Rethinking the division of labor in IR: ‘critical’ and ‘problem-solving’ theories

Abstract

Decades after their incorporation into the discipline, the argument that critical approaches are marginalized in the discipline of International Relations (IR) is increasingly becoming questionable. Thus, it is a good time to reflect on critical approaches’ evolution and achievements, as well as their ‘marginalized position in IR’ and relations with conventional approaches. For this aim, this paper focuses on realism(s) and critical theory(ies) while asking whether these two research traditions are conducting 'fair criticisms' to each other based on their own claims and whether their criticisms help develop IR theory's capacity in explaining and/or understanding world politics or undermine it. Accordingly, the paper first analyzes the realist school of thought in IR, going through the main arguments of classical realism, structural realism, and neo-classical realism. Second, it focuses on the development and main assumptions of critical theory (Marxist-inspired approaches, Frankfurt School and Neo-Gramscianism) mainly by focusing on Cox and Ashley's works and critical scholars' readings of them. Third, the paper discusses the main points of cleavages between the two approaches mainly based on the famous division of labor (criticizing vs solving problems), and their criticisms to each other while assessing the pearls and pitfalls of each. Following the discussion, the paper asks whether is there a way out of these dichotomies and whether it is possible to create a productive dialogue between 'problem-solving' and 'critical' schools of thought.

Keywords

• IR Theories
• Great Debates in IR
• Critical Theory
• Problem-Solving Theory
• Realism

Thanks

I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Ersel Aydınlı for his valuable comments and insights on an earlier version of this paper.

References

1. Ashley, R. K. (1981). Political Realism and Human Interest. International Studies Quarterly, 25, 204-36.
2. Ashley, R. K. (1987). The Geopolitics of Geopolitical Space: Toward a Critical Social Theory of International Politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 12, 403-434.
3. Bilgin, P. (2022). Critical Theory. In P. D. Williams and M. McDonald (Eds.), Security Studies (pp. 67-81). London: Routledge.
4. Bohman, J. (2002). Critical Theory as Practical Knowledge. In P. Roth and S. Turner (Eds.), Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of the Social Sciences (pp. 91-109). Blackwell Publishing.
5. Booth, K. (2005). Critical Explorations. In K. Booth (Ed.), Critical Security Studies and World Politics. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
6. Carr, E. H. (1964). The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Harper & Row.
7. Cox, R. W. (1981). Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. Millennium-Journal of International Studies, 10(2), 126-155.
8. Cox, R. W. (1983). Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method. Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 12(2), 162-175.

9. Devetak, R. (2011). Vico contra Kant: The competing theories of Cox and Linklater. In S. Brincat, L. Lima, J. Nunes (Eds.), Critical Theory in International Relations and Security Studies (pp. 115-126). London: Routledge.
10. Devetak, R. (2022). Critical Theory. In R. Devetak & J. True (Eds.), Theories of International Relations (pp. 119-140). UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
11. Donnelly, J. (2008). The Ethics of Realism. In C. Reus-Smith & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Relations (pp. 150-162). Oxford University Press.
12. Feyerabend, Paul. (1962). Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism. In Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
13. Fierke, K. (1998). Changing Games, Changing Strategies: Critical Investigations in Security. Manchester University Press.
14. Guillaume, X. & Bilgin, P. (Eds.). (2017). Routledge Handbook of International Political Sociology. London: Routledge.
15. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
16. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity.
17. Habermas, J. (2001). Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics. Cambridge MIT Press.
18. Hamati-Ataya, I. (2013). Reflectivity, reflexivity, reflexivism: IR’s reflexive turn –and beyond. European Journal of International Relations, 19(4), 669-694.
19. Hobson, J. M. (2007). Is critical theory always for the white West and Western imperialism? Beyond Westphilian towards a post-racist critical IR. Review of International Studies, 33, 91-116.
20. Hobden, S. & Wyn Jones, R. (2020). Marxist Theories of International Relations. In J. Baylis, S. Smith, and P. Owens (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics (pp. 115-129). Oxford University Press.
21. Hutchings, K. (2007). Happy Anniversary! Time and Critique in International Relations Theory. Review of International Studies, 33, 71-89.
22. IPS Section Charter. (n.d.). http://www.isanet.org/ISA/Sections/IPS/IPS-Charter.
23. Katzenstein, P. J. & Sil, R. (2010). Analytic Eclecticism in the study of World Politics: Reconfiguring Problems and Mechanisms across Research Traditions. Perspectives on Politics, 8(2), 411-431.
24. Keohane, R. O. (1988). International Institutions: Two Approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379–96.
25. Lebow, R. N. (2021). Classical Realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 33-50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Linklater, A. (1996). The Achievements of Critical Theory. In Steve Smith, Ken Booth and Maria Zalewski (Eds.) International Theory (pp. 279-298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Lobell, S. E., Ripsman, N.M., & Taliaferro, J. W. (2009). Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. USA: Cambridge University Press.
28. Legro, J. W. & Moravscik, A. (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist? International Security, 24(2), 5-55.
29. Lüleci, Ç. & Sula, I. E. (2016). Survival ‘Beyond Positivism?’ The Debate on Rationalism and Reflectivism in International Relations Theory. Politikon: The IAPSS Journal of Political Science, 30, 43-55.
30. Kurki, M. & Wight, C. (2007). International Relations and Social Science. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith. International Relations Theories (pp. 13-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31. Mearsheimer, J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
32. Morgenthau, H. (1948). Politics Among Nations. New York: Knopf.
33. Murphy, C. N. (2007). The promise of critical IR, partially kept. Review of International Studies, 33(S1), 117-133.
34. Neufeld, M. A. (1993). Reflexivity and International Relations Theory. Millenium Journal of International Studies, 22(1), 53-76.
35. Neufeld, M. A. (1995). The Restructuring of International Relations Theory. Cambridge University Press.
36. Peoples, C. & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2021). Critical Security Studies: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
37. Rengger, N. & Thirkell-White, B. (2007). Introduction: Still Critical After All These Years? The Past the Present and Future of Critical Theory in International Relations. In N. Rengger & B. Thirkkell-White. Critical International Relations Theory after 25 Years. Cambridge University Press.
38. Rose, G. (1998). Review: Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy. World Politics 51(1), 144-172.
39. Rupert, M. (2003). Globalising Common Sense: A Marxian-Gramscian (Re-)vision of the Politics of Governance/resistance. Review of International Studies, 29, 181-198.
40. Rupert, M. (2021). Marxism and Critical Theory. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki and S. Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (pp. 129-146). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Shimko, K. L. (1992). Realism, Neorealism, and American Liberalism. Review of International Politics, 54(2), 281-301.
42. Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and Beyond. In S. Smith, K. Booth & M. Zalewski, Theory: Positivism and Beyond (pp. 11-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Sula, I. E. and Luleci, C. (2016). IR Theory as an ‘Areligious’ Research Field: The Sources of and Critical Prospects to Overcome the Intellectual Failure. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 38(1), 341-356.
44. Sula, I. E. (2021). Bilim, Yöntem ve Kuram. In B. Sarı and I. E. Sula (Eds.), Kuramsal Perspektiften Temel Uluslararası İlişkiler Kavramları (pp. 1-40). Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
45. Tickner, J. A. (2005). What is your research program? Some feminist answers to International Relations methodological questions. International Studies Quarterly, 49(1), 1-21.
46. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press.
47. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. USA: McGraw-Hill.
48. Waltz, K. N. (1990). Realist Thought and Neorealist Theory. Journal of International Affairs. 44(1), 21-37.