Interlocuting classical realism and critical theory: Negotiating ‘divides’ in international relations theory

Abstract

On April 30, 1947, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to the US Congress in which he asked for the impressive amount of one billion dollars in order to organize a citizen education program on the dangers and risks of nuclear power. Einstein argued in this letter that it would be the inescapable responsibility of his generation of nuclear physicists and philosophers to educate their fellow citizens about the 'simple facts and implications' of atomic energy for humankind. This would be a question of life and death. 1 Atomic energy, he further argued, would have as revolutionary an impact on humanity as the invention of fire several million years ago; and if the consequences of atomic energy and nuclear weapons could not be reversed, then citizen education about their impacts and consequences would be the only means of safeguarding the survival of humanity. Probably predictably, Einstein's call fell on deaf ears. Yet it provides a challenge that continues to confront thinking about world politics, for it raises the relationship between critical thought and political reality or, in other words, the question of political realism. 2 Determining (or at the very least, asking instead of asserting) what it means to be politically 'realistic' remains as important for our time as it was for Einstein's. Yet in the field where it is arguably most crucialthe study of global politicspolitical realism

Illiberal and irrational? Trump and the challenge of liberal modernity in US foreign policy

“…This constant tension explains the misunderstanding and inapplicability of Morgenthau's rationality in the modern context, for example during the Cold War, 93 which eventually came at great personal cost to Morgenthau, and which rendered classical (and neo) realism, to this day, uninfluential in US foreign policy. This was seen, for example, with the rise of neo-conservatives and the defeat of the neo-realists in post-Cold War US foreign policy.…”

Towards a political concept of reversibility in international relations: Bridging political philosophy and policy studies

“…These notions situate each theoretician and the politician within a distinct historical context and event horizon, which not only must be critiqued, but also explains the very position(s) held and advanced in academic debates and in the political arena. This crucial insight from Mannheim's sociology of knowledge and its adoption by Morgenthau (as discussed above) is a crucial understanding of theory and practice in 'reflexive realism' which needs (again) practical orientation (see for this re-quest the Special Issue by Behr/Williams, 2017;also Steele, 2007, as well as Harraway, 1988Hoeber-Rudolph, 2005).…”

The nuclear condition in the twenty-first century: Techno-political aspects in historical and contemporary perspectives

“…Indeed, the papers in the first Special Issue, "Interlocuting Classical Realism and Critical Theory: Negotiating 'Divides' in International Relations Theory" revealed the important theoretical benefits of reading Classical Realism from the more radical perspectives of Critical Theory. This benefit consists mainly in freeing Classical Realism from the grip of positivist IR, which enables overcoming some of the crude juxtaposition of simplistic "isms" in the discipline, and advancing disciplinary debates that take into account the analysis of Western modernity, economic contradictions, state crises, and existential questions of humanity (Behr and Williams, 2017). Accordingly, as the first Special Issue sought to explicate in considerable detail, the framing of IR and international politics in stale conceptual "isms" is very problematic.…”