on behavior thatwe have previouslythoughtto be irrational, then we should conclude, not that science is irrational,but that our notion of rationality needs adjustment"(quoted in Bernstein,1983:59).
12 If one substitutes "discourse" for "paradigm" here, then one of the simplestyetmost powerfultechniquesof dismissalused againstpoststructuralism-that not privileging in one discourseover anotheritslipsintothe mireof relativism-is, at least, rendered problematic.
276
as themselves as community a whole acknowledging but on the scientific testing, breakdown" language groups faced with "communication membersof different (Kuhn, 1970:201-203). When this situationwas recognized,Kuhn proposed, a wider, more meaningfuldialogue might become possible across paradigmatic and in so rivaltheories, scholarswould learn to "translate" boundaries.Eventually applies" (Kuhn, 1970:202).13 doing "describe. . . the worldto which[that]theory and Winch, voicesofWittgenstein, the obvioussignificance, dissenting For all their of critiques orthodoxy echoed in the contemporary been directly Kuhn have rarely of in Relationsliterature the 1980s.14 Much more proliferating the International AddressTheoryand poststructuralism. of evidenthave been theinfluences Critical Thompson(1981) has scholarship, of ingsome of theproblems post-Wittgensteinian The point, to Relations. relevant International indicated whythisis thecase,in terms scholarshiphas opened up Thompson argues, is that while post-Wittgensteinian and by particularly emphasizingthe "meaningful much closed modern thinking, such as considerations of social character human action,"it has often"disregarded power and repression,historyand social change" and has failed to emphasize and of betweenthe"problem understanding" "conenough theconnection strongly of siderations explanationand critique"(Thompson, 1981:4). The problemis that does not alwaysuneof Philosophy, particularly Analytical language-basedanalysis, of in groundits theory the practiceand ongoingstruggles society. quivocally is of sociology scienceperspective similar The problemwiththe Kuhnian-inspired dimension of to in that, whileit has brought theforefront debatethe hermeneutical has tradition of and analysis, understanding thehermeneutic its of scientific research 1985; Hekman, been rather limited (see Boucher, 1985; Mueller-Vollmer, generally
13 Kuhn was well aware of the problems associated with this process of communicationand translation.He between being "persuaded" thatthe process was necessaryand being genustressed,for example, the distinction inely"converted"to it (1970:203). This latterstate,he noted (in termswhichhave more thana little relevanceto the way the International Relations mainstreamhas reacted to recent criticalworks), tended to elude those who, throughlong and uncriticaladherence to a particularset of paradigmaticaxioms, have "internalized"its rules of interpretation. Progresswas more likelyto be achieved, maintainedKuhn, among "thosejust enteringthe profession, [who] have not yet acquired the special vocabularies and commitments the dominant paradigm. of 14 The Kuhnian debate most forcefully entersthe domain of InternationalRelationswhen calls are made forthe priority an "empiricalresearch agenda" (see Keohane, 1988). This is indicativeof a ritualforgetting Kuhn's of of insightsabout natural science. The call restson an assured understandingthatthe "received view" of the natural sciences remains both an accurate understandingof scientific practiceand a suitableguide for the social sciences. However, an appreciation of the impact of thisdiscussion on social scientists' beliefsabout natural science would of forcea reorientation many of these criticisms. Consider, forexample, the assessmentby Holsti of the relationship between the two branches: "Unlike the natural sciences,knowledge in our fieldis not like a mine filledwith pre-existing, unchangingfacts, just waitingto be discovered . . . We cannot throwaway paradigms(or whatpasses for them) like natural scientistsdo, a la Kuhn, because the anomalies between realities and their theoretical characterizationare never so severe in internationalrelations as theyare in the natural sciences. None of the a as thinkers the past portrayedthe worldof international world) politicsin so distortedmanner did the analysts of (or of the physicalor astronomicaluniverse prior to the Copernican revolution"(1989:4-5; emphasis added). There is a great deal to be criticalof in this understanding.But what stands out is the (mis)understanding of Aristotelian as astronomy havingdistortedreality, onlyto be correctedbyCopernicus's laterdiscovery, presumably byobservation, the waythe world really"is." If anything, reverseis true.Contraryto the (positivist) of the viewthat Copernicus's theoryreplaced the "emptyspeculations"of theAristotelians withlaws derived fromobserved facts, it was the Aristotelianwho "couldquotenumerous observational results their favor" (Feyerabend, 1968:13n). It was In Copernican theorywhich,not possessingindependent observationalsupport (at least forthe first hundred yearsof itsacceptance), was inconsistent withrecorded observations and entrenchedtheories.As Feyerabenddeclares: "thzs is how modern physicsstarted;not as an observationalenterprisebutas an unsupported speculatzon wasznconszstent that with laws" (1968; see also Kuhn, 1957; Feyerabend, 1964; Lakatos and Zahar, 1975). The point is highly confirmed thatone of the mostimportantnatural sciencesbegan as an argumentvalidatedin waysother than by observation. That being the case, appeals to observationalsupport forrealmsof social and politicalinquirysuch as international relationsare unsustainable.
277
1986). For muchpostpositivist analysis (such as thetradition Dilthey), of hermeneuticactivity perceivedas the construction an alternative is of nonpositivist source of "objective" knowledgeappropriateto the Geisteswissenschaften. Consequently, while the dichotomizednature of the post-Enlightenment scientific projectwas significantlyproblematizedin the wake of Kuhn's attackupon it, the legacy of what Giddens (1982) called the "orthodoxconsensus"has oftenremainedintact.15 The continuing one-sidedness post-Kuhnian of analysis and theabstracted nature of muchlinguistic researchled manycontributors the broad socialtheory to debate 16 toward philosophical the of hermeneutics Gadamerand Ricouer. This has been less obviously case in International the Relations where,in theearly1980s in particular, those searchingfor a genuinelydialecticaland sociologically-based alternative to positivist/empiricist thinking turnedto a particular kindof dissentwithin Marxism.
CriticalTheory,Habermas, and the Politics of Emancipation School (see Jay, 1973; Held, 1980) The CriticalTheoristsof the early Frankfurt witha holistic confronted Westernsocial scienceorthodoxy influenced perspective, and notionof by some elementsof Hegelian/Marxism energizedby a sophisticated in dialectics (see Horkheimer, 1972; Guess, 1981). Thus, whilethetendency Hegel to to was reduce contradictions (subject/object, fact/value) an ultimate identity noted of and itsconservative and whiletheproblems the political implications understood, the mind(in hermeneutics phenomenology), detachedintellectual and objectified (in determined Mannheim'ssociologyof knowledge), and the economically individual (in orthodoxMarxism)weretakenintoaccount(Horkheimer, 1972:205-50;), Critibased on the dialecticof cal Theory advanced a theoryof modern social reality knowledgeand power. in of More explicitly, repudiating pseudo-scientific the pretensions modernphilosof focusedon thetotalitarian ophy,Critical Theoryanalysis potentialities a particular formof reason-instrumentalreason-which since the Enlightenment domihas controlover nature and its nated Westernthinking withits concernfor technical problem-solving capacity.A major taskof a Critical Theoryapproach,in thesecirin modernpeoples from their alienation societies wherean as cumstances, to liberate
15 This is not to suggestthatall contemporary is postpositivist the thinking of thiskind. On the contrary, workof scholarssuch as Hesse (1980) and Hekman (1983, 1986) representssome of the mostsophisticated analysison this issue currently available. But the tendencyis stillevident,oftenin otherwisetheoretically sensitivearguments.In an International Relations context,see Lapid's (1989) propositionthat the most radical of recent postpositivist thinking"seriouslyexamines the possibility that,withinlimits, diversity viewpointsmightbe fullycompatible of withscientific rationality and objectivity." This mightbe the case withthe structurationist argumentbecause of its debt to scientific realism.Although it standsas an alternative, mightbe not so much a resolutionof the problems it withpositivism recognizes as it is a deferral.The influenceof scientific it realismupon structurationism gives the latter,despite its calls for a dialectical synthesis, dichotomized approach that reflects a the former'sontological distinctionbetween the natural and social sciences. As Wendt (1987:360) argues, "structuration . theor-y conceptualizes agents and structuresas mutuallyconstitutive ontologically yet distinctentities."This provides a researchprogram forInternationalRelationsthat,althoughcombiningstructural and historical research,seems to depend upon the prior isolation of political and economic structures the domestic and internationalspheres in (Wendt, 1987:366). 16 Here the process of de-psychologizingthe communicationprocess is taken a significant stage furtherwith Gadamer's claim thatlanguage is not subject-bound,but is alwaysa community phenomenon which"unites the I and the Thou" (Boucher, 1985:37). The purpose of the hermeneuticenterpriseis thus radicallyreformulated. Instead of an objectivist emphasis on formulating rightmethodin order to retrieve the froma textthe author'sreal meaning, there is a concentrationon the historico-social process of understanding.In this sense hermeneutics becomes much more than the attemptto empathizeor reexperiencethe mentalprocessesof anothersubject. It has a more ambitiousaim: to understand the process of understandingin human life.
278
