What, if any, have been the principal achievements of Poststructuralist approaches in International Relations?

by manhio (student)

When analysing the principal achievements of post-structuralist approaches in International Relations it is first important to differentiate post-structuralism from other theoretical approaches. A post-structuralist approach should be defined as one that essentially depends upon abstraction, representation, and interpretation. As Bleiker (in Dunne, 2006, p.214) states, that is because the world does not present itself to us in the form of ready-made categories or theories. Whilst theories such as Realism or Liberalism attempt to explain the world and the way certain actors within the world behave, post-structuralism is instead more of a broad agreement about how to approach the world. Therefore, the achievements of a post-structuralist approach in International Relations should not be assessed as an alternative to existing theories, but rather as a tool for analysing existing approaches in International Relations. This essay aims to show that post-structuralist approaches are of worth to the field of International Relations, not only in critiquing existing theories, but also in adding an extra dimension of analysis for the International Relations student to consider.

The principal achievement of a poststructuralist approach in contributing to the academic field of International Relations is in cross examining the ontological assumptions of other theoretical approaches through a process of deconstruction. As White (1998, p.188) asserts, post-structuralist approaches expose ‘arbitrariness, ambiguity, and conventionality’ where only reason was declared to exist previously. In this sense, whilst a post-structuralist approach to International Relations may be criticized for not proposing an alternative overarching ontological approach to existing theories, it contributes to the field of International Relations as a tool for critiquing. Post-structuralist approaches generally operate using a notion of deconstruction which is understood as a mode of explaining conceptual oppositions through analysing binary pairs. According to Derrida, (in Dunne, 2006, p.225) the use of the second term of the binary pair is always central to the constitution of the inside; the insane is central the constitution of what it is to be sane. Whilst this can be criticized by the main-stream theorist who aims to explain the world around them through self-evident facts, it is nonetheless important for the student of International Relations to question so called ‘truths’ in order to understand why they came to be, and how they are also contingent on other actualities.

In response, Wallace (1996, p.301) has argued that any theoretical perspective that switches from attempts to address common questions to instead attacking the methods and assumptions risks losing touch with its subject. Such a viewpoint is incorrect since it is important that we attempt to have an unbiased examination of the underlying assumptions of theory in International Relations . If we are to accept the conclusions of either Realism or Liberalism, it is of prime importance that their underlying assumptions can be shown to be true. Therefore a post-structuralist approach can be seen as being important in highlighting the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

In terms of critiquing other theoretical approaches to International Relations it is clear that the unsubstantiated ‘truths’ that poststructuralists analyse play a huge role in theory. One area this is particularly evident is in blind assumptions on human nature. According to Hollis (1977) all political theories depend on a model of man when making statements about the world. As specified by Jackson (p.68, 2010), taking the example of realism, realists assert that humans are greedy and seek their own interest before the common good. Such an ontological view is one that needs to be challenged if theories of International Relations are to become more comprehensive, since to rely on a highly debatable concept of man as the core of a theory seems unstable. For Foucault (1977), a key poststructuralist thinker, the modern individual is merely a historical achievement, rather than an individual whose tendencies and actions are linked to innate characteristics. Therefore, there is no human nature rather, the nature of individuals, is shaped by specific power structures.

Using the example of Realism, the poststructuralist stance contributes greatly to the field of International Relations because it means we challenge the realist doctrine that states are naturally competitive. Without the basis that states are naturally competitive, which post structuralism undermines, then many of Realism’s key features such as state competition and self preservation are subject to further scrutiny in order to ascertain their worth. Whilst the example of Realism is used here, the same post-structural scrutiny can be applied to any theory that uses a specific model of man as a foundation from which build propositions. Post-structuralism then can be seen to make a scholarly contribution by distancing International Relations from rigid one and two dimensional thinking about how the world is and what the limits are. Therefore when making normative statements about the world, the role of post-structuralist approaches can be seen to open up more possibilities by undermining the idea that there are concrete truths or ways in which states will always act.

The criticism could be made of post-structuralism then that it is too focused on language and non-observable phenomena to be of concrete use in International Relations. However, post-structuralism does not deny the existence of reality outside of language, but instead focuses on the fact that every object is constituted as an object of discourse which has no correlation to an external world. Laclau and Mouffe (1985, p.108) gives the example of an earthquake as an event that certainly exists, in the sense that it occurs here and now, independently of the will of an individual. But whether the object is interpreted in terms of ‘natural phenomena’ or ‘expressions of the wrath of God’, depends upon the structuring of a discursive field. According to Laclau and Mouffe (ibid) what is denied is not that such objects exist externally to thought, but the rather different assertion that they could constitute themselves as objects outside of any discursive condition of emergence.

A further achievement of post-structuralist approaches in International Relations has been to widen the scope of what is analysed by the International Relations student. The inside-outside dualisms that are indicative of a post-structuralist approach act to emphasize the importance of studying cultural practices. Rather than seeking to understand reality by isolating the internal nature of an object, a post-structural approach to International Relations crucially adds an extra dimension by analysing the cultural practices which lead to the inclusions and exclusions of binary pairs. The emphasis on the practices of exclusion also brings into the field of International Relations a different understanding of power. Power is not simply repressive, but is productive because of the existence of limits and constraints. Relations of power then can act to set boundaries and limitations as to what can be conceived of as possible in the global arena. This is exemplified by the writings of Machiavelli who according to Walker (1993, p.16) struggled to speak about an emerging form of political community which would go on to be ‘the state’ in categories dominated by sensibilities of Christian universalism .

Consequently, Jenny Edkins (1999) considers post-structuraslist approaches ideal tools for repoliticizing the field of study. She claims that we tend to employ an excessively narrow conception of politics in terms of elections, parliaments, and states thereby failing to acknowledge the power to determine what is considered politics and what not. In the modern International arena where the influence of non-state actors is rising, the ability to determine what is politics and what is not is of great relevance. Therefore the primacy within post-structuralism to assess such matters should be seen as an important achievement in developing theory in International Relations.

As has been shown in this essay the principal achievement of a post-structuralist approach in International Relations should be seen not as an alternatives to other theories, but rather as a tool for critiquing existing theories. By widening the scope of analysis, post-structuralism can help to make the study of International Relations both broader and deeper. Whilst some may criticize post-structuralism for not offering statements that are grounded in empirical reality, when the student uses the post-structuralist approach in the correct manner it can be of great use for furthering debate in International Relations.

Bibliography

Baylis, J., Smith, S., & Owens, P., The Globalization of World Politics, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)

Dahl, R., “The Concept of Power” , Behavioral Science, Volume 2, Issue 3 (1957) pp.201-215

Dunne, T., International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)

Edkins, J., Critical Theorists in International Relations (London: Routledge, 2009)

Foucault, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Pantheon Books, 1977)

Hollis, M., Models of Man, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977)

Jackson, R., Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)

Keohane, R. & Nye, J., Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1977)

Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso)

Scott, J., Power: Critical Concepts (London: Routledge, 1994)

Smith, M.J., Power and the State (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002)

Snyder, J., ‘One World, Rival Theories’ Foreign Policy; Volume 145 (Nov/Dec 2004) pp. 52-62

Walker, R.B.J., Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

White, Stephen K. "Poststructuralism and Political Reflection." Political Theory 16, no. 2 (May 1988): 186-208.

William Wallace, ‘Truth and Power, Monks and Technocrats: Theory and Practice in International Relations’, Review of International Studies 22 (1996), pp. 301-321.)

Page of