“What have been the major contributions of critical theories of

international relations?”

‘The biggest contribution of critical international relations theory is that it keeps the question of individual human freedom
and its relationship to political community from disappearing from the language of the study of international politics.’ (Reus-
Smit, Christian & Snidal, Duncan, 2008)

The major contributions of critical theories of international relations have been in revitalizing
the subject by expanding the bounds of who is allowed to speak, what they are allowed to
speak on, and bringing to the fore the power relations naturalized in the classical realist
methodologies of international relations. In a larger overarching way, the first quote is a fair
holistic comment on the Sisyphean task faced by critical theories. However, each strand of
critical relations provides a different insight: post-colonialism in obfuscating the exploitation
that led to the modern Eurocentric system; feminism in the one-sided recount of women as
subjects and passive in the development of international relations; Marxism in stressing
capital interest rather than political interest in the formation of modern international relations.
Thus, historically side-lined perspectives are reintegrated into the mainstream progression of
international relations. However, it is difficult to argue that these theoretical inquisitions have
led to much praxiological development in international relations – praxis being a central tenet
to the intended ‘emancipatory’ effect of Critical theories.

Critical theories grew in eminence in response to the unbounding of the classical assumptions
of international relations when faced with the end of the Cold War. There was a stark
awareness in international relations on its role not only deserving power relations but also of
theorizing on and hence in determining the actions of states. This gave rise to discourse
analysis as real-world outcomes as resulting from fixed external as elements, as well as the
intentionality. Whilst this does seem to compromise with Waltz’s constructivist conception as
‘anarchy being what the state makes it’, pivotally, the drive to acknowledge a normative role
in theory was taken up by ‘Critical theory’. Developed by the school of Frankfurt, Critical
theory can be seen as a revival of the classical idea of ‘practical philosophy’ following the
ethos of Marx. Theory must not be constrained to simply be of what is the case (positivist), or
what should be the case in the future, but also how to actualize the desired future through
change in the current condition (Reus-Smit, Christian & Snidal, Duncan, 2008). In the
process of bringing about desired ends of ‘emancipation’, which pressed the necessity of
individual realization for autonomy, the school of Frankfurt averred the importance in
including many voices in understanding desire outcomes. In this vein, Critical Theory pushed
the firm boundary that had been built by international relations scholars, instead they saut to
include political theorists and philosophers in their attempt to best grasp international
relations. This resulted in an ‘interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary inquiry’ into what power
systems we have now and how we have come to have them, quintessentially, an active
inquiry into what power systems we ought to bring about. The latter point differs from
institutionalism insofar as institutionalism has a system reinforcing bias where Critical theory
dares to completely overturn and revolutionize the current international system. Essentially,
Critical theory revolves around the ambiguous and contentious term ‘emancipation’.
Emancipation is a goal that requires the removal of the truth distorting power structures, for it
itself not to become a truth distorting power structure it must constantly be questioned and so
can never be truly realized but is an ever-ongoing process. This consequently unsatisfying
and subjective answer has led Critical theory to be widely unfashionable in the field of
international relations – still firmly placing itself in the straitjacket of social science.

Following this design of inclusion and multiplicity philosophy, Critical theory has become
the main instrument by which subaltern, side-lined and marginalised communities have given
their counter-hegemonic narrative relevance in the realm of international relations. Critical
approaches like post-colonialism have saut to decentre the otherwise Eurocentric
international relations story by critiquing the universalist assumptions of statehood and the
insidious exclusive focus of western perspectives. This is best exemplified in Krishna’s
notion of abstraction which states that the reduction of states to equal units and of their
history as ‘war’, a necessary and non-moral act, is part of the maintenance of the mythology
of modern power relations. Feminism expanded the number of variables in the history of state
formation by exposing the way in which women had been altering the course of history and
how it had been erased through a male-centric recount of events. Moreover, praxiologically
feminism expressed the importance of women’s issues as political issues and how they
deserved to be stakeholders sin the formation of policy decisions as they were just as subject
to the choice of political administrators. This is theorized to have led to the increase, slow as
it may be, of women in positions of power to inform more effective and pertinent policy
(Kinsella, Helen M., 2019). Marxist analysis of state formation has expanded the factors of
interest from simply power to power in economic terms. Whilst historical materialism is too
rigid to itself be a critical theory, the tools of analysis of exploitation i.e., the classes through
ideology (Gramsci, The Prison Notebooks), are fundamental to understanding the pervasive
effects of economic inequality in a globalist capitalist system. Most, importantly, with these
three major strands of Critical theory, they have all sought to elocute the suffering of a group
otherwise unheard which gave international relations a more self-aware and outright political
agenda in-line with the belief that: ‘All theory helps constitute the world it claims merely to
depict, and consequently the knowledge produced will be incomplete or impartial.’ Habermas
(1972, 308). Critical theory has actively sought to reconstitute the world and its political
conception in a way it sees as ‘good’.