of and political powerhad been appropriated culture, understanding theirhistory, for rationality) thestateinstitutions and (scientific bya dominant mode of knowledge projectat the heartof Exposingthe positivist whichit was utilizedand proliferated. enterthe ostensibly neutralknowledgeprocesswas,in thissense,an emancipatory exposure to political implications similar thoseof Wittgenstein's prisewithpractical of into the construction the of the social dimensionsof language, Winch'sinsight practice. This, of cultural on "they," and Kuhn's propositions thesociology scientific socialtheory integral a critical to as Horkheimer explainedin a passage thatremains of whereby knowlwas perspective, because "theintervention reasonin theprocesses of or edge and its objectare constituted, the subordination theseprocessesto con1972:245). withthe struggle certainreal waysof life"(Horkheimer, for and politicalnatureof all knowledge This principle, whichassertsthe historical remainsat the connectedto practice, and whichunderstandstheory inexorably as A of to social theory JurgenHabermas.17 central core of the contributions critical of of accordingly, is society, feature Habermas'swide-ranging analysis contemporary it the issue of praxis.More precisely, is the questionof how modernpeoples might come to understandthe deformedand ideologicalnatureof the language, social rules,values,and meaningsassociatedwitha dominantmode of understandingscientific rationalism-which has successfully transformed philosophico-political ones. Put anotherway,Habermas'sCritical and "strategic" problems into"technical" by Theory projecthas, at one level at least,been a continuation even more eclectic Adorno,Marcuse,and many by meansof the attempt scholarssuch as Horkheimer, and tradition findemancipatory transto othersin the Kantian/Hegelian/Marxian formational and practiceof modernity. elementsin the theory in But the Habermasianproject,emerging the cold war years,developingin the brief and headydaysof New Leftradicalism, maturing and duringan age whichhas has of fromHegelian/Marxism amongEuropean scholars, by seen something a flight fromearlierFrankfurt School approaches. respects necessity differed important in Centralto Habermas'swork, is consequently, an ongoingdebatewithearlierCritical (Rengger, Theoristsand, since the early 1970s, withthe "radical interpretivism" These debateshave become European social theory. 1988) of much contemporary duran increasingly Relations agenda in International influential partof thecritical ing the past decade. and Marcuse,and his Habermas'scritiqueof the worksof Adorno,Horkheimer, are critiquesof poststructuralism, similarin concept response to the multifaceted discussedhere.On modernism of and themeto thetradition dissent againstscientific for example, Habermas has sought to expose the the question of emancipation, whichproduced thinking idealistand utopianelementsof earlierHegelian/Marxist of theories revolutionary bothgranduniversalist changeand, in thewakeof revoluof and despair(see Habermas, cul-de-sac pessimism a tionary failure, philosophical 1974: chapter6). Habermas rejectedthislattertendency, epitomizedby Adorno's of Negative Dialectics,as a one-sidedand negativemisinterpretation the dialectical of in whichhad resulted an understanding thought legacyof Hegelian and Marxist to and counterpart the. . modernity the powerof itsrulingclassesthatwas a "left of domination" (Habermas, 1979:72).18 To rekindlethe positive theory totalitarian
17 See Habermas (1971, 1976, 1979, 1987). For a broad viewof Habermas's workssee McCarthy(1978), Thompson (1981), Thompson and Held (1982), and Bernstein(1985). 18 This is a charge that,according to Habermas, is equally relevantto the poststructuralist approach of Foucault. potentialin favorof a theoryof power set has The claim he makes is thatpoststructuralism read out emancipatory that take upon another form of domination (Habermas, 1987:chapter 10). For readings of poststructuralism serious issue with Habermas, see Rajchman (1985), Connolly (1987), Shapiro (1987), Ross (1988), and Richters (1988).
scious control, does not take place . . . in a purely intellectual world, but coincides
279
elementin CriticalTheory,while rejecting universalist emancipatory its totalizing tendencies, Habermashas engagedin a long-term restructuring Hegelian/Marxist of in of thought terms a radicalrationalism influenced post-Wittgensteinian by notions of "ordinary language" and the symbolically-mediated interaction betweenspeech At one levelthishas been an attempt read back intomoderntheories dialecto of ticsand thesubjectmuchthathas been read out byCritical Theorists and indeed by thelater, conservative, Hegel. Of mostsignificance here,forHabermas,is thenotion of Spiritin Hegel's Philosophy Mind, whichwas understoodas the product of of humansocialinteraction, mediatedthrough language (symbolic representation), labor (controlof nature),and the struggle for recognition.'9 This interpretation of Hegel (or more precisely Hegel's readingof Kant) problematizes notionof a of the unifiedego "I" which comes to know its "objective"self throughself-reflection, notionof the subjectin whichknowledge a historico-social favoring heterogeneous, of On of selfand otherselvesis groundedin thereality socialinteraction.20 thisbasis, for Habermas has sought to resuscitate radical politicsa sociologically grounded or rationalism, of theabstracted free idealismof (orthodox) Hegelianism the"empirof icistmetaphysics" positivism (Gellner,1974:175).2l of In thisquest Habermashas drawnupon a variety intellectual sources,theresult of of whichin recentyearshas been the "theory communicative action"(Habermas, influences to central 1984, 1988). Two of theprincipal upon thistheory-influences in socialtheory-are the post-Heideggethebroad agenda of dissent contemporary of of rian hermeneutics figures such as Gadamer and elements the broad analytical philosophy approach inspiredbyWittgenstein Thompson,1981:83-100; Bern(see of stein, 1983:40-49). For all the conflict the Habermas-Gadamerdispute (see into his reformulated CriticalTheory the McCarthy, 1978), Habermas integrated and whichunderpinnedthe refusalof distinction betweentechne praxis Aristotelian Gadamer to reduce politicsto administrative technique,or power to force(Bernin the stein,1983:40-48). Moreover, accepting (albeitwithreservations) Aristotelian Habermashas attempted establish to as as conceptof phronesis the basis forsociety, and practicea processof understanding based on the goal of modernsocial theory of discursive uncoerced,nonideological reasoning. Drawingupon theinsights postHabermashas thussoughtto uncoverwhathe regards Wittgensteinian scholarship, action" as the "universalconditionsthat are presupposed in all communicative themerests (Bernstein, 1983:185). This presupposition upon Habermas'snotionof a interac"willto reason"within human society whichis partof everycommunicative in is to tionand which, thefaceof hiscritics, maintains thekeystone theradicalism he in Critical Theory.22
19Stressingthe interpenetration these elementsin the social construction the subject,Hegel explained that of of "Spiritis not the fundamentunderlyingthe subjectivity the self in self consciousnessbut ratherthe medium of within which one 'I' communicateswithanother 'I', and fromwhich,as an absolute mediation,the two mutually formeach other into subjects" (quoted in Habermas, 1974:145).
20 For an accessiblerearticulation thistheme,see Flax (1981) and the introduction Wood (1972). This point of to is important Habermas's critiqueof Marx in whichhe argues thatwhile Marx was aware of the interpenetration for theme in dialecticalthought,he tended in his later worksto privilegeone element-the mediationof labor-over the others. See Habermas (1971). 21 It is on thistheme that Habermas mostclearlyrejectsWeber or-more precisely-Weber's attemptto narrow In tendenciescause him to restrict the scope of modern rationality. this regard Weber's positivist to rationality scientific explanation of the natural world. This excludes fromrationalcalculation normativethemes associated withcriticalreflection (and understandingthe process of understanding)which,for Habermas, are vitalcomponentsof the process of human emancipation. 22 Habermas argues that "while again and again [the will to reason] is silenced . . . in fantasiesand deeds it develops a stubbornly transcendental power . . . it is renewed witheach act of unconstrainedunderstanding, with each momentof livingtogetherin solidarity, successfulindividuation, of and of savingemancipation"(Habermas, 1982:221).
communities.
280
have been less than convincedby the CriticalTheory project Habermas'scritics premisedupon the "willto reason"and thereformulated notionof an "ideal speech debatesof recenttimeshave flowedfrom situation." Some of the moststimulating to the debate betweenHabermas (and thosegenerally empathetic his position)and scholars preferring broad poststructuralist views of modernity (see Ryan, 1982; Poster,1984; Dews, 1987; and Giddens and Turner, 1987). Theory as Practice: Poststructuralism the Critiqueof Modernity and can The complexities surrounding natureof poststructuralist the thinking be only briefly touchedupon here.23 But it is possibleto gain a sense of poststructuralism's for socialtheory Relations initially significance critical approachesto International by in posinga questionof Habermasianthought implicit poststructuralist approachesto for modernity. The question,simply put,is: What are the implications post-Carteis sian thinking a whole if the rationality as premisein social communication not of privileged? Or, put anotherway: What if otherdimensions the language issue, excluded froma rationalist-oriented effectively approach,are included?More spea What if, instead of privileging "willto reason,"the nature of modern cifically: of theory and practiceis understoodas an expression a "willto power?" even one as The issuesat stakehere go beyondanydisputewitha singletheorist, as important Habermas.They includethelargerprojectin whichscholars diverse as as Foucault,Derrida, Lyotard,and Lacan are engaged. The projectis a searchfor of and the the thinking space within moderncategories unity, identity, homogeneity; of search for a broader and more complex understanding modern societywhich the the accountsforthatwhichis leftout-the "other," marginalized, excluded.The of and target thisdissentis the foundationalism essentialism post-Enlightenment of its about modernrationalman,its scientific philosophy, universalist presuppositions of commitment dualizedcategories meanto hiddenmetaphysics, metatheoretical its of and its its ing and understanding, logocentric strategies identity hierarchization, in its about humannature, dogmatic its faith method, philostheorized propositions and toward and the and ophiesof intention consciousness, itstendency grandtheory of implications itsimposition. echoes much of CriticalTheory, post-Wittgensteinian Thus, poststructuralism But itwantsto makeitsreaction and of to scholarship, thesociology sciencecritique. the philosophical dogmas of modernism unequivocaland unambiguous.In thisregard,as Rajchman(1985:2-5) has indicated, poststructuralism represents great the of it skepticism (but not cynicism) our time.If, as traditional philosophy maintains, was Humean skepticism about Cartesianand Lockean dogmas that "awoke Kant fromhis slumbers," can to then poststructuralism be seen as the attempt "awake" fromthe slumbers Kant in turnintroduced. Westernthinking contemporary of The differences a poststructuralist approach are perhaps best illustrated in relationto the questionof theoryand practice.Whereas CriticalTheory wantsto realize in practicalpoliticaltermswhattraditional theory onlycontemplates, poststructuralism assumes thatsuch theoryis alreadypractice.To understandsociety not and politics thissense is to groundtheory in practice, as practice. in but This has for to and important implications the attitude criticism the overallpurpose of dissent. CriticalTheory seeks to expose the rottenfoundations and the ideological to function traditional of theory and, via uncoercedcommunication, enablepeople to A the that understand overcome powerstructures oppressthem. poststructuralist and
