Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Beyond Realism and Marxism pp 8–33Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Power, Order and Emancipation in International Theory

  • Chapter

Abstract

Power, order and emancipation are the primary concerns of the three main traditions of international theory — the realist, rationalist and revolutionist perspectives. Realism maintains that the struggle for power and security is the dominant logic in world politics; rationalism places particular emphasis on the high level of order which states can achieve in the context of anarchy; and revolutionism contends that a “Cosmopolis” which will realise the moral potential of the species is already “immanent” within the international system of states.1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. See Wight (1987) p. 227. For a discussion of Wight’s perspective, see H. Bull, “Martin Wight and the Theory of International Relations”, British Journal of International Studies, 2 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  2. On the positivism of modern realism, see Ashley (1981) and the more extensive discussion in “The Poverty of Neo-Realism”, International Organisation, 38 (1984) pp. 225–86. See also Waltz (1979) ch. 1, esp. p. 6. M. Smith, Realist Thought from Weber to Kissinger (London, 1986) makes that useful point that the differences between “neo-realism” and past versions of realism should not be overestimated.

    Google Scholar 

  3. H. Butterfield, History and Human Relations (London, 1951) pp. 9–36.

    Google Scholar 

  4. H. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. (New York, 1973) p. 541,

    Google Scholar 

  5. and H. Kissinger, The White House Years (London, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carr (1939) pp. 10, 12 and 239; Hans Morgenthau “The Intellectual and Political Foundations of a Theory of International Relations” in Politics in the Twentieth Century (Chicago, 1971) pp. 286–7 and 295–8.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford, 1961) pp. 189–95.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For further discussion, see H. Suganami, “The Structure of Institutionalism: An Analysis of British Mainstream International Relations”, International Relations, 7 (1983) pp. 263–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bull (1977) ch.4. Compare, moreover, pp. 152 and 289. R. J. Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations (Cambridge, 1986) addresses these themes.

    Google Scholar 

  10. For a fuller discussion, see S. Lukes, Marxism and Morality (Oxford, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  11. See L. D. Easton and K. H. Guddat, Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society (New York, 1967) p. 212.

    Google Scholar 

  12. For a discussion, see M. Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–50 (Boston, 1973) esp. ch. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See A. Wellmer, Critical Theory of Society (New York, 1975) esp. ch. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See P. Connerton ed. Critical Sociology (Harmondsworth, 1976) pp. 217–18.

    Google Scholar 

  15. J. Habermas, “A Reply to My Critics”, in J. B. Thompson and D. Held (eds.) Habermas: Critical Debates (London, 1982) p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  16. J. Habermas, “History and Evolution”, Telos, 39 (1979) esp. pp. 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  17. For further discussion, see McCarthy (1982) pp. 232–71. In addition, see R. Roderick, Habermas and the Foundations of Critical Theory (London, 1986) esp. chs. 3–4.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. See Habermas (1979) pp. 196–7. Also “What Does A Legitimation Crisis Mean Today? Legitimation Problems in Late Capitalism”, in W. Connolly (ed.) Legitimacy and the State (Oxford, 1984) esp. pp. 140–2.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cox (1981) p. 130. For further consideration of Cox’s position on realism, see the comments by Cox and Waltz in R. O. Keohane (ed.) Neo-Realism and its Critics (Princeton, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cox (1981) pp. 150–1. For further discussion, see R. W. Cox, Production, Power and World Order: Social Forces in the Making of History (New York, 1987).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

    Andrew Linklater (Senior Lecturer in Politics)

Authors
  1. Andrew Linklater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1990 Andrew Linklater

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Linklater, A. (1990). Power, Order and Emancipation in International Theory. In: Beyond Realism and Marxism. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230374546_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation