2011
Theories, not only in international relations (IR) but also in other studies of social sciences, offer us new perspectives and understandings in a framework of their writers’ ideological and/or scientific viewpoints. Some scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, choose to be more specific on the structures and underlying reasons while criticizing and creating solutions for them accordingly. There are some others who choose to take structures as given and try to come up with solutions and roadmaps at that given conditions. In this paper, I will argue about the theoretical similarities of Marxist and Gramscian traditions to the approaches mentioned above. I will get help from Robert W. Cox to better understand the two approaches and then analyze the methods of Johan Galtung, Immanuel Wallerstein, Angre Gunder Frank, Michael Kenny, Randall Germain and Stephen Jill.
In his article, Cox differentiates “critical theory” from “problem-solving” theory in two main aspects. Firstly, he criticizes problem solver theories’ unwillingness to look at the historical process of the events. According to him, the subject that is being discussed should be historically evaluated. Secondly, problem solver thinkers do not question the structures and they accept them as given. However, critical thinking leads thinker to challenge the existing conditions by rejecting permanency of existing order. Cox argues that theories and their subjects are time-specific and they are also related with places they are happened. The only advantage problem-solving theories have is their parsimonious attitude. Yet, their inability to question the given structures makes them vulnerable and ineffective to challenge things and provide change.
The historical materialism thought is very much adopted by most of the neo-Marxists and Johan Galtung is one of these thinkers. He underlines that structures are reproduced as time passes and this can explained by the historical materialism concept. What he is achieving here is the critical approach that Cox mentioned, questioning the structure while using the historical processes of beings. To better explain his arguments, Galtung first describes the conditions before presenting solutions. In order to make logical solutions about imperialism, he explains the concept of “structural violence” which means all kinds of systemic ways that prevent individuals achieve their potentials. Also, he divides peace into two which are negative and positive ones. He points out several conflicts of interests between the core and periphery concepts that produces imperialism which are, in general, harmony of interests between centers of cores and peripheries, conflicts between periphery actors and their peripheries’ centers. Also he claims that exploitation of peripheries, as a result of the historical process, is the reason of widening gap between the two parts. After he successfully explains and criticizes the structures, he proposes a prescription to change them which includes increasing interaction among peripheries, ensuring self-reliance against dependency and reducing harmony of interests between centers of core and peripheries. It is for sure that Galtung sits rightly in Cox’ frame of critical theory as he questions the structures and looks at the historical process before giving prescriptions.
Another thinker that can be assumed as a critical theorist is Gunder Frank who looks at the underdevelopment issue. He criticizes the modernization theory which claims that developing countries will catch up the developed ones if they adopt the various policies of them. What Frank criticize about this issue is placing two historically different processes in the same linear of development. Here, he uses an understanding of historical process and tries to describe the structures of the system in the aspect of dependency which is led by the capitalist mode of production and the division of the world according to their capabilities. Thus, he claims that abandoning the commodity and cultural relations of the developed and developing countries may be a solution. Similar to him, Immanuel Wallerstein analyzes the parts (core and periphery countries) in the system (world) which is formed upon social, economical and political changes in the historical process. What he seriously opposes is the ahistorical analyses of social change and studying it in phases. His understanding of structure includes the whole-being of the system, its capitalist character and the outcome of core-periphery relations. After he criticizes the structure in a historical sense, he gives a future scope when there is not enough demand to meet the supplies which leads to a non-profit result and the end of the system. It is obvious that both Frank and Wallerstein follows a path of critical theory as they first look at the structure critically and then propose possible solutions.
On the other hand, Gramscian understanding of IR focuses on the internal structures and social dynamics of the state formations. Gramsci explains the state as the combination of political and civil societies which leads us to think beyond states. As Germain and Kenny also underlines that there is a critical approach of Gramscian thinking where the formal and informal networks, institutions and practices become tools between the state and the individual to form an hegemony. Also Gramscian theory believes in the impact of human nature to change the structures which can be shown as an evidence of the importance of history in its approach. In addition, neo-Gramscian thinking should also be mentioned as it is a branch of Gramscian philosophy. Germain and Kenny criticizes neo-Gramscian approach due to its inability to be a critical method. According to them, while trying to bring a broader approach to Gramscian thinking in a global understanding, they fail and take the structures as given and do not estimate their effect on agency. Neo-Gramscians universalize Gramscian thinking while they see the history as a bloc of given structures.
Gill also adopts a critical approach as he first observes and defines the structures in the system. He takes world order as unstable and ready to change which fits in Cox’ understanding of historical process. Although, like Gramsci, he focuses on the factors of hegemony in the society, he contributes to the study with his analyses of neo-liberal critics. He shows institutions like IMF as tools to achieve the hegemony in the society where the capitalist system reproduces the realities in its own framework. He points out the new ways of discourses, institutions and several technological materials for this reproduce which is again an example for the historical understanding.
I firmly believe that both Marxists and Gramscians are well examples of critical approach in IR as they both, in several ways, show their emphasis on historical understanding and not taking structures as given facts. Before proposing solutions, they observe, define and criticize the structures and/or the system in a relational and/or historical way. As Cox underlines, rejecting the permanency of existing order is a necessary step to be able to challenge the existing conditions to provide change.