23 For overviewsand discussions of the issues central to thisincreasingcorpus of work,see Descombes (1980), Culler (1982), Dreyfusand Rabinow (1982), Rajchman (1985), and Connolly (1988).
281
attitude eschewsthis"hermeneutics suspicion."It rejectsthe veryidea of "deep" of philosophicalinterests lyingbelow the surface,which are bound by tradition or restricted forceand simply by awaitto be realizedin modernsociety. concentrates, It therefore, less on attempting secure emancipationthroughthe unmaskingof to power, oppression,and ideology,and more-via detailed historical inquiry-on concreteexamples of the way power is used in all of society's sites. It is not that poststructuralism fetishizes negativeelementsof power.On the contrary, the poststructuralism regardsthe ever-present natureof power relations, and theirconsequent role in enablingpracticeas well as oppressingit, as the source of practical political action.In thissense it takesmore seriously thanitsdissenting counterparts the proposition thatknowledge power.It looksforno distinction is between"truth" and power,forit expectsnone. Its perspective history, on society, and politics thus resonateswiththe voice of Nietzsche. Poststructuralism, definition, an emphatically by is politicalperspective. But it is one whichrefuses privilege partisan to any political line,foritequates such privileging withthe grand,universal in claimsforunity and truth moderntheory, and the dogma of the hermetically It sealed tradition. is in the act of not privileging thatit offers emancipation and liberation. In International Relationsthis perspective evidentin a subtlebut important is concernswithindividualized analytical refocusing, away fromtraditional subjects and objectsand theepistemological and toward questionof howwe come to "know," an explanationbased in social and historical processesand the ongoing struggles betweendiscursivepractices.Once focused in this manner,debates over central issues in contemporary bound up withquestionsof global life become inexorably the of language and interpretation, knowledge/power nexus,theconstruction modof ern "man," and the question of how to effectively resistthe impositions power of articulated the privileged via discourses modernscientific rational"logocentric" The discussionto this point of the intersections betweenthe Anglo-American and European social theory not intendedto suggestthat is philosophicaltradition these tensionsshould be resolvedinto a coherentand consensualposition.Such a taskmight at leastas impossible itwouldbe undesirable. be as The pointis to exploit the of The intercreatively implications thesedebatesforsocialand political inquiry. akin to two"mandatory" does have something consedisciplinary debate,however, Relations. it quences fora realmof studylike International First, is no longerpossiof maintainthe "objectivity" one's scholarship recourseto the ble to innocently by "facts"or the "real world." Second, a space has been created for the pursuitof commitments that mightonce have been researchstrategies withmetatheoretical or Withinthisspace manyalternatives labelled "subjectivist" "idealist." pejoratively and legitiis could be pursued. No singleresearchstrategy mandatedas thecorrect of International Relamate course to follow.The articulation these themeswithin to of and evitionsin recentyears has been testimony thiscelebration difference to of dence of resistance any narrative completion. Relations and Critical Challenges to "The Tradition": International Social Theory Those who recently have soughtto challengethe orthodoxapproachesto Internaof tionalRelationsare under no illusionsas to the magnitude theirtask.As Walker reassessthe (1980:2) has suggested, new critical approachesinvolvea fundamental in which[were]crystallized about man and society mentof "imagesand assumptions and have become the dominant the European Enlightenment" whichsubsequently nature axiomsof European and NorthAmerican theoretical experience.The stilted
ity.
282
of thislegacywas obviousduringthe discipline's "greatdebate"of the 1960s,which isolate International Relationsfromdebates developing merelyserved to further elsewhereon broad philosophical the Proissues,particularly conceptof "realism." of posingthat, despiteall thepronouncedelecticism theperiod,nothing fundamental has changed within discipline, the and acknowledging crisisfaced by realist the as to scholarship it has struggled come to gripswithwhatis perceivedas a changing in power configuration the world,increasingnumbersof scholarshave turnedto in previously alien modes of explanationin order to understand a more profound of way the processesby which the "realities" contemporary are made meanlife In the early 1980s, in particular, worksof thisilk paid explicitattention the to to of in tensions relationship betweenthatmatrix theoretical brought thesurface the and the realist in tradition post-Enlightenment quest fora scienceof humansociety InternationalRelations. In the works of Robert Cox (1981, 1987) and Richard was not Ashley(1981, 1984),therealist perspective presented as a cohesive, hermetibut callysealed theoretical tradition, as the focusof major unresolvedtensionsin it modernwestern theory (see also Walker,1987). Primary amongthesetensions, was towardsanalytical closureand reductionism, argued, was thatbetweena tendency and senderivedfromAnglo-American positivist/empiricist influences, a historically sitiveand criticalopenness derived frombroad hermeneutic sources. This was a in of suchas Morgenthau Weber) tension personified thefigures seminalrealists (via and E. H. Carr (via Mannheim),whose "great texts"had receiveda "privileged" readingin the cold war yearsand whichin the period since had underpinnedan centerthatacknowledgedas valid orthodoxyat the North Americandisciplinary one methodology onlyone formof knowledge(scientific rationalism), (deductivist The and taskin this empiricism), one researchorientation (problem-solving). critical within was realism for circumstance to "realize"in a Habermasiansensethepotential an understanding global life"freedfromunacknowledged of constraints, relations of domination,and [the] conditionsof distortedcommunication . . that deny . humans the capacityto make the futurethroughfree will and consciousness" (Ashley,1984:227). Ashley's"PoliticalRealismand Human Interests" (1981) is the mostexplicitatwithin for to contradictions realism thisemancipatempt addressthemetatheoretical tory end. Employingconcepts from Habermas's Knowledge and Human Interests limitations an understanding the of of (1971), Ashleysoughtto expose theinherent in interest-an interest technical one and worldthatprivileges particular knowledge control overobjectsin thesubject's endeavour-"as a basisforextending theoretical he environment" (Ashley,1981:208). In suchcircumstances, proposed,an approach to to InternationalRelations is needed which emphasizes criticalself-reflection, forms technical of of and counter privileging sophisticated the rationality instrumen24 The key term here is "fundamental,"meaning a change to what Lijphart (1974) termed the "traditional" paradigm in International Relations. The most prominentelement of this tradition,the realist approach, has undoubtedly taken on many dimensions since its seminal articulationin Morgenthau'sPolitics Among Nations.In recentyearsimportantcontributions have been made on behalfof theoriesof transnationalism, interdependence, regimes,and hegemonicstability, have been understoodbysome as representing supercessionof basic realist and a principles.For overviews,see the debates in Holsti, Siverson,and George (1980), Maghoori and Ramberg (1982), and Krasner (1983). However, othershave remainedunconvincedthatthebasic assumptionsand representations of the tradition have been altered by all this activity.Vasquez (1983) has undermined much of the postrealist argument for the period to the 1970s. Since that time some of the most severe skepticismhas come not from "radicals" but fromrealistswho have had to findnovel ways of dealing withwhat theyperceive as anomalies. To thisend, the literaturedealing withthe dilemmas of "cooperation under anarchy" (see Oye, 1986) is instructive. The claim of neorealism to fundamental change has been considered by Ashley (1984). Notwithstanding the ensuing debates (see Keohane, 1986a), there is littleevidence that those Ashley portrayedas neorealists have seriouslyexamined the positivist/empiricist framework metatheoretical underlyingtheirperspectives.
ingful.24
283
