The Limitations of the Critical Edge: Reflections on Critical and Philosophical IR Scholarship Today
| Author | Milja Kurki |
| Published date | 01 September 2011 |
| Date | 01 September 2011 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0305829811411997 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
MILLENNIU
M
Journal of International Studies
Millennium: Journal of
International Studies
40(1) 129–146
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.
uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305829811411997
mil.sagepub.com
Corresponding author:
Milja Kurki, International Politics Department, Aberystwyth University, UK.
Email: mlk@aber.ac.uk
Article
The Limitations of the
Critical Edge: Reflections on
Critical and Philosophical IR
Scholarship Today
Milja Kurki
Aberystwyth University, UK
Abstract
The crisis of 2009 has not proved to be a great impetus for new critical redirection of political and
economic thinking in the West: both politico-economic structures in the West and the models of
development and democratisation at the heart of Western foreign policy agendas remain much
the same. This is despite the continued efforts of critical and philosophical IR theorists to push
‘critical thinking’ and ‘alternative agendas’ in world politics. Why the dismal ‘real-world’ failure of
critical and philosophical IR research? This piece reflects on the trends towards depoliticisation,
fragmentation and de-concretisation of critical and philosophical IR research and suggests some
potential ways forward in reorienting critical and philosophical research in the field.
Keywords
critical theory, IR theory, theory–practice nexus
It is a sign of the times that while dissatisfaction with the political and economic struc-
tures of society is rife, academic criticism of the politico-economic system we live in,
and which is simultaneously promulgated by our foreign policy machines around the
world, is surprisingly impotent and ineffective. The excesses of the liberal capitalist
developmental blueprint received a minor ‘rap on the wrists’ by the crisis of 2009, but
nevertheless the structure and the external policies of market democracies around the
world remain much the same. If the end of the Cold War is supposed to have ‘ended his-
tory’, disappointingly it is the 2009 crisis that seems to be a more telling sign of the end
of history; it shows that no real ‘ideational’ alternative seems to exist to global capitalism
as a model of growth or to the ideals of liberal market democratisation as a way of
expanding the sphere of freedom. The left and other radical politico-economic models
130 Millennium: Journal of International Studies 40(1)
are on the wane as authoritarian capitalism presents, it seems, the most viable challenge
to the hegemony of liberal market democracy.
This pessimism on the question of progressive alternative politics at a time of crisis
stems from my recent research, the aim of which has been to interrogate whether room
exists for alternative politico-economic visions in today’s democracy assistance. In its
initial stages, this research was driven by an optimistic belief in the power of critical
theory to generate new and important avenues for rethinking the deeply consequential
policy practice of democracy assistance. Yet, worries have appeared about such pros-
pects. One is that it has become evident (somewhat unsurprisingly) that room for criti-
cal interventions in policy practice is fairly limited. A far more worrying issue, however,
is the observation that critical theory is increasingly lacking in relevance in contribut-
ing to the revitalisation of policy practice or perceptive critiques of it. This is because
of the abstract and theory-driven nature of critical theory and its lack of realistic under-
standing as to how to challenge the dominance of hegemonic ideas in today’s foreign
policy practice. As Richard Youngs has argued in relation to critical theoretical inves-
tigations of democracy support, critical theorists today are dangerously behind the
curve on policy practices and theoretically obsessed with critiques of little use to prac-
titioners.1 It really is rather disappointing for – and a disappointing symptom of –
alternative, or so-called ‘critical’, thinking in the social sciences that even when the
problems of the dominant model are evident, there is no real systematic, effective or
realistic opposition to it.
Why is there such a dearth of successful or influential ‘critical’ thinking even in the
relatively ‘fruitful’ context of multiple social and economic crises? This is a big question,
requiring, for an adequate treatment, a holistic sociological study conducted on multiple
levels of analysis of society. Nothing of this nature can be attempted here, but we can,
and arguably should, on the 40th anniversary of Millennium: Journal of International
Studies – one of the leading critical theory journals in International Relations (IR) –
reflect on some of the key trends in critical and philosophical research in IR, with the
hope that this might reveal something characteristic of wider trends. With this in mind, I
reflect on the prospects of critical theoretical analysis in IR and, in so doing, hope to add
a new angle (or rather reintroduce an old angle) to assessment of critical theory’s role in
IR. Despite many excellent reviews of the development and fortunes of critical and phil-
osophical research in IR,2 few have analysed in detail the curious depoliticising and
1. Richard Youngs, ‘Misunderstanding the Maladies of Liberal Democracy Promotion’, in Conceptual Politics
of Democracy Promotion, eds Christopher Hobson and Milja Kurki (London: Routledge, forthcoming).
See also Richard Youngs, The EU’s Role in World Politics: A Retreat from Liberal Internationalism
(London: Routledge, 2010).
2. Richard Wyn Jones, ‘Introduction: Locating Critical International Relations Theory’, in Critical Theory
and World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001), 1–23; Andrew Linklater,
‘The Question of the Next Stage in International Relations Theory: A Critical-Theoretical Point of View’,
Millennium 21, no. 1 (1992): 77–98; Andrew Linklater, ‘The Changing Contours of Critical International
Relations Theory’, in Critical Theory and World Politics, ed. Richard Wyn Jones (Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner, 2001), 23–43; Mark Neufeld, ‘Reflexivity and International Relations Theory’, Millennium 22,
no. 1 (1993): 53–76; Chris Brown, ‘Turtles All the Way Down: Anti-foundationalism, Critical Theory and
International Relations’, Millennium 23, no. 2 (1994): 213–36; Thomas Biersteker, ‘Critical Reflections
on Post-Positivism in International Relations’, International Studies Quarterly 33, no. 3 (1989): 263–7;
To continue reading
Request your trial