Yet, as seminal as Critical theory has been in platforming perspectives, it is not apparent how
praxiologically productive it has been. If the quintessence of Critical theory is reviving the
classical idea of ‘practical philosophy’, whether Critical theory has majorly contributed to
international relations in its fully intended way is at best uncertain. Critical theory was meant
to combat the perceived practical bad brought about by international relations scholars
purporting a world anarchy, abstracted from the real people affected by it. Countering that
negative effect would require a similarity practical parallel to buffer against this which
Critical theory has yet to bring about. Many have sought to explain this away with Critical
theory still being in its teething state of theorizing and that it should not be rushed, however,
with the increase in scholars and funding the process should arguably have been much
accelerated into some tangible affective force. Whether it is even possible for praxis to come
about is in contention due to the universalist belief of Critical theory’s ‘emancipatory’ goal –
emancipation could be wholly culturally specific. Furthermore, the work to discover this goal
is not fashionable in mainstream international relations as it implies rather sanctimoniously,
that the job of the theoretician is to provide an answer to the subjective which is not aligned
with the social scientific desire of international relations at large. Linklater’s requirement of
emancipation of ‘states as good citizens’, who do not ‘export suffering’ to others and take
account of others is largely going unheeded. There are wars ongoing and emerging as we
speak and it seems that the request of Critical theorists for a pluralist solidarity has fallen
upon dead ears. In such a stark scenario it is hard to persuasively posit the praxiologically
productiveness of Critical theory. Thus, in its most essential sense it has failed to contribute
to international relations in the objective sense of the word, as a field of theory and research it
has opened the door for other perspectives, yet Critical theorists surely intended more than
this.

In conclusion, Critical theories have questioned the naturalized and taken for granted laws of
international relations. They have shifted from a strictly positivist system to one that
incorporates normativity and fashion a goal for international relations with the understanding
that no theory can simply depict a world without impacting it. Moreover, it has done this by
giving a voice to up until then voiceless subaltern communities. These subaltern communities
have in turn expanded upon our understanding of what current power relations we have and
vividly re-narrated how it is we ended up with them. Pivotally, the enaction of the goals that
these new narratives push us to remain unrealized. The preferred Eurocentric and abstracted
form of administration persists in the lives of the subaltern groups who speak and yet remain
largely ignored. Thus, in the manor most relevant to critical theory, as a revival of ‘classical
philosophy’, it has failed to majorly contribute to international relations. However, with the
introduction of universal conventions around war, inviolable rights and international crimes it
may be that the changes of international relations are gradually being phased in. It may
require, much as the feminist have with women in power, the integration of these critical
voice directly into administration rather than academia to implement their goal. Thus, for the
major contribution of Critical theory they must be not only ‘interdisciplinary and
transdisciplinary in inquiry’, but also in praxis.

Bibliography:

Dotson, Kristie, “Conceptualizing Epistemic Oppression,” Social Epistemology, 2014,

vol. 28 no.2 , pp 115-138.

Reus-Smit, Christian & Snidal, Duncan. The Oxford handbook of international relations.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008. Chapters: ‘Marxism’ and ‘Critical Theory’.

Kirby, Paul, ‘Gender’ in Baylis, Smith and Owens, The Globalization of World Politics
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, 8th edition).

Kinsella, Helen M., ‘Feminism’ in Baylis, Smith and Owens, The Globalization of World
Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019, 8th edition).

Krishna, Sankaran, ‘Race, Amnesia, and the Education of International Relations’,

Millennium, Vol.26 (2001), 401-424.