tal reasonwhicheffectively detachknowledge from otherhumaninterests-namely intercommunity understanding and emancipation. of As a preliminary step towardsa more adequate understanding global life, argued Ashley, scholarsmustrejectthenotionthatthevalue of theoretical inquiry is limited thepragmatist to criterion instrumental of usefulness, themecentral the a to "technical realism"of influential figures such as Waltz (1979). Sketching out a reformulated approach to theoryand practice, attackedthe means-endslogic of he orthodoxrealismand thewholetheoretical edifice which"conceives international of in of of politics terms some fixedstructure beingwhich channelsobjective forces and constrains outcomes"(Ashley,1981:220). To begin to "realize"the potentialfor a moreadequate realistapproach,bothAshleyand Cox emphasizedthe need to look but empathetically elements withintraditionalist at critically scholarshipwhich but soughtknowledge,not simplyto bettercontrolan "objective" environment to understandhow in the modernworldof statesit is possibleto "behaveas a worthy and memberof one's traditional community withits intersubjective consensually endorsednorms,rights, meanings, purposesand limitations" (Ashley,1981:212). In "The Poverty Neorealism"(1984), Ashleywas concernedto expose further of on theinadequaciesof technical realismby setting sights an influential his group of to NorthAmericanscholars, who in the attempt scientifically an bolster ailingrealist of content" traditional realistthought had betrayedthe "richdialectical orthodoxy withhavingreplaced "subjectivist (1984:226). Ashleycharged the neorealists veils and dark metaphysics" (1984:233) withan "objectivist" set variant, upon a seriesof flawedassumptions about thenatureand purposeof theorizing. The end result was a one-sided,positivist articulated an ahistorical metatheoretical perspective, as rationalactorapproach,thatwas unable to questionthehistorical cultural and contingency of its own theoryor (except in superficial terms)that of its social actors (sovereign states). in Cox's dissentwas articulated slightly different terms, inspiredas it was byVico had largelybeen and Gramsci.Proposingthat since the cold war realistthinking withthe narrow"problem-solving" of synonymous perspective the NorthAmerican of Cox (1981:130-34) emphasizedthesignificance itsother, discipline, marginalized critical foundin thepowerpolitics suchas E. side,a latent theory approachof figures H. Carr and Ludwig Dehio (Cox, 1981:131). "Problem-solving" realism,he maintained, was characterized a "fixedorder" dogma acknowledging enduring by an in "real" worldrackedby endemicand systemic violence.Withhistory objectified a cold war context, realistthinking had become littlemore than a "concernfor the of of defenceof Americanpoweras a bulwark the maintenance order"(1981:131), for of to itspotential understanding complexities globalliferestricted "theprethe into and vailingsocial and powerrelationships theinstitutions whichtheyare organized" (1981:128). to taskforCox was, in the first The emancipatory instance, remindmainstream scholarsof some basic intellectual principlesthat,in the wake of interdisciplinary debates going on elsewhere, mightbe consideredaxiomatic.Primary among these was the proposition that,in not reflecting upon theprocessbywhichit understands its "reality," realistthinking blindsitselfto the prospectand nature of effectively A of and practice. Critical changegeneratedbythecomplexdialectic theory Theory was because it does reflect perspective deemed necessary upon the processof theoto it theoretical rizing and, in reconnecting knowledge humansocio-political interest, of forecloseddebate on the construction "reality." More opens up the otherwise a woulddrawattention explicitly, Critical Theoryperspective awayfroma "continuing present"towardsthe notionof a "continuing processof historical change." It not or instituaccordthe statusof "fact" "given"to existing would,similarly, simply of theiroritionsand relati6ns power,but critically questionthemby investigating
284
gins"and howand whether they might in theprocessofchange"(Cox, 1981:129). be Ratherthanreducingtherelationship between states a simplepowerstruggle to over on predetermined ends, it would concentrate interstate behaviorin more comprehensiveterms, a "historical as structure" energizedby particular configurations of of "social forces," and understoodas a complexinterpenetration material capabilities,institutions, ideas (1981:135). and to This finalthemeis centralto Cox's mostrecentcontribution the debate,which thatorthodoxInternational seeks to develop further proposition the Relationsapof proachescannotdeal adequatelywiththeplurality stateformations emerging now how social forcesgeneratedby changing (Cox, 1987). Cox's aim is to investigate productionprocesses are helping to reshape formsof stateand world order. At for anothermoreradicallevelhis concernis Habermasian:to enhancethe potential counter-hegemony identifyiiig bases of radicalsupportand cohesionthatare by the in of socialrelations production made possibleby changesunderway theworldwide (Cox, 1987:393-403). While Cox and scholarslike Andrew Linklater(1982, 1986) have carriedtheir into the late 1980s, generally-as in the broader deCriticalTheory perspectives has bate-critical International Relationsthinking takenon thestyle, language,and theoretical concernsof poststructuralism. ingsof World Politics (Der Derian and Shapiro, 1989), quite literally spells out the natureof the challengethe disciplinefacesfrompoststructuralist scholarship. The references withinthe work-to Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, Kristeva,Barthes and to Baudrillard-are, in more than the obvious ways,"foreign" a disciplinedomiof natedbyitsAnglo-American center. too is thetreatment theclassicaltexts. So Der Derian, for example, concentrating mainstream on conceptsof "international theory" as understoodby Wightand Bull, begins where they"leftoff" in order to
course . . . to undertake a theoretic investigation of the textual interplay behind Relations:Postmodern ReadThe titleof a recent collection, International/Intertextual
to gins of politicaltheory, listenfor the critical voicesdrownedout by official dis-
"interrogate present knowledge . . . through past practices, to search out the mar-
alien as it mustsound to thosewho have powerpolitics" (1989:7). This perspective, is internalizedthe dominantinterpretative genre of the discipline, perhaps best in understoodin terms post-Wittgensteinian of theory moredirectly some cases, or, as a responseto the workof Saussure and its subsequentcritiqueby Derrida (see Descombes, 1980).25
25 The conceptionof language thatinforms as the workof mostof those Keohane (1988) identified "reflectivists" The distinction between langue is more indebted directlyto the position of Saussure than it is to Wittgenstein. (language) and parole (speech) at the heart of Saussurian linguistics a dichotomized perspectivethat invokesa is structural differentiation betweendepth and surface.Althougha positionthatis something a step back fromthe of it socially constitutive notion of language is in the "Language games" and "formsof life" of Wittgenstein, has strain of discourse analysis that has offered insightsinto international nonetheless given rise to a formalistic tendenciesof the orthodoxy.Examples of thisimportant albeitlimitedformof relationsforeclosedby the positivist in on dissentinclude the uncoveringof commitments the language of participants all sides of the nuclear debate, the particularly strategicstudies community (Hook, 1984; Chilton, 1985; Cohn, 1987). In tones more sensitiveto to the power and language issue, Alker (1988) has utilized a formaldialogical approach to textualinterpretation consider how a seminal work in the realist tradition-Thucydides' Melian Dialogue-has been appropriated in waysthathave severelylimitedthe considerationof politicaloptions in the present.Alker and Sylvan(1988) have were framed in the policydebates surroundingthe employed similartechniques to examine the way alternatives deploymentof U.S. troops to Vietnam. The same approach has been used to examine the "windowof vulnerabilinvocationof debates of the 1960s (see Homer-Dixon and Karapin, 1987). For an impressive ity"thesisin strategic in Saussure's languelparole dichotomyin the contextof InternationalRelations,particularly the understandingof foreignpolicy,see Andrews (1984). This built on earlier work (Andrews, 1975) thatsought to creditstate forms withless determinismand homogeneitythan Realism had done. Not all of Andrews'swork,however,shies away In from the influencesof poststructuralism. a reviewof world-systems theory,he employs Foucault's notions of power to argue thatthe global politicaleconomyshould be seen as a disciplinary societythatgivesrise to statesas a productof the relationsof power (Andrews, 1982). For a workthatcombinesboth a formaldiscourse analysiswith a Foucauldian understandingof discursivepractices,see Shapiro, Bonham and Heradstveit(1988).
285
and meaningare constituted, focus the truth, On thequestionof how knowledge, subjector as a by is on language,understoodnot as an assetemployed a preexisting the but which socialidentity constraint imposedon thesubject, as a mediumthrough of of thesubjectis made possible.This understanding languageunderliesthenotion but not a of discoursewhich, Foucault,involves simply groupof signsor symbols for and the objectsof formsocialsubjects the overallsocial practices thatsystematically whichtheyspeak (Dreyfusand Rabinow,1982:62; see Foucault,1972). to of from rationalism realism notrestricted a the is Discourseforthosedissenting of be relations, they by concernwiththediscourseemployed the subjects international be or actors.Discourseforthosewho might considstates, institutions, transnational the Relations, practices ered partof the new dissentis the discourseofInternational the relations and constitute domain to thatgive rise to the subjectsof international whichInternational is onlyresponding.In thismore RelationstheQry purportedly nor For escapes attention. the confar-reaching conceptionneithertheorist theory and realists, for theoryremainsa tool analysis, ception invoked by the rationalists can to thatmight moresensitively honed butthatnonetheless continue be something For serveus (the theorists and, of course,the practitioners). the conceptionassocias ated withpoststructuralism, theoryis as much the object analysis the tool for of in is analysis.The concern,althoughno less practical itsimplications, how analytic of or approaches privilegecertainunderstandings global politicsand marginalize of bestillustrated themovefromthe by excludeothers.It is a reorientation analysis Kantianquestionof "Whatcan I know"to the Foucauldianquestionof "How have myquestionsbeen produced?"(Shapiro, 1988:14-15). It is in thiscontextthatWalker(1989) has investigated waythatmanyrealist the readingof Machiavelli. questionsand answershave been produced via a particular in tradition International Relations endorsed has His conclusion thatthedominant is a caricature, narrowahistorical realist," reduced to reading,of the "paradigmatic a of significance this kind of analysisis underscoredby Walker'spropositionthat of because, over the mainstream interpretations Machiavelliare never "innocent" to the years,theyhave "identified natureof the problem[s] be addressedand [have] the a situated[them]within discursive space thatboth definesand limits legitimate responseto the problems"(Walker,1989:40).26 of Walker(1988a) has also been concernedwiththebroaderimplications thiskind of world.Faced for of discursive emphasison theconstruction the practice traditional we of Walker, mustcast suggests bythedangersand complexities moderngloballife, characteristic Westof offthelegacyof uncritical judgementand "isolatedprivilege" to discourseand listen,seriously, marginalized ern modernist voices,to different and culturalexperiences(Walker,1988a:22). We mustacknowledgeother histories of Walker'sbroadlyarticulation intellectual worlds.And in an interesting themes, socialmovedefinedpoststructuralist approachis wedded to a concernwith"critical ments"and their"emancipatory potential" (1988a:3). themestakesmanyof The recentworkof those associatedwithpoststructuralist and analyzesthemin relations the classicalconcernsand problemsof international of and contingency the termsof the way dominantdiscoursesdiscipline ambiguity to as thought, Ashley(1987, globallife.Locatingthethemeof anarchy central realist not of thatits statusas a givenis a matter 1988, 1989) has soughtto demonstrate but of a particular discursive factualobservation strategy-thenotionof logocenof in of trism-whichdisciplines understanding theform dualizedhierarchies meanand uniform takesthecoherent appearance of much ing. This approach to analysis
26
instant formulas on the "priorityof power over ethics . . . the necessityof violence and intrigue . . . ends justifying means and raison d'etat" (Walker, 1989:32). The
For a similarreading of the neorealist'sappropriation of Thucydides, see Garst (1989).
286
of of "reality" and seeks to show in a variety waysthatwhatwe take to be "real," of and universal"is the arbitrary timeless, imposition a formof order" (Shapiro, 1987:14). In thiscontext, Der Derian (1987) has historicized notionof diplomacy the to demonstrate how,in the absence of centralagencyof powerin the international the and system, powerof diplomacy been constituted sustained thediscursive has by practice the"diplomatic of culture," mediation humankind's the of alienation froma of sociallyconstructed power. Shapiro has takenthe fiction Franz Kafka and Don DeLillo, withtheirquestioning the meaningof "fear"and "danger,"to illustrate of in howdangeris bureaucratized thecontemporary to suchan extent era thatthereis no longer any correlation betweenour immediate experienceand the representaof tionsof experiencewe consumeas citizens a modernstate(Shapiro, 1988). In a piece examining U.S. foreign policytowards CentralAmerica, Shapiro (1987:Ch. 3) has shownthatforeign policycan be understood theprocessof making"strange" as it in the objectunder consideration order to differentiate from"us." In the case of of combination the construction the "CentralAmericanOther,"the resultant of moral and geopoliticalcodes in U.S. foreignpolicydiscourseworksto make U.S. of in bothin terms Americaninterests and intervention the regionseem necessary, are or thoseof thesubjectstate.In thiswayotherdiscourses delegitimized marginathe lized,thereby limiting range of political optionsforpolicy. has howan "Orientalist" On a relatedtheme,Gusterson demonstrated discourse is at theheartof debatesovernuclearnonproliferation theThird World.Maligning in of or in Third World statesas the repository poverty, irrationality, instability the that international system, discourseservesto projecteverything the Westfears this An thatis about itself and the nuclearworldonto Third World states.27 argument to about weaponsand strategy thus,a strategy fixidentity supposedly is, (Gusterson, forthcoming). Kleinhas argued thatdiscursive practices concerning peace and security (1987, 1988b, 1989) should be seen as part of the largerprojectof modernity to the of which,by restricting understanding human community the level of the of In he forecloses consideration alternatives. particular, argues,the"Western state, and discursive alliance"and NATO should be consideredas a set of political practhana spatialentity ticesseekingto defenda wholewayof liferather (Klein, 1988a, The thatitis a series forthcoming). same case has been made forU.S. foreign policy, of political whichlocatedangerin theexternal realm-threatsof "individupractices "freedom" and commerce-as a meansof constructing boundary the between ality", of thedomestic and theinternational, the thereby bringing identity theUnitedStates intoexistence(Campbell,forthcoming). environment international saliencein the changing These issuesare of particular to Joenniemi broughton by the alteration Sovietforeignpolicyunder Gorbachev. "otherness" has (forthcoming) argued thatin no longerlivingup to the strict prethe the scribedof it in the Cold War context, SovietUnion is severely complicating of identity the West which has for so long depended on an "enemy"to contain potential challengesto its own domesticsocial relations.28 Changes of thiskind are whichhas to beginning pose seriousproblemsforcontemporary security discourse, to of considerations security the spatial exclusionof otherness(Dalby, restricted 1988; Walker, 1988b). Such problemsare evidentin the debates over European of and defensestrategies thefuture NATO, as Dillonhas pointedout (1988a, 1988b, how specificpolicydebates occur withinshared linguistic 1989) in demonstrating
27 For other discussions of the role of discursivestrategiesin the constitution the Third World see Escobar of (1984) and Manzo (1990). 28 For a detailed considerationof how the cold war textcame into being in the United States, see Nathenson (1988).
287
frameworks that constitute "formsof life" and therebydirectand limitpolitical options.These developments have led to a reconsideration the role of nuclear of weaponswhichfocuseson the textualand interpretative codes thatgivemeaningto otherwise inertobjects,as withLuke (1989) employing insights fromsemiotics and to how the function nuclearweapons is as symbolic interactionism demonstrate of much one of signalingand signifying preparation actual war. as for in The impetusforthisnewdissent International Relations scholarships, however, does not restsolelywiththe metatheoretical of developments the interdisciplinary debates.The tensions thesupposedly of unified traditions International of Relations give thosetraditions open-endedness an thatprovidesspace forcritical exploration of theirconstitution. example,Ashley's For argument concerning status anarthe of chyin International Relations discourse made possiblebytheattention is givenin the of This attention mainstream the disciplineto nonstateactorsin world politics.29 actor.Critiqueswere develservesto problematize stateas the rationalunitary the the oped fromwithin mainstream (such as Allison,1971),but theyfailedto displace the tradition's faithin the stateas the "hard core" of international relations theory and practice.The argumentmade by Ashleyand others(see Walker,1988b) is not an thatthestateis no longerimportant either actoror a presencein globalpolitics. as to central international On thecontrary, theyhave recognizedthatthestateremains relations.Its survival the face of the internationalization economicauthority in of of (among otherglobal changes) makesit worthy extensive but consideration, at a thanthatwhichhas gone levelof analysis substantially different no less practical but before.As Ashleyargues,"theturnto nonstate actorsrendersradically unstableany to a attempt represent historical figure-the stateor anyother-as a pure presence, a sovereign that be sourceof meaningand an agencyof the identity might a coherent of powerof reason in international history" (1988:234). Anydepiction thestateas a in is sovereign identity itsown right thusrevealedas but one among manypossible all interpretations, of whichare possibleonlythrough "themanifestly political exclusion of others"(Ashley,1988:251). to of for It is difficult overstate implications thisargument theunderstanding the of international because it goes to the veryheartof how "international relations, and how the discipline International relations" constituted are and understood, of and Relations understands own history contemporary its role. Bull once argued that of was concernedwithgeneral propositions that the theory international relations may be advanced about the politicalrelationsamong states(Bull, 1972). Such a to would seem to manyto be unobjectionable thepointof banality, it but proposition resolvesthe process of understanding global life in a particularway, througha and practice thattheory outsideof theworlditpurports division betweentheory so is to sees as the simply observe.The interpretive approach,in contrast, theory practice: of relations an instancein one siteof the pervasive cultural is theory international or thatserveto discipline practices ambiguity. Experiencehas to be arrested, fixed, thisprocess for disciplined sociallifeto be possible.The formthatemergesthrough in and is thusbotharbitrary nonarbitrary: arbitrary thatit is one possibility among condiin many,and nonarbitrary "thesense thatone can inquireintothe historical the so tionswithin whichone wayof making worldwas dominant thatwe nowhave a international worldthatpower has convened" (Shapiro, 1987:93). In thiscontext, for-the relations is theory constitutive of-though by no meanssolelyresponsible of of and insideand outside, understanding globallifein terms sovereignty anarchy,
29 Kratochwiland Ruggie (1986:771) recognized in a similar vein that the clash between epistemologyand ontology regimetheorywas not a productof theirparticulartheoretical in proclivities, a Pandora's box opened but up when "the discipline gravitatedtoward an intersubjective ontologyin the studyof international regimes."
288