Theories, not only in international relations (IR) but also in other studies of social sciences, offer us new perspectives and understandings in a framework of their writers’ ideological and/or scientific viewpoints. Some scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, choose to be more specific on the structures and underlying reasons while criticizing and creating solutions for them accordingly. There are some others who choose to take structures as given and try to come up with solutions and roadmaps at that given conditions. In this paper, I will argue about the theoretical similarities of Marxist and Gramscian traditions to the approaches mentioned above. I will get help from Robert W. Cox to better understand the two approaches and then analyze the methods of Johan Galtung, Immanuel Wallerstein, Angre Gunder Frank, Michael Kenny, Randall Germain and Stephen Jill.
In his article, Cox differentiates “critical theory” from “problem-solving” theory in two main aspects. Firstly, he criticizes problem solver theories’ unwillingness to look at the historical process of the events. According to him, the subject that is being discussed should be historically evaluated. Secondly, problem solver thinkers do not question the structures and they accept them as given. However, critical thinking leads thinker to challenge the existing conditions by rejecting permanency of existing order. Cox argues that theories and their subjects are time-specific and they are also related with places they are happened. The only advantage problem-solving theories have is their parsimonious attitude. Yet, their inability to question the given structures makes them vulnerable and ineffective to challenge things and provide change.
The historical materialism thought is very much adopted by most of the neo-Marxists and Johan Galtung is one of these thinkers. He underlines that structures are reproduced as time passes and this can explained by the historical materialism concept. What he is achieving here is the critical approach that Cox mentioned, questioning the structure while using the historical processes of beings. To better explain his arguments, Galtung first describes the conditions before presenting solutions. In order to make logical solutions about imperialism, he explains the concept of “structural violence” which means all kinds of systemic ways that prevent individuals achieve their potentials. Also, he divides peace into two which are negative and positive ones. He points out several conflicts of interests between the core and periphery concepts that produces imperialism which are, in general, harmony of interests between centers of cores and peripheries, conflicts between periphery actors and their peripheries’ centers. Also he claims that exploitation of peripheries, as a result of the historical process, is the reason of widening gap between the two parts. After he successfully explains and criticizes the structures, he proposes a prescription to change them which includes increasing interaction among peripheries, ensuring self-reliance against dependency and reducing harmony of interests between centers of core and peripheries. It is for sure that Galtung sits rightly in Cox’ frame of critical theory as he questions the structures and looks at the historical process before giving prescriptions.
Another thinker that can be assumed as a critical theorist is Gunder Frank who looks at the underdevelopment issue. He criticizes the modernization theory which claims that developing countries will catch up the developed ones if they adopt the various policies of them. What Frank criticize about this issue is placing two historically different processes in the same linear of development. Here, he uses an understanding of historical process and tries to describe the structures of the system in the aspect of dependency which is led by the capitalist mode of production and the division of the world according to their capabilities. Thus, he claims that abandoning the commodity and cultural relations of the developed and developing countries may be a solution. Similar to him, Immanuel Wallerstein analyzes the parts (core and periphery countries) in the system (world) which is formed upon social, economical and political changes in the historical process. What he seriously opposes is the ahistorical analyses of social change and studying it in phases. His understanding of structure includes the whole-being of the system, its capitalist character and the outcome of core-periphery relations. After he criticizes the structure in a historical sense, he gives a future scope when there is not enough demand to meet the supplies which leads to a non-profit result and the end of the system. It is obvious that both Frank and Wallerstein follows a path of critical theory as they first look at the structure critically and then propose possible solutions.
On the other hand, Gramscian understanding of IR focuses on the internal structures and social dynamics of the state formations. Gramsci explains the state as the combination of political and civil societies which leads us to think beyond states. As Germain and Kenny also underlines that there is a critical approach of Gramscian thinking where the formal and informal networks, institutions and practices become tools between the state and the individual to form an hegemony. Also Gramscian theory believes in the impact of human nature to change the structures which can be shown as an evidence of the importance of history in its approach. In addition, neo-Gramscian thinking should also be mentioned as it is a branch of Gramscian philosophy. Germain and Kenny criticizes neo-Gramscian approach due to its inability to be a critical method. According to them, while trying to bring a broader approach to Gramscian thinking in a global understanding, they fail and take the structures as given and do not estimate their effect on agency. Neo-Gramscians universalize Gramscian thinking while they see the history as a bloc of given structures.
Gill also adopts a critical approach as he first observes and defines the structures in the system. He takes world order as unstable and ready to change which fits in Cox’ understanding of historical process. Although, like Gramsci, he focuses on the factors of hegemony in the society, he contributes to the study with his analyses of neo-liberal critics. He shows institutions like IMF as tools to achieve the hegemony in the society where the capitalist system reproduces the realities in its own framework. He points out the new ways of discourses, institutions and several technological materials for this reproduce which is again an example for the historical understanding.
I firmly believe that both Marxists and Gramscians are well examples of critical approach in IR as they both, in several ways, show their emphasis on historical understanding and not taking structures as given facts. Before proposing solutions, they observe, define and criticize the structures and/or the system in a relational and/or historical way. As Cox underlines, rejecting the permanency of existing order is a necessary step to be able to challenge the existing conditions to provide change.
No comments:
Post a Comment