The document outlines critical theory, emphasizing that human nature is shaped by social conditions and historical struggles. It discusses the evolution of critical theory from the Frankfurt School, highlighting contributions from thinkers like Horkheimer and Habermas, and contrasts it with positivism and structuralism. Additionally, it examines the application of critical theory to international relations, particularly in the context of Turkey-Russia relations regarding the Syrian conflict, focusing on the importance of language and communication in shaping political identities.

1. Critical Theory

2. Critical Theory Axioms
• Human nature is not a constant but a variable
• Human nature depends on social conditions
• Historical struggles between different social forces
generate world politics
• People can group together to further their common
interests
• All human beings prefer emancipation
• Positivism: problem-solving theory (knowledge)

3. • Critical Theory: knowledge leading to emancipation
• Genuine communication is necessary for a dialogue
toward emancipation
• Some research questions: how can state, and state
systems lead to human emancipation?
• How boundaries of communities change over time?

4. • How do exclusionary and inclusionary binaries come to
life and persist like «me/other», «me/foreigner»,
«man/woman», etc..
• Instead of concentrating on supposed «objective» threats
to state that are out there in the real world, concentrate on
processes through individuals, groups, and construct
social facts

5. • Origins of critical theory in IR lie in thought associated
with the ‘Frankfurt School’
• Frankfurt School: an intersection of Marx and Freud
• Inspired by Marx and Western Marxists but revisions of
this strand were made through interest in formation of
political consciousness

6. • Marcuse, Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm
• Horkheimer: traditional and critical theory. Founder of
the theory (1937); Frankfurt School of sociology. A
radical, emancipatory form of Marxism as opposed to
authoritarian, positivistic orthodox Marxism
• Adorno: culture industry
• Habermas: second generation Frankfurt schooler

7. • Habermas: dialogical ethics, related to communicative
rationality: empathy, listen to each opinion to form
values, do not silence others
• Hermeneutics:
• 1) Knowledge via interpretation to understand the
meaning of human texts
• 2) Knowledge via interpretation to understand symbolic
expressions including the interpretation of texts which in
turn interpret other texts

8. • Frankfurt School develops Marx’s analyses further by
concentrating on communicative reason, linguistic
intersubjectivity and by pointing out limits of positivism
and determinism

9. • Early phase: critique of science and objectivity in IR
theories; critiques of state-centrism; for pluralism of
perspectives and postpositivism
• Cox, Ashley, Lapid
• Later phase: dialogue, political community, dialogical
ethics, recognition, political economy
• Linklater, Wyn Jones

10. • Habermas is a key thinker. His dialogical ethics constitute
an important provocation for critical IR theory
• See for example discussion by Risse and critics on
dialogue in IR.
• Debate and exploration of Habermas’s ideas have
resulted in key efforts to build a critical IR theory of
international politics.

11. • Habermas versus Marx:
• Marx stresses the importance of social organization
forms, inherently social nature of human beings, and
sociability as a form of production and class struggle
• Habermas stresses the importance of communication,
inherently social nature of human beings, and sociability
as expressed through language

12. • Habermas claim that human beings construct
intersubjective knowledge about the world through
language and communication
• Meaning is established through interaction or dialogue
between conscious subjects

13. • Critical IR theory can focus attention on key forces
shaping Arab Spring:
- the political identity and consciousness of the
Arab peoples
- the failure of neoliberal policies
- the political will to instantiate the rule of law
- role of social media

14. • Traditional security studies remains an applied research
tool rooted in instrumental reason

15. • Challenges narrowness of positivist perspectives and
offers theoretical horizons for critical theory of IR.
Habermas’s role is crucial in motivating such research.
• Role of globalisation important as context: initiates
questions of global civil society and empowerment.
• Emphasizes open-ended and imaginative dimensions of
emancipatory project in world politics.