stateand world.The "world"we so oftentakeforgrantedwas not givenbynature, convenedby God, or planned by theintentions statesmen: came to be through of it of multiple politicalpractices relatedas much to the constitution varioussubjectivitiesas to the intentional actionof predetermined subjects. Conclusion We do not claim here to have addressed all the themesinvokedin a discussionof modernism and the International Relationsdiscipline. Manyimportant issues have not been touched on at all, including, example,workswhichseek to bringelefor to mentsof contemporary of feminism the traditional subjectmatter International Relations(see Elshtain,1986; Millennium,1989). We have soughtin as comprehensiveterms possibleto touchon some of theintersections thought as of whichrecently have energizedthe theory/practice debates across the Westernsocial sciences,and whichare now at the heartof the critical debate in International interpretive Relations.We have indicatedthatwhiletraditional of notions an alternative grandtheory or synthesis are not part of the agenda of dissent(even if it were intellectually possible),thereare commonthemeslinking post-Wittgensteinian the tradition, the of of contributions Winch and Kuhn, the perspectives CriticalTheory,and postof structuralism. These broad patterns dissentcome together around the issue of and globallifein whichpoverty, militaripraxis,the questionof theoretical analysis with zation,and oppressionare the norm. It is a dissatisfaction the waythattraditional approaches to InternationalRelations(includingMarxistorthodoxy)have confronted issue thathas providedtheimpetus thedissent thepresent. this for of In the wake of (among otherdevelopments) VietnamWar, a restructuring the the of world economy,the rise of religiousfundamentalism, continuing the for struggle of survivalof the great majority the world's peoples, and the new dangers and of inclined opportunities thesuperpower relationship, critically scholars have looked withdismayat orthodoxresponsesthatinvokeand replicate caricatured the debates of and theoretical understanding the past. It is ironic,then,if not at all surprising, of that counter-critiques the new interpretive InternationalRelationsliterature to on shouldallege a lackof "relevancy" worldpolitics thepartofthenewdissent (see Keohane, 1988; Holsti, 1989).3?One scholarhas admonishedthose he termsthe "reflectivists" leading International for Relationsstudyinto "purelytheoretical deearnestresearchers fromthe "real" issues in favorof a "probate" whichdeflects discussion" grammatically diversionary philosophical (Keohane, 1988:382). Nothing above. It simply muchneeds to be said about such a statement, giventhearguments about the "backwardness" the discipline, of underlinesFrost's(1986) observations and the and reaffirms need fora moresophisticated, tolerant, open-endedapproach to questionsof how we understandand explainglobal life. of This is not in any way to denigratethe efforts those engaged in "concrete" to research.It is simply restatethatsuch researchis neverseparatefrom empirical to It the the philosophical. is important, therefore, acknowledge concreteempirical researchof recentdissentin International Relations.These workshave been concernedwiththepractical, relevant issuesof everyday globallife:wealthand poverty, lifeand death,thestruggle understand, to and theneed to change.The new dissent has dealt withthe traditional conceptsof global politics:the state,war, anarchy,
30 The "relevance" of mainstreamInternationalRelations scholarshipis much heralded, but its role as a source of reformfor the recognized problemsof global lifeis a case waitingto be made. Those who claim relevance as a standard by whichnew work is to be assessed also invariably insiston a theory/practice divide whichautomatically limitsthe impact of any scholarship.
289
and peace. It has also concerneditselfwiththe traditional sovereignty, security, subjectsof global politics:nuclear strategy, superpowerforeignpolicy,diplomacy, the defenseissuesof NATO, international regimesand the difficulties interstate of and underdevelopment. it has done so in keeping cooperation, debt crisis, the But of withmanyof the insights the interdisciplinary the debates,refusing universalist and "reality" an conceitsthatmask the illusory claim of a fitbetween"theory" for appreciation the role politicaland social practices of have in makingthe world. The new dissenthas been concernedwiththediscourseof international relations, of witha focuson concernabout the subjects international relations supplementing thediscourseof thosesubjects thatmakesthem(and notothers)historically possible. It has done so in the face of whatBernstein (1983:16-20) has called the "Cartesian the whichassertsthateitherwe have some sortof anxiety," modernist proposition ultimate"foundation"for our knowledgeor we are plunged into the void of the relative, irrational, arbitrary, nihilistic.3' the the the in Faced withthisCartesiananxiety, orthodoxscholarship International Relations of and limitations the tradiwillprobably continueto forget silences, the omissions, tionalapproaches. But the ritualforgetting the insights scholarsas diverseas of of that Wittgenstein, Winch,Kuhn, Habermas, Foucault,and Derrida-a forgetting as amnesia-can only increasethe anxiety. mightbe characterized post-Cartesian idea thatsocialand political has the life Onlybyexorcising unfoundedbut seductive can tobeorganizedbyrecourseto either optionoranother, we equip ourselvesto one in deal with enormousissuesof praxisthatwe confront globallife.The dissent the of the critical social theoryand interpretive approaches in the disciplineof InternationalRelationsoffers startin thisdirection. a References
H. R., JR. (1988) The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides' Melian Dialogue. American Political ScienceReview82:805-20. ALKER, H. R., JR. AND D. J. SYLVAN (1988) Foreign Policyas Tragedy: Sending 100,000 Troops to Vietnam. Paper prepared for the XIVth World Congress of the InternationalPoliticalScience Association,Washington,D.C., August 28-September 1. theCubanMissileCrisis.Boston: Little,Brown ALLISON, G. (1971). The EssenceofDecision:Explaining and Company. Politics 27:521-540. ANDREWS, B. (1975). The State as Social Actor. World Interactions 6:267-89. ANDREWS, B. (1979) The Language of State Action. International 36:135ANDREWS, B. (1982) The PoliticalEconomy of World Capitalism.International Organization 163. ANDREWS, B. (1984) The Domestic Content of International Desire. International Organization 38:321-27. International Studies ASHLEY, R. K. (1981) PoliticalRealism and Human Interest. 25:204-36. Quarterly 38:225-86. ASHLEY, R. K. (1984) The Povertyof Neorealism. International Organization ASHLEY, R. K. (1987) The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Towards a Critical Social Theory of InternationalPolitics.Alternatives 12:403-34. the SovereignState: A Double Reading of the AnarchyProblematique. ASHLEY, R. K. (1988) Untying Millennium: JournalofInternational Studies17:227-62. and War." In Internationall ASHLEY, R. K. (1989) "Living on Border Lines: Man, Poststructuralism
ALKER,
31 The Cartesian anxiety be found can evenin thewriting a scholar of whois awareof theimportance the of philosophical debates discussed here.Biersteker (1989)hasarguedthat "post-positivist scholarship notoffer does us anyclearcriteria choosing for amongthemultiple competing and explanations produces." it Biersteker finds solacein theevaluative of procedures logical positivism though, he admits, areproblematic. then even as they He proceeds callforsomeexplicit to discussions evaluative of criteria before is willing takethe"leapfrom he to the problematic terrain positivism what of into couldturn to be a post-positivist out void."
290
Readingsof WorldPolitics,edited by J. Der Derian and M. J. Intertextual Relations:Postmodern Shapiro, pp. 259-321. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. editedbyJ.Urmsonand G. Warnock.Oxford: OxfordUniversity (1970)PhilosophicalPapers, AusTIN,J. Press. Science. and Albany:State University Criticism Renewalin Political of BALL, T., ED. (1987) Idioms Inquiry: of New York Press. A Relations: Handbook Current Theory, of M. BANKS, (1985) The Inter-ParadigmDebate. In International edited by A. J. R. Groom and M. Light, pp. 7-26. London: Frances Pinter. London: Methuen. EDS. (1978) ThePhilosophy ofSociety. R. BEEHLER, AND A. R. DRENGSON, Londo: Methuen. of R. BERNSTEIN, J. (1976) The Restructuring Social and PoliticalTheory. and Hermeneutics Praxis. Oxford: and Science, BERNSTEIN, R. J. (1983) BeyondObjectivism Relativism: Basil Blackwell. and Modernity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. BERNSTEIN, R. J., ED. (1985) Habermas in on Post-Positivism InternationalRelations. InternaBIERSTEKER, T. J. (1989) Critical Reflections 33:236-67. tionalStudiesQuarterly Dordrecht: Martin Nijhoff. D. BOUCHER, (1985) Textsin Context. Papers: BULL, H. (1972) "The Theory of InternationalRelations, 1919-1969." In The Aberystwyth Press. Politics1919-1969, edited by B. Porter,London: Oxford University International D. CAMPBELL, (1988) "Recent Changes in Social Theory: Questions for InternationalRelations." In edited by R. A. Higgott,pp. 11-67. in Relations: Australian Perspectives, NewDirections International Canberra: Department of InternationalRelations. the United States.AlternaCAMPBELL, D. (1990) Global Inscription:How Foreign PolicyConstitutes tives15(3). Debate: Nukespeak Today. London: Frances CHILTON, P., ED. (1985) Language and theNuclearArms Pinter. COHN,C. (1987) Sex and Death in the Rational World of the Defense Intellectuals.Signs:AJournalof in and Society Women Culture 12:687-718. of Madison: University WisconsinPress. W. and Ambiguity. CONNOLLY, E. (1987) Politics and Oxford: Basil Blackwell. W. CONNOLLY, E. (1988) PoliticalTheory Modernity. Cox, R. W. (1981) Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond InternationalRelationsTheory. Studies10:126-155. Millennium: JournalofInternational New York: in MakingofHistory. Order:SocialForces the Powerand World Cox, R. W. (1987) Production, Columbia University Press. Brighton: HarvesterPress. ParsonstoHabermas. from CRAIB, I. (1984) ModernSocial Theory Ithaca:, NY: Cornell Structuralism. After and Criticism Theory CULLER, J.(1982). On Deconstruction: Press. University 13:415-42. DALBY,S. (1988) Geopolitical Discourse: The Soviet Union as Other. Alternatives Oxford: Basil Blackwell. A Estrangment. of DER DERIAN, J.(1987) On Diplomacy: Genealogy Western Journalof DER DERIAN, (1988) Philosophical Traditions in InternationalRelations. Millennium: J. International Studies17:189-93. DER DERIAN, (1989) "The Boundaries of Knowledge and Power in InternationalRelations." In J. edited by J. Der Derian Politics, Readingsof World Relations: Postmodern InternationallIntertextual and M. J. Shapiro, pp. 3-10. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books. Readings EDS. (1989) InternationallIntertextual Postmodern Relations: DER DERIAN, ANDM. J. SHAPIRO, J. Politics.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. of World translatedby L. Scott-Fox and J. M. Harding. V. DESCOMBES, (1980) ModernFrenchPhilosophy, Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University and theClaims of CriticalTheory. Thought Post-Structuralist DEWS, P. (1987) Logics of Disintegration: London: Verso. of DILLON,G. M. (1988a) Securityand Modernity.Paper prepared for the University California's Second Annual Conference on Discourse, Peace, Security and International Society, Ballyvaughan, Ireland, August 6-13. and Cooperaon and Institute Global Conflict Discourse Policymaking. DILLON,G. M. (1988b) Defense, of tion, WorkingPaper No. 4. La Jolla: University California,San Diego. and War. London: Macmillan. Politics DILLON, G. M. (1989) The Falklands, Brighton: and Structuralism Hermeneutics. Foucault:Beyond DREYFUS, H. AND P. RABINOW (1982). Michel Harvester Books. on ELSHTAIN,J. B. (1986) "CriticalReflections Realism,JustWar and Feminismin a Nuclear Age." In and the FutureofHumanity: Fundamental The edited by A. Cohen and S. NuclearWeapons Questions, Lee, pp. 255-72. Totowa: Rowan and Allenheld.

