Rethinking the division of labor in IR: ‘critical’ and ‘problem-solving’ theories

Abstract

Decades after their incorporation into the discipline, the argument that critical approaches are marginalized in the discipline of International Relations (IR) is increasingly becoming questionable. Thus, it is a good time to reflect on critical approaches’ evolution and achievements, as well as their ‘marginalized position in IR’ and relations with conventional approaches. For this aim, this paper focuses on realism(s) and critical theory(ies) while asking whether these two research traditions are conducting 'fair criticisms' to each other based on their own claims and whether their criticisms help develop IR theory's capacity in explaining and/or understanding world politics or undermine it. Accordingly, the paper first analyzes the realist school of thought in IR, going through the main arguments of classical realism, structural realism, and neo-classical realism. Second, it focuses on the development and main assumptions of critical theory (Marxist-inspired approaches, Frankfurt School and Neo-Gramscianism) mainly by focusing on Cox and Ashley's works and critical scholars' readings of them. Third, the paper discusses the main points of cleavages between the two approaches mainly based on the famous division of labor (criticizing vs solving problems), and their criticisms to each other while assessing the pearls and pitfalls of each. Following the discussion, the paper asks whether is there a way out of these dichotomies and whether it is possible to create a productive dialogue between 'problem-solving' and 'critical' schools of thought.