An Evaluation of Postmodernism in International Relations Theory

Abby Wells
POLI367B – Prof. Robert Crawford

Introduction

Since the end of the Second World War, international relations theories have been utilized by political theorists to find the best way to interpret the phenomenon of the international system. After all, the entire purpose of theory is to identify patterns of significance in the history of international relations, and subsequently attempt to construct loose ‘rules’ in order to better inform our future decisions. Therefore, comparing different theories can be useful in determining the potential faults and flaws in each respective argument, and using that knowledge to build improved ones. Contrastingly, critical theories such as Postmodernism posit that the entire basis upon which every other theory is built is not real, and thus, the theories themselves are useless. Traditional theories such as Classical Realism essentially have a theological feel, as they try to determine the way people are. Postmodernists, however, suggesting that existence precedes essence, believe that we are not really anything. Unlike other critical theories such as Feminism, Postmodernism denies the existence of a ‘real world’ in its entirety. Thus, instead of focusing on a grand narrative, Postmodernists focus on smaller, little narratives circling around marginalized groups and the history of everyday life. Postmodernism condemns the ‘Archimedean point’ from which other traditional schools of thought study international relations, claiming that they base their set of assumptions upon a foundation that is fabricated. Thus, it is difficult to take the theory of Postmodernism and use it to help build upon other theories in the international relations debate when its main point is to denounce the conversation in its entirety. Though the ideas presented by Postmodernism are interesting, when compared to the conclusions drawn by theories such as Classical Realism, Liberalism and Marxism, they are significantly less helpful in producing solutions to the real world problems of international relations.

Liberalist Theory and Practical Implications

Liberalism proposes a world in which power struggles between states exist, but peace is ultimately achievable. Immanuel Kant, one of the most notable Liberalists in international relations theory, proposes that “the belief in the rational qualities of individuals, faith in the feasibility of progress in social life, and the conviction that humans, despite their self-interest, are able to cooperate and construct a more peaceful and harmonious society” (Dunne et al., 69). This is to say that while interstate chaos is inevitable, it can be effectively mitigated by a collective, overarching desire for peace and stability in the international arena.

A practical implication of liberalism in international relations theory would be the reasonable production of peace through three elements. Kant suggested that because “individuals desire to be free and prosperous… democracy and trade will expand, which [will] lead naturally to the growth of international law and organization to facilitate these processes” (Dunne et al., 69). Liberalist theory posits that various international organizations can be incredibly helpful in providing vessels by which states can exercise this ultimate desire for peace. Therefore, another practical implication of Liberalist theory would be the presence of effectively functioning international organizations.

Classical Realist Theory and Practical Implications

Much like Liberalism, Classical Realism stresses conflict due to the inevitable “unrestrained pursuit of unilateral advantage” by one party over another (Dunne et al., 35). Classical Realists see issues in international relations as being transcendent not only among cities, regions, and states, but throughout history. Furthermore, Classical Realists, while valuing theory on an intellectual level, do not see it as an end. Rather, Classical Theorists believe that “theoretical knowledge… [is] a starting point for actors to work their way through contemporary problems and, in the process, to factor in key, and generally determining features of context” (Dunne et al., 36). Thus, Classical Realists strive “to analyze the world of international politics for what it “truly is,” untainted by idealization, sentimentality or other allegedly extraneous considerations” (Crawford, 5). In doing this, Classical Realists “recognize the centrality of power in politics without reducing politics to violence, and to preserve an open and critical sphere of public political” (Williams, 633). Hans Morgenthau is a major proponent of Classical Realism, and drew many of his ideas from the works of Thucydides. Morgenthau proposed that the idea of the efficiently functioning community was integral to the pursuit of peace. According to Morgenthau and Thucydides, a well-functioning community allows “efficient translation of power into influence” (Dunne et al., 35). When the limits on the ends and means of power are sufficiently controlled, we are able to restrain pursuit of unilateral advantage.

Due to the nature of the cyclicality of issues in international relations, there is a sentiment of tragedy that is present in Classical Realist school of thought. This sentiment almost has a theological feel, as it appears to transcend time. Thus, a practical implication of Classical Realist theory would be the ability to accurately grasp the cyclicality of international issues, depict the recurring patterns, and use their historical outcomes to mitigate current and future issues in international relations.

Marxist Theory and Practical Implications

Unlike Classical Realism and Liberalism, Marxist international relations theory places an emphasis on the how rather than the why. Marxists acknowledge that individuals and states may be self-interested and security-seeking, but suggest that significant pitfalls in Classical Realist and Liberalist theories occur because these premises are based on socially-constructed actors, the history or ‘how’ of which neither theory endeavours to understand. Marxists argue that each theory “implicitly denies the possibilities for alternative possible worlds that may be latent within those processes of social self-production” (Dunne et al., 128). Therefore, proponents of Marxism such as Karl Marx postulate that it is only with an understanding of our historical social self-production can we “enable a much richer and politically nuanced interpretation of the politics of globalizing capitalism, and the role of imperial power within that process” (Dunne et al., 128).

Marxists posit that capitalism is a historically constructed phenomenon, not an unavoidable aspect of human nature. According to Marx, humans are not hard-wired to be self- interested, security-seeking, or capitalistic. Rather, exhibition of these traits are a product “the relations through which they live their lives” (Dunne et al., 129). As such, Marxists believe that capitalism can and should be deconstructed, or at the very least, muted. Therefore, the practical implication of Marxism would be the social deconstruction or muting of what Marxists believe to be the sources of conflict in international relations, namely capitalism.