ESCOBAR,
291
A. (1984) Discourse and Power in Development: Michel Foucault and the Relevance of His 10:377-400. Work to the Third World. Alternatives Commentson the Logic of Factual Support." FEYERABEND, P. (1964) "Realism and Instrumentalism: and edited byM. Bunge. New York: The Free Pressof to In TheCritical Approach Science Philosophy, Glencoe. A FEYERABEND, P. (1968) "How to be a Good Empiricist: Plea forTolerance in MattersEpistemologiedited by P. H. Nidditch,pp. 12-39. London: Oxford Univercal." In ThePhilosophy Science, of sityPress. 43:1006-24. JournalofPolitics. FLAX, J. (1981) Why EpistemologyMatters. of translatedby A. M. Sheridan Smith. London: FOUCAULT, M. (1972) The Archeology Knowledge, Tavistock. Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge UniTheory International of FROST, M. (1986) Towards Normative a versity Press. StudiesQuarterly 33:3-27. GARST, D. (1989) Thucydides and Neorealism. International Press. of GELLNER, E. (1974) Legitimation Belief.Cambridge: Cambridge University GEORGE, J. (1989) InternationalRelations and the Search forThinking Space: Another View of the StudiesQuarterly 33:269-279. Third Debate. International Problems Social Theory. in London: Macmillan. GIDDENS, A. (1979) Central in and Critiques Social Theory. London: Macmillan. GIDDENS, A. (1982) Profiles Today.Cambridge: PolityPress. GIDDENS, A. AND J. TURNER, EDS. (1987) Social Theory and the School.Cambridge: Cambridge Habermas Frankfurt Theory: GUESS, R. (1981) TheIdea ofCritical Press. University GUSTERSON, H. (1989) "Orientalismand the Bomb: The Neocolonial Discourse of Nuclear NonProliferation."Paper presented at the Joint Annual Convention of BISA and ISA, London, March 28-April 1, 1989. South Bend, IN: University Nortre Dame of GUTTING, G., ED. (1980) Paradigmsand Revolutions. Press. and Human Interests, translatedbyJ. Shapiro. London: Heinemann. HABERMAS, J. (1971) Knowledge and Practice, translatedbyJ. Viertel.London: Heinemann. HABERMAS, J. (1974) Theory Crisis,translatedby T. McCarthy.London: Heinemann. HABERMAS, J. (1976) Legitimation and Evolution Society, translatedby T. McCarthy.London: of HABERMAS, J. (1979) Communication the Heinemann. editedbyD. Held andJ. B. Thompson, pp.219-283. HABERMAS,J. (1982) InHabermas:CriticalDebates, London: Macmillan. of Action,vol. 1, translatedby T. McCarthy. Boston: HABERMAS, J. (1984) Theory Communicative Beacon Press. Discourse Modernity. Cambridge: PolityPress. of HABERMAS, J. (1987) The Philosophical of Action,vol. 2, translatedby T. McCarthy. Boston: HABERMAS, J. (1988) Theory Communicative Beacon Press. HEKMAN, J. (1983) Beyond Humanism: Gadamer, Althusser and the Methodology of the Social 36:98-115. Sciences. Western PoliticalQuarterly and Cambridge: PolityPress. of HEKMAN, J. (1986) Hermeneutics theSociology Knowledge. to London: Hutchinson. to Horkheimer Habermas. Theory: HELD, D. (1980) Introduction Critical in Philosophy Science. and Reconstructionsthe of Brighton:HarvesterPress. HESSE, M. (1980) Revolutions Debate. Millennium:Journal Internaof HOFFMANN, M. (1987) CriticalTheory and the Inter-Paradigm tionalStudies16:231-49. RelationsTheory.Millennium:Journal of HOFFMAN, M. (1988) Conversationson CriticalInternational International Studies17:91-95. and Relativism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. HOLLIS, M. AND S. LUKES, EDS. (1982) Rationality and in Boston: Theory. Hegemony Diversity International HOLSTI, K. J.(1985) The DividingDiscipline: Allen and Unwin. HOLSTI, K. J.(1989) Mirror on the Wall Which is the Fairest Theory of Them All? International StudiesQuarterly 33:255-61. in International R. Boulder, System. HOLSTI, K. J., SIVERSON, AND A. L. GEORGE, EDS. (1980) Change the CO: WestviewPress. HOMER-DIXON, T. AND R. KARAPIN (1987) Following Political Debates: A New Approach to the Window of Vulnerability. Cambridge, MA: MIT Thesis. HOOK, G. D. (1984) The Nuclearization of Language: Nuclear Allergyas Political Metaphor. The 21:259-75. JournalofPeace Research
292
HORKHEIMER,
and Relations Critical Social Theory International
JOENNIEMI,
M. (1972) CriticalTheory: Selected Essays.New York: Herder and Herder. P. (1989) "The Social Constitutionof Gorbachev: From an Intruder to a Communal Figure." Paper presentedat theJointAnnual Conventionof BISA and ISA, London, March 28April 1, 1989. KEOHANE, R. 0. (1986a) Neorealism and Its Critics. New York: Columbia University Press. KEOHANE, R. 0. (1986b) Theory of World Politics:Structural Realismand Beyond. In Neorealism and Its Critics, edited by R. 0. Keohane, pp. 158-203. New York: Columbia University Press. KEOHANE, R. 0. (1988) International Institutions: Two Approaches. International StudiesQuarterly 32:379-96. Discourse KLEIN, B. S. (1987) Strategic and itsAlternatives. Center on Violence and Human Survival, Occasional Paper No. 3. New York: JohnJay College of CriminalJustice. KLEIN, B. S. (1988a) Hegemony and StrategicCulture: American Power Projection and Alliance Defense Politics.ReviewofInternational Studies14:133-49. KLEIN, B. S. (1988b) AfterStrategy: Toward a PostmodernPoliticsof Peace. Alternatives 13:293-318. KLEIN, B. S. (1989) "The Textual Strategiesof Military Strategy:Or, Have You Read Any Good Defense Manuals Lately?" In InternationallIntertextual Relations:Postmodern Readingson World Politics,edited by J. Der Derian and M. J. Shapiro, pp. 97-112. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. In KLEIN, B. S. (forthcoming)"Beyond the Western Alliance: The Politics of Post-Atlanticism." in edited by Stephen R. Gill. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Atlantic Relations theReagan Era and Beyond, Books. Press. KRASNER, S., ED. (1983) International Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Relations.International KRATOCHWIL, F. (1982) On the Notion of "Interest"in International Organization36:1-30. International KRATOCHWIL, F. (1984). The Force of Prescriptions. Organization 38:685-708. and the 'Science" of Politics:A Reappraisal. MillenKRATOCHWIL, F. (1988) Regimes, Interpretation nium: JournalofInternational Studies17:263-84. and Decisions. Press. KRATOCHWIL, F. (1989) Rules,Norms Cambridge: Cambridge University KRATOCHWIL, F. ANDJ. G. RUGGIE (1986) International Organization:The State of the Arton an Art of the State. International 40:753-75. Organization in Development Western Revolution: KUHN, T. S. (1957) TheCopernican Planetary Astronomythe of Thought. Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Revolutions. of KUHN, T. S. (1970) The Structure Scientific of 2nd ed., enlarged. Chicago: University Chicago Press. LAKATOS, I. (1970) "Falsificationand the Methodology of ScientificResearch Programmes." In edited by I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, pp. 91-196. CamCriticism theGrowth Knowledge, and of Press. bridge: Cambridge University LAKATOS, I. AND E. ZAHAR (1975) "Why Did Copernicus' Research Program Supersede Ptolemy's?" edited by R. S. Westman.Berkeley:University CaliforniaPress. of In TheCopernican Achievement, Relationsin a Post-Positivist LAPID, J. (1989) The Third Debate: On the Prospectsof International Era. International StudiesQuarterly 33:235-54. of Relations.InternaLIJPHART, A. (1974) The Structure the Theoretical Revolutionin International 18:41-69. tionalStudiesQuarterly Relations. London: Macmillan. in LINKLATER, A. (1982) Men and Citizens theTheory International of LINKLATER, A. (1986) Realism, Marxism and Critical InternationalTheory. Reviewof International Studies12:301-312. on Conflict: LUKE, T. (1989) "What's Wrong WithDeterrence?Alternative Perspectives International of RelaSemiotic and Symbolic Interpretations National Security."In InternationallIntertextual edited byJ. Der Derian and M. J. Shapiro, pp. 207tions: Postmodern Readingson World Politics, 29. Lexigton, MA: Lexington Books. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. MACDONELL, D. (1986) Theories Discourse. of theSelfImage oftheAge. New York: Schocken Books. MACINTYRE, A. (1971) Against Versus Realism:International RelationsThird MAGHOORI, R. AND R. RAMBERG, EDS. (1982) Globalism Debate.Boulder, CO: WestviewPress. MANZO, K. (1990) Modernist Discourse and the Crisis of Development Theory. Williams College: unpublished manuscript. and Growth Knowledge, edited by MASTERMAN, M. (1970) The Nature of a Paradigm. In Criticism the of Press. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, pp. 59-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University

