This essay will analyse the question whether critical theory provides a more intellectually satisfying approach to the study of international relations than realism – or if realism offers a more useful guide for political action. One could also ask: is there still a need for realism today?
In order to establish a basis for further examination, this essay will sketch out realist thought and critical theory in international relations. This will be followed by a case study, which will reflect the suitability of both approaches in the Ukraine crisis. This essay does not attempt to offer an extensive analysis of the conflict but will discuss how realist and critical prisms shape the perception of this conflict. Finally, it will question if the theories offer practical guidance for political action.
Realism and liberalism are the classic theories in the studies of international relations. In the last decades, these traditional ideas have been challenged by new ideas such as social constructivism, post-positivism and a variety of marxist theories. One of the neo-marxist approaches to international relations is critical theory.
In his well-received article “Social forces, states, and world orders” Robert W. Cox used the distinction between critical theory and “problem solving theory” to distinguish critical theory from traditional approaches to the study of international relation. At first sight, this seems to implicate that critical theory is not interested in problem-solving.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Realism
2.1 Classical Realism
2.2 Neorealism
2.3 Contemporary Realism
3. Critical Theory
3.1 The Ukraine crisis through the lens of Realism
3.2 The Ukraine crisis through the lens of Critical Theory
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This essay explores the tension between Critical Theory and Realism within international relations, specifically examining whether Critical Theory provides a more intellectually satisfying framework for understanding global conflicts, while Realism remains a more practical tool for political action. The analysis utilizes the Ukraine crisis as a case study to demonstrate how these opposing paradigms shape the perception and management of modern security challenges.
- The theoretical evolution of Realism from classical foundations to contemporary structural approaches.
- The emergence and core tenets of Critical Theory, focusing on emancipation and the deconstruction of traditional power structures.
- A comparative analysis of the Ukraine crisis through the competing lenses of Realist power politics and Critical security concepts.
- The practical utility of international relations theories in offering guidance for state and non-state political action.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 The Ukraine crisis through the lens of Realism
Proponents of a contemporary realist approach would point out to the motivation of Western states to tie Ukraine closer to the European Union and NATO. This was seen as an opportunity to enhance Western influence, develop a new market, and increase the power and influence. From a realist’s perspective, the Euromaidan movement favoured an orientation to the West to enhance Ukraine’s security by gaining independence from Russia – just as the Baltic States had done when they joined the European Union and NATO in 2004.
Since the end of the Cold War Ukraine’s associate membership of the Commonwealth of Independent States, together with its close economic connections and the direct support of Russian-friendly politicians like President Yanukovych and the deployment of the Black Sea Fleet guaranteed Russia’s influence. When the pro-Western Euromaidan movement overthrew the pro-Russian government, this influence was threatened.
Russian foreign policy is traditionally driven by a realist philosophy. Moscow perceives an EU at its western border as a threat to Russian vital interests. The Ukraine is seen as part of the Russian hemisphere and in “the eyes of Russian leaders, EU expansion is a stalking horse for NATO expansion.” (MEARSHEIMER 2014: 79)
Ukraine’s turn to the west provoked what neorealists would call a security dilemma. A conflict which “arises when the attempts of one state to satisfy its security needs, however peacefully in intent, lead to rising insecurity for other states.” (SMITH 2015: 23)
Chapter Summary
1. Introduction: The introduction establishes the foundational theories of Realism and Liberalism and introduces Critical Theory as a challenging neo-marxist perspective, setting the stage for a comparative case study on the Ukraine crisis.
2. Realism: This chapter categorizes Realism as a family of ideas, detailing the evolution from Classical Realism to Neorealism and contemporary structural approaches, emphasizing the core focus on state survival and power.
3. Critical Theory: This section outlines the origins of Critical Theory in international relations and examines the Ukraine crisis through both Realist and Critical prisms to evaluate their respective analytical strengths.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion synthesizes the findings, arguing that while Critical Theory offers deep analytical deconstruction, Realism remains the dominant framework for states navigating power politics and security in a volatile global environment.
Keywords
Realism, Critical Theory, International Relations, Ukraine Crisis, Security Dilemma, Emancipation, Neorealism, Power Politics, Global Security, State Sovereignty, Structural Realism, Geopolitics, Political Action, Human Security, Foreign Policy
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the debate between Critical Theory and Realism, questioning whether the former offers a more intellectual understanding of global relations while the latter provides better guidance for real-world political action.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Key themes include the distinction between problem-solving theory and critical theory, the evolution of Realist thought, the concept of emancipation versus power, and the application of these theories to the ongoing Ukraine conflict.
What is the core research question?
The research asks if Critical Theory provides a more intellectually satisfying approach to international relations than Realism, and if Realism still serves as a more useful guide for political action in the modern era.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a comparative theoretical analysis combined with a focused case study (the Ukraine crisis) to test the explanatory power of the selected international relations theories.
What does the main body cover?
The main body systematically outlines the development of Realism and Critical Theory, followed by an application of these prisms to the historical and political dynamics of the conflict in Ukraine.
What are the characterizing keywords of this study?
The study is characterized by terms such as Realism, Critical Theory, Ukraine crisis, power politics, security dilemma, and emancipation.
How do Realists interpret the Ukraine crisis?
Realists view the conflict as a result of the security dilemma, where Western expansion toward Russia’s border triggered a rational, aggressive response from Moscow aimed at preserving its influence and survival.
What does the Critical perspective contribute to understanding the conflict?
The Critical perspective suggests that focusing only on power politics ignores crucial underlying factors like cultural identity, historical memory, and the social dynamics that actually shaped the crisis, suggesting that a broader analysis could have informed a more effective diplomatic strategy.
- Citation du texte
- Aaron Faßbender (Auteur), 2017, The struggle for an intellectually satisfying path to action. Critical Theory and Realism in International Relations, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/355157
