Davide Schmid’s research while affiliated with University of Manchester and other places

This chapter centres on Andrew Linklater’s scholarship on international politics, arguably the highest achievement of the Critical IR Theory literature. It argues that, although it is in many ways distinctive and does not solely rely on Frankfurt School theory, Linklater’s work on international politics is fundamentally shaped by the encounter with the Habermasian project and largely operates within the bounds of its paradigm of critique. In assessing Linklater’s writings over more than three decades, the chapter finds that his normative theory of cosmopolitanism as well as his later sociology of global morals and civilising processes follow the general parameters of Habermas’s framework of critique and, as a result, display many of the same failings of the latter’s interventions in IR. Linklater’s case, therefore, shows that the impact of the binary meta-theoretical architecture of system and lifeworld extends further than Habermas’s own work and is directly implicated in the crisis of critique of Critical Theory in IR.

This chapter begins the diagnosis of the ‘crisis of critique’ of contemporary Frankfurt School thought. It does so by engaging in a historical reconstruction of how the prevailing Habermasian framework of Critical Theory came into being. Against the conventional interpretation of the history of the Frankfurt School as an incremental learning process, it shows the present impasse of Critical Theory to be rooted in a series of long running aporias and contradictions. In particular, it argues that the origins of the present crisis can be traced back to the failure to correctly diagnose and overcome the previous impasse of Critical Theory, that of the first generation or early Frankfurt School. By re-interpreting the works of Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse and Friedrich Pollock, the chapter argues that the main unresolved tension at the heart of the tradition lies in Critical Theory’s abandonment of the critique of political economy and substantive misapprehension of the character of twentieth-century global capitalism.

This chapter develops the notion that Frankfurt School research both inside and outside of IR is in a state of crisis. First, I propose a general definition of Frankfurt School Critical Theory that specifies its basic characteristics and establishes the standards by which its condition can be evaluated. Second, I introduce the subject area that constitutes the primary literature interrogated in this book: Frankfurt School research in International Relations. I discuss two sub-literatures of Critical Theory that have, from the 1980s onwards, engaged in the study and critique of international politics—and both of which are today in a state of stagnation. These are the literature on Cosmopolitan Democracy and the project of Critical International Relations Theory. Lastly, I relate the current predicament of Critical Theory in IR to broader discussions over the state of Frankfurt School theory that are taking place in political theory, sociology and philosophy. Bringing together these separate conversations, I argue that the contemporary impasse of Critical Theory of IR should be understood as a particular instance of the generalised crisis of critique of Frankfurt School theorising.

This chapter makes a positive case for how the crisis of critique can be overcome and Critical Theory in International Relations can be revitalised. It calls for a comprehensive re-evaluation of Critical Theory’s meta-theoretical architecture that addresses the main limitations of the prevailing, Habermasian framework of critique. It argues for a new strategy of critique to be pursued that renounces all essentialisms in favour of a holistic critique of late capitalism; that centres on reacquiring the capacity for the critique of political economy; that grounds its emancipatory aspiration in the determinate negation of real instances of domination; and that takes as its goal the interrogation of the struggles, contradictions and opportunities offered by the present world-historical conjuncture. The chapter also argues that the revitalisation of Critical Theory in IR cannot solely proceed by means of the tradition’s own intellectual resources but must involve an opening towards and dialogue with other strands of critical scholarship, most notably in the overcoming of the Frankfurt School’s colonial and racial amnesia. Lastly, the chapter sketches out the outline of a possible future research agenda that centres on the analysis and political interpretation of the manifold crises of global capitalism.

The final chapter ties the book together, restating the overall argument relating to the crisis of critique of Frankfurt School theory, its origins in the unresolved impasse of the first generations and the communicative-democratic paradigm, and the ways in which it manifests in Critical Theories of IR. It then considers the possible shape of Critical Theory going forward, arguing for a more open and collaborative approach which sees the Frankfurt School participate in a broader set of heterogeneous critical approaches dedicated to the understanding and radical transformation of existing social conditions.

This chapter focuses on Jürgen Habermas’s communicative-democratic paradigm of critique. It starts by outlining the overall architecture of the Habermasian framework, focusing on the social-theoretical aspects of his theory of communication. First, it shows how the model of society as system and lifeworld and the argument for a binary ontology and methodology constitute the bedrock of the contemporary paradigm of critique. In the second part, the chapter articulates a critique of the Habermasian paradigm by drawing from several interventions developed over the years from across the critical theoretical literature. In particular, it highlights the limitations of its theorisation of capitalism, civil society and power politics, as well as the overall implications for CT as a project of emancipatory politics. The chapter concludes that Habermas’s binary ontology and methodology of system and lifeworld effects a debilitating uncoupling of normative critique from substantive social-theoretical analysis. This, in turn, lies at the roots of the contemporary crisis of critique.

This chapter discusses Jürgen Habermas’s writings on international politics after the end of the Cold War, focusing on his theory of globalisation, the case for a postnational global order and his support for European integration. It starts by outlining the two core pillars of his intervention, namely the system theoretical analysis of globalisation and his hermeneutic interpretation of the evolving normative structure of international society. Next, the chapter discusses the way in which these two arguments coalesce into a call for a reorganisation of the international order and the creation of supranational political institutions, highlighting the particular importance of the European Union in Habermas’s cosmopolitan project. In the second part, I critique this theory of international politics in both its explanatory-diagnostic and anticipatory-utopian aspects. Applying the critique of system and lifeworld articulated in the previous chapter, I contend that the cosmopolitan-democratic project suffers from the separation between the theoretical and normative dimensions of critique resulting, on the one side, in a perfunctory analysis of globalisation as a purely technical and coherent process; on the other, in a socially disembedded vision of cosmopolitanism as moral evolution with debilitating political implications.