MCCARTHY, MEIKSINS
293
T. (1978) The CriticalTheory Jurgen of Habermas.London: Hutchinson. E. (1972) Mind and Society. Berkeley: University California Press. of MENDELSON, J. (1979) THe Habermas-Gadamer Debate. New German Critique 18:44-73. Millennium: Journal of International Studies (1989) Special Issue of Feminism and International Theory. MUELLER-VOLLMER, K., ED. (1985) The Hermeneutics Reader: Textsof theGermanTradition fromthe Enlightenment thePresent. to Oxford: Basil Blackwell. NATHENSON, C. E. (1988) The Social Constructionof the Soviet Threat: A Study in the Politicsof Representation.Alternatives 13:443-83. OYE, K., ED. (1986) Cooperation UnderAnarchy. Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press. PEARS, D. (1987) The False Prison:A Study theDevelopment Wittgenstein's of of Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press. A and PHILLIPS, D. L. (1977) Wittgenstein Scientific Knowledge: Sociological Perspective. London: Macmillan. POSTER, M. (1984) Foucault, Marxism and History. Cambridge: Polity. RENGGER, N. J. (1988) Going Critical?A Response to Hoffmann.Millennium: JournalofInternational Studies17:81-89. RICHTERS, A. (1988) Modernity-Postmodernity Controversies:Habermas and Foucault. Theory, Cultureand Society 5:611-43. Abandon?The Politicsof Postmodernism. Ross, A., ED. (1988) Universal Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press. RUGGIE,J. G. (1982) InternationalRegimes,Transactions,and Change: Embedded Liberalismin the Postwar Economic Order. International Organization 36:379-415. RYAN, M. (1982) Marxism and Deconstruction:Critical A Artzculation. Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress. SHAPIRO, M. J. (1987) ThePolztzcs Representation: of Practzces Bzography, in Wrzting Photography Polzcy and Analysis. Madison: University WisconsinPress. of 1:120-14 1. SHAPIRO, M. J. (1988) The Politicsof Fear: Don DeLillo's PostmodernBurrow. Strategzes SHAPIRO, M. J., G. M. BONHAM AND D. HERADSTVEIT (1988) A Discursive PracticesApproach to Collective Decision-Making.International StudiesQuarterly 32:397-419. SUPPE, F. (1977) The Structure Scientific of of Theories: Chicago: University Illinois Press. THOMPSON, J. B. (1981) Critical Hermeneutzcs: Study theThought Paul Rzcoeur Jurgen A in Haberof and mas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. THOMPSON, J. B. AND D. HELD, EDS. (1982) Habermas:Critzcal Debates.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. A London: Frances Pinter. VASQUEZ, J. (1983) The PowerofPowerPolztzcs: Critique. Polztics. World Order Studies WALKER, R. B. J. (1980) PoliticalTheory and theTransformationWorld of Program,Occasional Paper No. 8. Princeton:Center for InternationalStudies. Studies WALKER, R. B. J. (1987) Realism, Change and InternationalPolitical Theory. International 31:65-86. Quarterly Peace. Boulder, CO: Lynne WALKER, R. B. J. (1988a) One World/Many Worlds: Strugglesfor ajust World Reiner. Institute Global on and International Relatzons WALKER, R. B. J. (1988b). The Concept Security of Theory. of Conflictand Cooperation, WorkingPaper No. 3. La Jolla: University California,San Diego. WALKER, R. B. J. (1989) "The Prince and the Pauper: Tradition, Modernityand the Theory of Postmodern on PoliInternationalRelations." In InternationallIntertextual Relations: Readzngs World edited byJ. Der Derian and M. J. Shapiro, pp. 25-48. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books. tics, Politics.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. WALTZ, K. (1979) Theory International of Problem in InternationalRelationsTheory. International WENDT, A. E. (1987) The Agent-Structure 41:335-70. Organization and Its RelationtoPhzlosophy. New York: Routledge and WINCH, P. (1972) The Idea ofa Social Science Kegan Paul. L. (1968) Thle WITTGENSTEIN, Phzlosophzcal translatedby G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Investzgatzio7s, Basil Blackwell. Indivzdualism. An Approach the to MeaningofLiberaland Socialist WOOD, E. M. (1972) Mind and Politics: of Berkeley: University California Press.
WOOD,

2600570

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2600570

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Patterns of Dissent and the Celebration of Difference: Critical Social Theory and International Relations Author(s): Jim George

International Studzes Quarterly (1990) 34, 269-293

TheJohns Hopkins University

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

From a New Theory of Language to a New Language of Theory

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID

Relations and Critical Social Theory International

It turwissenschaften Geisteswissenschaften.was concerned less with any logical inand

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Relations and Critical Social Theory International

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

to gins of politicaltheory, listenfor the critical voicesdrownedout by official dis-

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

For a similarreading of the neorealist'sappropriation of Thucydides, see Garst (1989).

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Critical Social Theory International and Relations

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

Relations and Critical Social Theory International

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

and Relations Critical Social Theory International

JIM GEORGE AND DAVID CAMPBELL

You might also like