Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBrincat, Shannon
dc.date.accessioned2018-10-22T01:09:50Z
dc.date.available2018-10-22T01:09:50Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1474-7731
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/14747731.2015.1130204
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/142414
dc.description.abstractRobert W. Cox's dictum that ‘(t)heory is for someone and for some purpose’ (emphasis in the original) is said to be the most-quoted line in International Relations (IR) theory. Yet whilst this spurred a revolution in critical thinking in IR, it echoed a far older conception of Critical Theory advanced by Max Horkheimer in the 1930s that claimed there is ‘no theory of society … that does not contain political motivations'. Both sentiments emphasize the relation between knowledge and human interests, and yet both formulate two distinct—though allied—ways of approaching ‘critical’ theorizing. In order to understand the similarities and differences in their approaches, this paper draws out three loci of difference between Cox and Horkheimer regarding the question of emancipation: (i) the epistemological relation between ‘critical’ and ‘Problem-Solving’ (Cox) or ‘Traditional Theory’ (Horkheimer); (ii) the emphasis placed on transformation and historical process; and (iii) the importance of intersubjectivity in how each approach emancipation. It is argued that by actively combining critical (dialectical) approaches across the social sciences, broadening human agency through civilizational dialogue, and retaining a commitment to emancipatory (and visionary) political futures based on human association, that Critical International Theory can maintain ongoing relevance in IR.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherRoutledge
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom563
dc.relation.ispartofpageto577
dc.relation.ispartofissue5
dc.relation.ispartofjournalGlobalizations
dc.relation.ispartofvolume13
dc.subject.fieldofresearchInternational Relations
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160607
dc.titleTraditional, Problem-Solving and Critical Theory: An Analysis of Horkheimer and Cox's Setting of the ‘Critical’ Divide
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyGriffith Business School, School of Government and International Relations
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorBrincat, Shannon K.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record