Introduction to Political Realism and Critical Theory

History is the narrative we believe about the past that informs our current understanding of reality. This means history is very influential, it drives culture, religion, policy, and thought. The two political frameworks analyzed in this essay, Political Realism and Critical Theory, are not immune to the facts stated above. This is why studying the complex and continuing relationship between these political frameworks and history is essential to understanding the frameworks themself and how they interact with the world. Which of these theories does a better job of reckoning with the multifaceted truth of human history and extrapolating from it a method of perceiving the world closest to what is attainable and not subjective?

Political realism is characterized firstly by the belief in a horizontal and anarchical world order consisting of states as the primary actors. Every state is seen as struggling towards regional or global power and advancing its self-interest. In this framework, the primary futures that can be imagined are that of an inevitable war between global powers (the often referenced “Thucydides Trap”), a global hegemon, or a balance of powers. A political realist may explain the issues of politics as side effects of one of these underlying motivations.

In contrast with the quasi-determinism of political realism, Critical Theory rests on the notion that current political systems are not fixed or inevitable. It is skeptical of the self-legitimization of powers through selective memory of historical events and the naturalization or deification of a regime or power. This theory can imagine a future wherein the global order collapses or transforms into something else.  

Frameworks and History

Political Realism

Political Realism, containing diverse and at times contradictory voices, relies on history for its legitimacy. History grounds the major works and authors from Thucydides himself to Hobbes and Mearsheimer into one family of thought that lends a perspective on international relations and hopes to predict future conflict with its understanding of past or current conflict. This begins with the often-referenced Peloponnesian War and the subsequent “Thucydides Trap.” This understanding explains why the Peloponnesian War occurred by stating that it was very likely because the two powers would fight for superiority over each other as a regional power. This theory is very compatible with International Relations, and it strives to predict the future. But how can Political Realism predict the future, or even explain the present, if it uses a narrow narrative of history- an oversimplification? Other factors such as geographical, cultural, and historical context are forgotten to create a narrative that can be reapplied to other events, especially either American-Chinese or American-Russian relations. A consolidation of truth and reality creates a tradition that can be passed on despite the differences among the family of Political Realism theory. For example, in Joseph Lane’s article Thucydides Beyond the Cold War: The Recurrence of Relevance in the Classical Historians he begins by stating, “When I was a classics major in college in the 1980s, everyone read Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War through the Reagan-era Cold War lens: Athens was the U.S., Sparta the U.S.S.R.” This perhaps best explains the flexibility in interpretation of Political Realism tradition, consumable for every undergraduate in a relevant field. 

As political realism has been passed down it has changed and adapted to confront this issue in some key ways. Most relevant to its engagement with history is political realism's relationship with Contextualism. Alison McQueen described the challenge of contextualism in her analysis, Political Realism and the Realist ‘Tradition’: “Second, at a critical level, contextualism commits realists to the work of using historical and genealogical analysis to defamiliarize concepts and institutions that seem ‘so natural and indispensable that one could not imagine a society that might lack [them]” This demand for integration of historical context has been successful in some ways, authors like Stephan Walt have balanced the focus on power dynamics with a deep understanding of the many variables in any situation. In fact, Stephan Walt’s contribution has been impressive in its ability to analyze current issues like the Russo-Ukrainian War and the Cuban missile crisis. This method shortens one of the gaps between that of Political Realism is often thought of as the opposite of Critical Theory. However, major misalignment still occurs when comparing the two theories, especially on topics such as the place of morality, ethics, and justice in international relations. Political Realism may still have shortcomings in explaining the role of bias in state affairs, even against mounting evidence of bias influencing state affairs and international relations. Does Critical Theory offer a better explanation for this phenomenon? How does it utilize history in a different way from Political  Realism?

Critical Theory

What is Critical Theory’s relationship to history? Is it created in response to historical events or does it rely on a single narrative of history? What does it mean to view history through the lens of Critical Theory? 

“The most sexless, nothing, these people… those Indians, ack, pathetic…They are repulsive and it’s easy to be tough on them.” These are the words of Henry Kissinger, the national security advisor to President Nixon, while discussing their thoughts on people from the Republic of India in private. Through these words, Mr. Kissinger acknowledges how he allows his own biases to impact American foreign policy. Is this White House embarrassment a surprise? Beyond the character of any individual American international relations officeholder, is it a surprise that the American policy supported and sustained biases of this nature? Perhaps not, as the field of international relations was originally guided through false narratives of hierarchical human life and the navigation of “civilized” states in their relation with each other and “uncivilized” states. Errol A Henderson, a Political Science Professor at Penn State, writes about Critical Theory subfields such as African Realism and Post-colonial theory. On this topic, Professor Henderson wrote the following: “A white supremacist evolutionary teleology informed the domestic and international policies of major Western states and rationalized their policies of white racial domination epitomized in slavery, imperial conquest, colonization, and genocide.” This is essential to the question of the integration of history into political theory frameworks. What does it mean to have the power to convince people that other people are not people? To be able to dehumanize another group of humans, often because of one “foreign” or different characteristic? The study of international relations does not exist within a void, it can not be separated from the context in which it was created. Critical Theory does an impressive job of responding to this truth by actively unearthing historical narratives that have been intentionally unspoken or ignored. This drive, in heavy contrast with political realism, is guided by the principles of justice and ethics. 

