Critical theory emerged as an influential perspective within international relations (IR) theory in the late 1980s and 1990s. The origins of critical theory in IR lie in thought associated with the Frankfurt School. Frankfurt School thinking was inspired by Marxist and Western Marxist theorizing, but sought to revise and reformulate many key understandings of these strands of thought.

Critical theory aims to move beyond simply describing reality, instead seeking to interpretively engage with the open-ended unfolding of social relations and identities in world politics. It is concerned with exposing oppression in international relations and representing underrepresented actors and perspectives. Critical theorists are committed to reflexivity, skepticism of fact/value separation, and self-awareness.

Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt School refers to a group of scholars associated with the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany in the early 20th century. Their work laid important theoretical foundations for the development of critical theory.

Three key thinkers from the Frankfurt School made important contributions:

• Max Horkheimer formulated a distinction between traditional and critical theory. Traditional theory aims to understand or explain society. Critical theory, in contrast, has an emancipatory purpose - it aims to critique society and promote social change.
• Theodor Adorno initiated critical reflections on the role of the “culture industry” in modern capitalist societies. He argued that mass cultural production manipulates the population ideologically to maintain the status quo.
• Jürgen Habermas developed a theory of communicative ethics focused on rational dialogue. He posited that social progress happens through undistorted communication oriented toward mutual understanding. This ethical approach became very influential in critical theory.

Early Critical IR Theory

IR theory could be said to arise in two phases. The first phase was concerned primarily with questions of epistemology, and placed emphasis on critique of science and objectivity in mainstream IR theories as well as critiques of state-centrism. Considered members of the postmodern strand of critical IR theory, such theorists, like Yosef Lapid for example, emphasized the need for plural perspectives and postpositivist in the study of international politics.

Growing out of disenchantment with neorealism as IR’s paradigmatic dominant theory, early critical theorists aimed to move beyond an understanding of the purpose of theory as simply describing an objective reality. Instead, its purpose was understood to be interpretive of reality as an open-ended totality of changing and unfolding social relations and identities in international relations.

Key Early Thinkers

Critical IR theory emerged in the 1980s and early 1990s as a reaction to dominant neorealist and neoliberal theories in the field. Several key thinkers were instrumental in establishing critical theory as an alternative approach for studying international relations:

• Robert Cox: A Canadian scholar, Cox aimed to develop a critical theory of international politics that examined how historically-specific power structures and social forces shape world order. His approach challenged positivist methodologies and emphasized the interplay between theory and practice. Cox highlighted the role of historical structures in limiting political action.
• Richard Ashley: An American scholar, Ashley advocated for a post-positivist epistemology in IR theory. He critiqued mainstream IR theories as state-centric and ignorant of language, arguing these obscured the role of identity and discourse in global politics. Ashley emphasized interpretivism and the idea of anarchy as a social construction.
• Mark Hoffman: Hoffman, another American scholar, synthesized critical social theory and poststructuralism to critically analyze global politics. He focused on deconstructing core concepts like sovereignty and anarchy, exposing their contradictory meanings. Hoffman argued mainstream IR theory falsely universalized Western experiences and marginalized other perspectives.

These three thinkers were instrumental in the early development of critical IR theory as an alternative to dominant positivist approaches. Their focus on critical reflexivity, discourse, and marginalized voices formed the foundation for the critical theory tradition in international relations.

Later Phase

In the later phase, the pragmatic and normatively based critical IR theories entailed focus on questions of dialogue and dialogical ethics, questions of political community and recognition, and an interest in political economy.

Habermas’s thought has been very important here. It has provided the cornerstone for development of theoretical interpretations of dialogue and ethics in international politics. Habermas emphasized communicative action and intersubjective dialogue as the basis for developing moral norms. His theory of communicative action has deeply influenced critical IR theory’s understanding of international ethics.

Many critics continue, however, to question how precisely to understand communicative action and dialogue in international politics today. Here, difficulties in cultural and moral conflicts and consequential non- or misrecognition of participants, as well as the lack of a fundamentally democratic forum for dialogue among global actors is among the most common challenges.

Critical IR theory in this phase also developed a sustained interest in global political economy, examining the role of neoliberal capitalism in shaping international politics and global inequalities. Habermas’s ideas about communicative rationality were drawn upon to develop alternative understandings of political economy centered on deliberative democracy.

Challenges

Many critics continue, however, to question how precisely to understand communicative action and dialogue in international politics today. Here, difficulties in cultural and moral conflicts and consequential non- or misrecognition of participants, as well as the lack of a fundamentally democratic forum for dialogue among global actors is among the most common challenges.

Cultural and moral conflicts pose significant obstacles for meaningful dialogue in global politics. When fundamental differences in worldviews, values, and identities lead to misunderstanding or tension between actors, the potential for communicative action is diminished. Overcoming these divides requires empathy,openness to alternate perspectives, and willingness to critically examine one’s own assumptions and biases. However, the persistence of ingrained preconceptions makes bridging such gulfs extremely difficult.