Postmodernism and Practical Implications

Postmodernism is a relatively new theory in the debate of international relations, and many argue that it should not be constituted as a theory at all. Unlike Liberalism, Classical Realism, and Marxism, Postmodernism does not “set out a paradigm through which everything is understood”, rather, Postmodernism “is a critical attitude, approach, or ethos that calls attention to the importance of representation, the relationship of power and knowledge, and the politics of identity in understanding global affairs” (Dunne et al., 198). Also unlike the aforementioned theories, Postmodernism does not subscribe to the ‘lens’ model of analyzing international relations. Rather, according to Postmodernists, “perspectives are… not to be thought of as simply optical devices for apprehending the ‘real world’, such as a telescope or microscope, but also as the very fabric of that ‘real world’” (Devetak, 163). Postmodernists reject the idea of a grand overarching narrative, instead opting for smaller narratives that circle around historically marginalized groups. As such, Postmodernists do not accept the idea of a single truth. Notable Postmodernist Michael Foucault observed that “history, from a genealogical perspective, does not evidence a gradual disclosure of truth and meaning. Rather, it stages ‘the endlessly repeated play of dominations’” (Devetak, 163). This statement falls contradictory to the ideas of Classical Realism, which posit that it is through these repeated plays of dominations that an ultimate truth begins to uncover itself.

Postmodernism, being a critical theory, is best understood when explained in the form of critique of other theories. This makes pinning the practical implication of the theory difficult, as it is hard to even determine an exact definition. A sufficient practical implication of Postmodernism may be that Postmodernists would endeavour to take the current ontological structure of the state, analyze the ways in which we conceive it in order to determine “how the sovereign state is (re)constituted as the normal mode of subjectivity in international relations” (Devetak, 172). By doing this, Postmodernists hope to expand the ways we think about the state, and use those finding to reshape international relations.

Objections to Postmodernism

As Devetak points out, Postmodernism objects to the idea of ‘theories’ on the basis that we cannot possibly use different sets of lenses to view the world, because ‘the world’ in that sense does not exist. Therefore, it does little to engage in debate with other theories of international relations because it is a theory that essentially denounces the idea of theories. The eternal regression that comes with the deconstruction Postmodernism proposes leaves us with very little in the end to work with. Without any substance at the end of this deconstruction, we may find ourselves unable to apply any knowledge gained from deconstruction into international relations. Additionally, the Postmodernist claim that theory is always for someone and can never be divorced from perspective is, in itself, a theory, creating a regressive philosophical conundrum.

When considering practical application of Critical Theory of any sort on real world event, Postmodernists do not leave us with any substantive plans of action to take in the face of chaos. As Professor Crawford pointed out in Lecture, “when the planes hit the twin towers, no one was saying ‘Get me Derrida on the phone!’” (Crawford, November 20). This can be problematic, as while intellectual discussions surrounding the merits of these theories are important in our understanding them, we must remember that they have a tangible purpose— improving peoples’ lives through international relations. Therefore, though Postmodernism may raise interesting critiques of theories such as Classical Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism, it does little to build and improve upon them as they do to one and other.

Possible Postmodernist Contributions to International Relations

Despite the shortfalls of Postmodernist international relations thought, Richard Devetak illustrates that some intelligent ideas can be drawn from the theory. In his article Turtles All the Way Down, Chris Brown likens analyzing different types of theory to “weeding out the seedlings that do not seem likely to grow, while giving sustenance to others which seem to be taking root” (Brown, 236). Genealogy can be helpful in understanding power and knowledge relationships. Deconstruction forces us to explore alternatives to common narratives and stories, which may in turn be helpful in understanding minority perspectives. Additionally, Postmodernists remind us to be wary about accepting assumptions regarding “sovereignty and reterritorialization” (Devetak, 187). Postmodernists greatest contribution, however, to international relations theory may be the skepticism that it forces us to consider when regarding other international relations theories. Meaningful reflection is produced with the presence of reasonable doubt in the effectiveness of a given theory to depict the complexity of international relations.

Conclusion

In order to have a full and thorough understanding of theories such as Classical Realism, Liberalism, and Marxism, we must engage in discussions that provide due skepticism about their assumptions. Therefore, Postmodernism should not be excluded from the international relations debate. However, it should not be regarded the in the same way that non-critical theories are. As Chris Brown observes, “now is not the time for shotgun attacks—or blanket defences of— some mythical beast called ‘post-modern (or critical) international relations theory’” (Brown, 236). It may be beneficial to encourage the use Postmodernist ideas as reflective tools on our notions on international relations, and keep a healthy amount of doubt in our belief of any given theory. However, due to its philosophical paradoxes and lack of practical application, the use of Postmodernism ideas as an effective means by which to achieve peace in the contemporary international environment may not be viable. Therefore, in considering Postmodernism, we should extend it the same skepticism it invokes of other theories, and continue to utilize its critiques, while questioning its validity as an international relations theory.

Works Cited

Brown, Chris. “‘Turtles all the Way Down’: Anti-Foundationalism, Critical Theory and International Relations.” Millennium – Journal of International Studies, vol. 23, no. 2, 1994, pp. 213-236.

Crawford, Robert M.A.. ‘Introduction’. In Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline. Routledge Arlene, 2001.

Crawford, Robert M.A.. Lecture on Poststructuralism. November 20, 2018.
Devetak, Richard. ‘Postmodernism’. In Theories of International Relations. Macmillan Press,

London, 1996.
Dunne et al.. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford University

Press, Oxford, 2016.
Williams, Michael C. ‘Why Ideas Matter in International Relations: Hans Morgenthau, Classical

Realism, and the Moral Construction of Power Politics.’ In International Organization, vol. 58, no. 4, 2004, pp. 633-665.