By emphasizing power dynamics, ideological influences, and the importance of diverse perspectives, Critical Theory responds to the inherent issues in the “winner writes history” system. This is one of the successes of Critical Theory, the confrontation of history as we know it and the analysis that brings forth unheard histories from new historians. This is possibly best surmised in the following way: The evolving nature of global politics requires a continuous re-examination of historical conditions that inform current theoretical debates and practical challenges. The value placed on this topic makes it very compatible with a deeper understanding of historical memory, the passing down of knowledge means an alternative to much of Western thought through verbal history. 

In particular, the subfield of  Neo-Gramscianism focuses on history as a key feature of Critical Theory by arguing that structures are historically contingent and subject to change. This is exemplary of the integral belief that systems are not fixed or inevitable just because they exist currently or in the past, which is a core characteristic of Critical Theory. Through this subfield and others, for example Post-Colonial Theory or Feminism, one can come to the understanding that Critical Theory describes the nature of dynamics between groups or people –through geographical, cultural, or hierarchical (class, gender, etc.) attributes –with the intention of infusing them with justice. This in itself creates history into a call to action, a response to historical injustice with current and future justice. 

Conclusion

The commonly used phrase “history is written by the winners” and the idea that history influences how we see ourselves, as people and as nations, must be reconciled to analyze the relationship of any political theory and history. What does it mean that history is written by winners? It means that the implicit bias of historians– usually from one nation, one group of nations, or one class of people– defines the accepted narrative of history, and controls the simple truth. This definition is what we use to center ourselves in the world, a lens to understand everything. How do Critical Theory and Political Realism manage this? Does one manage it better? 

The incorporation of Contextualism into contemporary Political Realism may have removed some of the challenges in Political Theory’s relationship with history. By releasing some of the rigidity of tradition and embracing “socio-historical context” as a necessary tool, this framework adapted to be of better use. This addressal of a key issue in Political Realism has closed some of the gaps in its relationship with history, removing itself from a deficit relationship towards a neutral, or even a partly positive one. 

Critical Theory is fundamentally well-positioned in its relationship with history. Its responsive nature and demands for a more multifaceted understanding of history are very compatible with the true essence of history. This means that, without adapting or compensating for a large issue, Critical Theory is in the realm of a positive relationship with history where multiple voices are listened to and multiple types of knowledge are respected. 

In examining how Political Realism and Critical Theory engage with history, it becomes clear that while Political Realism has evolved to integrate historical context and thereby improved itself, Critical Theory’s foundational commitment to unearthing and amplifying marginalized histories and voices places it in a uniquely positive position to provide a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of the world’s shared past, and by extension, our present and future. While it is accepted that all political theory frameworks are of benefit when used appropriately, this analysis finds that Critical Theory, when compared to Political Realism, prevails as having a more positive relationship with history. 

Bibliography

Bass, Gary. 2020. “Opinion: The Terrible Cost of Presidential Racism.” The New York Times. The New York Times. September 3, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/03/opinion/nixon-racism-india.html. 

Henderson, Errol. 2014. “Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism in International Relations Theory.” In Race and Racism in International Relations, 31–55. Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315857299-8. 

Lane, Joseph H. 2005. “Lane | Thucydides Beyond the Cold War: The Recurrence of Relevance in the Classical Historians |    Poroi.” Poroi: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention. 2005. https://pubs.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/article/id/3262/. 

McQueen, Alison. 2008. “Political Realism and the Realist ‘Tradition.’” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, no. 1 (February): 107–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230701880539. 

Stanojlovic, Vukasin. 2024. “METHODOLOGICAL PREDECESSORS OF CONTEXTUALIST POLITICAL REALISM.” ANNALS. Annals: Belgrade Law Review. March 26, 2024. https://anali.rs/methodological-predecessors-of-contextualist-political-realism/?lang=en. 

Ian Johnstone, "Critical Theories in International Relations" Tufts Pre-College (class lecture, Fletcher School, Medford, MA, July 22, 2024)

Bock, A. M., Henneberg, I., & Plank, F. (2015). “If you compress the spring, it will snap back hard”: The Ukrainian crisis and the balance of threat theory. International Journal, 70(1), 101-109. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/10.1177/0020702014562593 

Nitzschner, Patrick. "Beyond ‘Contemporary Relevance’: Reading Critical Theory Today." Contemporary Political Theory, Suppl.2 21, (06, 2022): 49-54, https://login.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/beyond-contemporary-relevance-reading-critical/docview/2679004543/se-2  (accessed August 9, 2024).