Furthermore, the absence of an inclusive, egalitarian global platform for international dialogue represents a major impediment. With no formal arena for equitable and non-coercive discourse between all global stakeholders, existing power dynamics marginalize and exclude vulnerable voices. Fundamentally undemocratic global governance institutions dominated by a handful of powerful states do not foster the trust, reciprocity, and shared understanding necessary for communicative action. Genuine dialogue ultimately requires a more representative, participatory, and horizontal global order.

The challenges of cultural conflicts and unequal access hinder the realization of communicative ethics on a global scale. Achieving mutual understanding through open, reasoned discourse remains an aspirational ideal that critical IR theorists continue striving to promote. Overcoming these obstacles is essential for empowering marginalized peoples and democratizing international relations.

Risse and Linklater

Thomas Risse’s intervention on communicative action, through his notion of the logic of communication, was an important catalyst in the development of Habermas’s ideas in IR. Risse argued that the logic of communication can help facilitate understanding between actors with different worldviews. Through dialogue, actors can come to recognize each other and develop shared meanings, despite starting from very different perspectives.

In moving towards development of a systematic critical theory of international relations, Andrew Linklater’s thought on political community has been a very important theoretical intervention. Linklater emphasized three key elements:

• The normative domain - Emphasis on dialogue and dialogical ethics, as well as move towards world community.
• The sociological domain - Encompassed the social determinants of international structures of the international state system.
• The praxeological domain - The actions and tasks of implementing and enforcing the principles of justice, freedom, and equality.

Linklater argued that through communicative action, a more inclusive political community could be developed that transcends state boundaries. This would require challenging exclusionary practices and hierarchies in global politics.

Strands of Critical Theory

Critical theory in IR encompasses two key strands of thought. Both strands commit to embodying underrepresented actors and voices in the field of international relations, and are therefore concerned with exposing various sources of oppression that may otherwise go unacknowledged.

A key unifying element between these two strands is the emphasis on ontological, epistemological, and methodological plurality in theorizing. That is, critical theory rejects the notion that there is one universal way of understanding the nature of reality, knowledge, and appropriate research methods in international relations. It embraces multiple perspectives, especially those from marginalized groups, as crucial for producing knowledge and theorizing.

This ontological, epistemological, and methodological openness exposes critical theory to accusations of relativism. However, critical theorists argue that exposing oppression requires embracing pluralism to give voice to marginalized peoples. A rigid positivist approach that claims perfect objective knowledge is itself a tool of oppression, as it silences alternative voices. Critical theory thus maintains skepticism of any claims to universal truth or totalizing theories.

Overall, critical theory’s commitment to pluralism serves to understand and expose the multiple intersecting sources of oppression in global politics. This in turn can support emancipatory goals of justice, freedom and equality.

Case Study - Arab Spring

The wave of protests that erupted in 2011 against authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and North Africa, known as the Arab Spring, exposed not only the endemic problems underpinning authoritarian governance in the region but also raised critical questions about the problematic positions of Western states regarding their support for authoritarian rulers.

Critical IR theory can elucidate the variety of underlying social factors that shaped the Arab Spring, such as the evolving political identity and consciousness of Arab publics, the failures of neoliberal economic policies, the lack of political will to establish the rule of law, and the enabling role of social media platforms. In essence, critical theory provides a reflexive analysis of the tensions between the static and transformational political and social forces at play.

An important perspective is offered by Critical Security Studies, a school of thought that probes how notions of security are constructed and weaponized in international politics. For example, Richard Wyn Jones contends that traditional security studies remains an applied research program rooted in instrumental rationality. Columba Peoples argues that missile defense represents a longstanding effort to normalize the symbols, means, and representations of security.

Conclusion

Critical theory in international relations remains vitally important due to its commitment to critical reflexivity and discursive ethics. Critical reflexivity is key, as critical theorists emphasize being skeptical of fact/value separations in theorizing. This requires theorists to have constant awareness of their own assumptions and biases.

Jürgen Habermas’s discursive and communicative ethics is also crucial for critical IR theory. His emphasis on ideal speech situations opens new horizons for theorizing international politics in an ethical, egalitarian, and democratic manner. Critical theorists have built upon Habermas’s insights to explore discourse, dialogue, and deliberation in global politics.

However, putting such discursive ethics into practice remains challenging due to cultural conflicts and lack of global democratic forums. Further research is needed on how to implement ethical communication among diverse global actors.

Globalization provides an important context for critical IR theory today. Critical theorists can analyze issues of global civil society, empowerment, and justice within an increasingly interconnected world. The open-ended nature of globalization suggests creative possibilities for more emancipatory international relations.

Overall, critical theory furnishes international relations with imaginative and reflective tools to critique oppressive structures and work towards a more ethical global community. Its emphasis on reflexivity, discourse ethics, and emancipation ensure critical theory will continue illuminating new possibilities in world politics.