Critical theory in crisis? a reconsideration
| DOI | 10.1177/13540661211049491 |
| Author | Beate Jahn |
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
E
JR
I
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661211049491
European Journal of
International Relations
2021, Vol. 27(4) 1274 –1299
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661211049491
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
Critical theory in crisis? a
reconsideration
Beate Jahn
University of Sussex, UK
Abstract
The recent rise of populism has generated a resurgence of interest in critical theory, in
the wider public debate and in academia—with critical theory being variously accused
of paving the way for post-truth politics, hailed as explaining the rise of populism, or
criticized for failing to achieve its emancipatory political goals. Failure of the latter
kind, many International Relations scholars argue, calls for a fundamental reform of
critical theory if it is to address current political developments. Investigating this claim,
this article makes three contributions: First, an empirical account shows that, far
from failing, critical theory has been politically highly successful. Second, a theoretical
reconstruction of critical theory shows that it is precisely this success that leads to the
alienation of critical theorists from their own approach. In light of this analysis, third,
the article concludes that the task of critical theory in times of Brexit and Trump does
not lie in abandoning its core principles but in systematically applying them to a new
historical conjuncture.
Keywords
Critical theory, practice, Brexit, Trump, populism, International Relations, Horkheimer
Introduction
The Brexit referendum, the election of Trump, and the rise of populism more generally
present a particular challenge for critical theory. For critical theory had originally been
formulated as a response to populism—fascism and national socialism—in the 1920s
and 1930s (Horkheimer, 1968; Morton, 2003). More specifically, critical theories have
variously been devoted to the fight against nationalism, racism, misogyny, homophobia,
anti-intellectualism, economic inequality, and power politics. Yet precisely these
Corresponding author:
Beate Jahn, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9SJ, UK.
Email: b.jahn@sussex.ac.uk
1049491EJT0010.1177/13540661211049491European Journal of International RelationsJahn
research-article2021
Article
Jahn 1275
phenomena appear to experience a powerful revival today. No wonder, therefore, that
critical theorists, in line with a wider public debate, ask themselves what their role in
these developments has been and what resources critical theory offers in response.
Yet there is little agreement on the historical role of critical theory or its current poten-
tial. For many International Relations (IR) scholars the rise of populist political move-
ments dramatizes longer standing concerns about the failure of critical theories to achieve
their emancipatory political goals (Andrews, 2013: 67, 72; Austin et al., 2019: 4; Kurki,
2011: 129; Michelsen, 2018; see also Murphy, 2007: 118). Others, in line with a broader
public debate, go so far as to accuse critical theories—“relativism, constructivism,
deconstruction, postmodernism, critique” (Edsall, 2018; Kakutani, 2018; McIntyre,
2018; Sismondo, 2017; Wight, 2018)—of paving the way for Trump’s post-truth politics:
“Trump is the first president to turn postmodernism against itself” (David Ernst cited in
Hanlon, 2018). And critical theorists themselves worry that their work may in fact have
been complicit in creating a “slippery slope” leading to ‘the Trump administration’s
“alternative facts”’ (Hyvönen, 2018; Marshall and Drieschova, 2018; Whooley, 2017).
And yet, critical theory is also hailed as having anticipated the rise of Trump (Ross,
2016) and of offering particularly useful concepts—such as the culture industry or “the
authoritarian personality”—for the analysis of this development: “If you want to under-
stand the age of Trump, read the Frankfurt School” (Guyer, 2020; Illing, 2016; Ross,
2016).
Even in IR where the disappointment of many, if by no means all, critical theorists
with their own approach finds expression in fora and special issues (International Politics
Review, 2021; Security Dialogue, 2019), explanations for its shortcomings as well as
suggested solutions differ widely. Some scholars argue that critical theories failed to
achieve their emancipatory aims because they focused too much on metatheoretical and
theoretical work, neglecting engagement with concrete political problems and failing to
undertake empirical studies that could provide convincing alternative accounts of world
politics (Anievas, 2005; Brown, 2013: 490; Browning and McDonald, 2011: 235;
Hamati-Ataya, 2013; Schmid, 2018: 1; Sylvester, 2013: 615). This argument implies that
critical theory can enhance its political efficiency if it overturns this relationship: if it
engages in “critical problem solving” (Post-Critical IR?, 2018), focusing on the empiri-
cal analysis of pressing political problems instead of engaging in metatheoretical
reflections.
A second position holds that the widening gap between critical theory and contempo-
rary politics has its roots in (various) uncritical aspects of the original conception of criti-
cal theory itself. For example, the assumption of the death of God as the starting point for
the dialectics of the Enlightenment in general, and the limitations of modern knowledge
in particular, universalizes the Western historical experience and conceptions of knowl-
edge (Hirst and Michelsen, 2013: 109). It thus cannot grasp different forms of knowledge
and their political implications arising, for example, in the postcolonial context—which
may therefore provide a more promising basis for radical political agency (Hamati-
Ataya, 2013). Similarly, feminists argue that critical theory failed to identify the gen-
dered nature of its own basic categories (Fischer and Tepe, 2011: 369). The original
conception of critical theory also entailed the tendency to think in statist terms that have
been overtaken by the development of globalization and cosmopolitanism (Brincat,
To continue reading
Request your trial