16. • Definition: a theory is critical if it seeks to liberate human
beings from circumstances that enslave them
• Ideology is the prime obstacle to human emancipation,
liberation
• Critical social theory: a form of self-reflective
knowledge. It involves understanding and also
explanation. Aim: reduce entrapment in systems of
dependence and domination

17. • Modern Critical Theory: investigates forms of injustice
and authority that are generated by the evolution of
industrial and corporate capitalism in a political-
economic system.
• Postmodern Critical Theory: Now the attention turns to
texts. Make political relations of domination and power
apparent through historical and cultural contexts, collect
and analyze texts, data. It is more empirical than the
modern version summarized above.

18. • Being a critical theorist means that one stands in the
intersection of language, symbolism, and communication
• Being a critical theorist means that one analyzes the role
of ideas, culture, communication, intersubjective
dialogue and negotiation

19. • Structuralism versus Critical Theory:
• Structuralism: social classes, capitalist system’s working
rules, structure of the system, reproduction of unequal
relations between social classes and states: MATERIAL
• Critical Theory (Gramsci): importance of culture and
ideology, the role of culture and ideology in the
reproduction of unequal social relations: NON-
MATERIAL

20. • Gramsci: central importance of ideology in maintaining
class rule and in bringing about social change
• Ruling class persuades people and legitimizes its
supremacy, dominance through ideological tools.
• These tools imply, make the ruling class as just and fair

21. • Orthodox Marxism: Society can be scientifically
explained and understood through objective measurement
of observed money flows
• Post Marxism (Critical Theory): ALL knowledge is
ideological. Theories must be evaluated given the
configuration of societal forces and the historical
background

22. • Theories and observations are interlocked to the extent that it
is impossible to dissect, disentangle them from each other
• When we make senses of the world given our knowledge, our
actions confirm theories we create: self-fulfilling prophecies
• Get emancipated and get rid of oppressive forms of social
relations, and IR theories. Forget IR Theory: Roland Bleiker
• Alternatives: Global, Local, Political
• Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1997), pp. 57-85

23. • There is no deterministic relationship between economic
and social systems
• The dynamic of historical change is not deterministic
• Do not get obsessed with class, class struggle: it is not the
only domination and oppression form
• Everybody is responsible for dominance relations
• Knowledge is political and social

24. Realism/Critical Theory
• States are the main actors/states are NOT the main actors
• Economic and politics can be separated/No
• No interest in whether current institutions help to
emancipate humans/ interest in whether current
institutions help to emancipate humans
• States are given/states are problematic: what is state?

25. • States’ primary position in IR is accepted as given/
States’ primary position in IR is problematic: «why states
are the main actors?»
• Anarchy is constant; the future will not be different from
today/anarchy is not constant. It is a questionable
construct. The current order can change and take
alternative future paths

26. • Hegemony is the dominance of certain states
• Dominant state creates order
• States reflect interest of capital and counter-hegemonic
groups whose influence varies over time
• World politics is nothing but consisting of clashes
between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces (like
Green Peace, Amnesty International) about prevailing
over international institutions and political arrangements

27. Some claims from Robert Cox (1981) «Social
Forces, States, and World Orders: Beyond IR
Theory» Millenium 10(2): 128-137
• Theories are always for someone and for some purpose
• All theories have perspectives stemming from a position in
time and space in which they are proposed
• Theories must change as social problems change

28. • Definition: «problem-solving theory» answers a specific
question using ceteris paribus (everything else being held
constant) assumption.
• It is ahistorical
• It posits a continuing relation of power
• It provides a guide to tactical actions (intended or not)
sustaining the existing order

29. • Problem with problem-solving theory: variables are
treated as objects like chemists treat molecules
• Critical Theory: offers the possibility of alternative
worlds; asks: «how is this order created?»
• Institutions, power relations, social relations are not taken
for granted; they generate questions to be answered

30. • Social-political complex is taken as a whole, not as
separate parts
• It constructs a larger picture and seeks to understand
processes of change concerning both parts and the whole
• It is a theory of history as well. Past and future prospects
constitute issues
• It provides a guide to strategic actions to bring about
alternative world orders

31. Realism according to Cox (Cox’s
reading of realism)
• Sources in Meinecke, Friedrich in their study of «raison
d’état», traced through Machiavelli and later to Carr and
Dehio.
• Delinates particular configurations of forces, fixes the
framework, and tries to explain events within fixed
environments

32. • Neorealist axioms according to Cox (p.129)
• The nature of man: perpetual quest for power
• All states are similar with respect to fixation on national
interest guiding action
• The nature of state system with rational constraints on
foreign policy through balance of power

33. • The axioms imply history as becoming a repetitive
process completely alienated (independent of) history
• A non-historical (ahistorical) thinking mode, a value-free
approach

34. • Marxism according to Cox:
• Marxism is not a single current of thought
• A) Historical Materialism (Gramsci, Hobsbawm):
• 1) it reasons historically
• 2) it seeks to explain and promote changes in social
relations

35. • B) Structural Marxism (Althusser, Poulantzas):
• 1) It does not reason historically but through abstract
concepts, conceptualization of modes of production
• 2) It is designed as a framework for the analysis of
capitalist state and society

36. • Hence, structural marxism is similar to structural
realism: both are ahistorical, they have essentialist
epistemology (few variables), practical applicability is
lesser than its level of abstraction
• Claim: historical materialism corrects structural realism
in 4 important aspects

37. • 1) Structural realism sees conflict as a recurrent
consequence of a continuing structure, whereas historical
materialism sees conflict as a possible cause of change—
continual confrontation of concepts with reality and their
adjustment to ever changing reality. Each assertion
contains its opposite but they are not mutually disjoint.
Opposites intersect where truth changes continually

38. • Truth is not a constant, fixed pattern
• 2) Historical materialism studies vertical dimension of
power as opposed to structural realism’s concern with
horizontal great-power competition
• 3) State-civil relations bracketed (eliminated, ignored) by
structural realism but they are important
• 4) Structural realism ignores production processes.
wealth, production of wealth,

39. • Structural realism ignores ability to mobilize power
behind actions, power relationship between those who
control and those who execute production tasks
• Historical materialism deals with all these aspects. It is
sensitive to changes in sphere of production and the
reflection of changes upon state foreign policy and the
world order

40. A triangular relationship exists in all societies
• Material Capabilities
• Institutions Ideas

41. Critical Theory Implications for
Evaluations of Turkey-Russia Relations
Toward Syria Conflict
• 1) Processes through individuals (Russian and Turkish
political leaders) and groups must be delineated
• 2) Construction of social facts in the relationship
deserves a high attention
• 3) Demonstrate positivist approaches’ (like realism and
liberalism) limits with respect to the understanding of the
conflict
• 4) Stress the importance of communication and language
used in Turkey-Russia relations toward Syria conflict

42. • Indicate how language and communication between the
two states signal intersubjectivity toward the conflict
• Work out the generation of meaning through dialogue
between political leaders
• Expose how Turkey and Russia are entrapped in a
mutually destructive rivalry
• Use language, symbolism, the role of ideas and
communication, culture instead power, rationality, gain
and costs, exogenously given preferences

43. • Ask: how does culture and ideology exacerbate Turkey-
Russia opposition toward Syria?
• Ask: What is Turkey? What is Russia?
• Ask: How is the conflictive interaction/order created
between Turkey and Russia?

44. Turkey-Russia Rapprochement
from Critical Theory Perspectives
• One cannot approach the rapprochement between the two
countries as if it constitutes a problem to solve

45. • This is does not constitute a problem where one can
handle variables as exogenously given (like molecules,
atoms, relations between them)
• The mutual harm positivist and especially rational-choice
theories uses as an explanatory tool does not constitute
and objective reality
• Instead of the «real existence» of costs Russia and Turkey
suffered we should focus on «costly worlds» both
countries’ FP makers create

46. • How are the social constructions emerge?
• The answer to the question above: through language and
communication among respective leaders
• Social constructions correspond to the «meaning» of
relations between the two countries
• The meanings signal subjectivities and intersubjectivities
for the relationship

47. • To conclude, we can can assert that language and
communication producing social constructions and
meaning intersect language, symbolism, and
communication among respective countries’ leaders