Bringing the Critical Thinking Back in: A Critique of Andrew Linklater’s Theoretical Contributions to International Relations

Fabiana Freitas Sander, Matheus Souza
{"title":"Bringing the Critical Thinking Back in: A Critique of Andrew Linklater’s Theoretical Contributions to International Relations","authors":"Fabiana Freitas Sander, Matheus Souza","doi":"10.1590/s0102-8529.20224401e20200110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Inspired by the Critical Social Theory put forth by the Frankfurt School, Andrew Linklater has dedicated part of his career to elaborating a critical and emancipatory research agenda for International Relations. However, his recent research on the restriction of violence in international society, mostly influenced by the English School and by Eliasian Sociology, has pushed Linklater away from an explicit engagement with critical epistemologies and theoretical approaches. Although there is a possibility for close dialogue between these theoretical strands, we claim that Linklater did not articulate these approaches as much as he could have done. Therefore, we make an assessment of his work to discuss some of its epistemological and theoretical inconsistencies. Based on this, we provide a way to bridge Linklater’s initial critical agenda with his most recent analyses on processes of violence restriction and regulation of global harm in the international realm. We argue that by focusing on multiple global processes that contributed to the restriction of violence, Linklater failed to consider the particularities, pitfalls and side-effects of allegedly beneficial processes of violence restriction and, as a result, his work lost critical potential. Accordingly, this article demonstrates how Linklater would benefit from going back to his initial critical agenda to address the limitations of his scholarship on global harm.","PeriodicalId":30003,"journal":{"name":"Contexto Internacional","volume":"10 18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contexto Internacional","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-8529.20224401e20200110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Inspired by the Critical Social Theory put forth by the Frankfurt School, Andrew Linklater has dedicated part of his career to elaborating a critical and emancipatory research agenda for International Relations. However, his recent research on the restriction of violence in international society, mostly influenced by the English School and by Eliasian Sociology, has pushed Linklater away from an explicit engagement with critical epistemologies and theoretical approaches. Although there is a possibility for close dialogue between these theoretical strands, we claim that Linklater did not articulate these approaches as much as he could have done. Therefore, we make an assessment of his work to discuss some of its epistemological and theoretical inconsistencies. Based on this, we provide a way to bridge Linklater’s initial critical agenda with his most recent analyses on processes of violence restriction and regulation of global harm in the international realm. We argue that by focusing on multiple global processes that contributed to the restriction of violence, Linklater failed to consider the particularities, pitfalls and side-effects of allegedly beneficial processes of violence restriction and, as a result, his work lost critical potential. Accordingly, this article demonstrates how Linklater would benefit from going back to his initial critical agenda to address the limitations of his scholarship on global harm.
回归批判性思维:安德鲁·林克莱特对国际关系理论贡献的批判
受到法兰克福学派批判社会理论的启发,安德鲁·林克莱特将其职业生涯的一部分用于阐述批判性和解放性的国际关系研究议程。然而,他最近对国际社会中暴力限制的研究,主要受到英国学派和埃利亚社会学的影响,使林克莱特远离了与批判认识论和理论方法的明确接触。尽管这些理论分支之间存在密切对话的可能性,但我们认为林克莱特并没有尽可能多地阐明这些方法。因此,我们对他的工作进行评估,以讨论其认识论和理论的一些不一致之处。基于此,我们提供了一种方法,将林克莱特最初的批判性议程与他最近对国际领域中暴力限制和全球伤害监管过程的分析联系起来。我们认为,由于关注有助于限制暴力的多个全球过程,林克莱特未能考虑到所谓有益的暴力限制过程的特殊性、陷阱和副作用,因此,他的工作失去了关键的潜力。因此,本文展示了林克莱特如何从回到他最初的批判议程中获益,以解决他在全球危害方面的学术研究的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信