Harry Darkins' "Post-structuralist 'critique' and How it Treats Power in Global Politics" (Summary)

 

The debate surrounding post-structuralism makes it a compelling theory for examination. Few areas have faced as much criticism towards their fundamental principles and methodologies, with some asserting a lack of "authentic theoretical innovations.  In this essay Darkins explores the meaning of 'critique' within the context of post-structuralism, and then delve into its treatment of 'power' in international politics. He contends despite its limitations, post-structuralism holds a significant role in interpreting contemporary international politics.

 

Before delving further, it is essential to establish a clear definition of 'post-structuralism'. Originating from US academics, this term encompasses a body of academic work primarily distinguished by its opposition to the structuralist movement that emerged in France during the 1950s and 1960s. According to Michael Merlingen, structuralism posited that social elements only exist within patterned, structured relations within a system, advocating for an approach to understanding the social world through the examination of these systems. In contrast, post-structuralists challenge this theory, rejecting its scientific and positivist aspirations. They often employ discourse analysis techniques to support their arguments, asserting that language is paramount, and that words and sentences do not merely reflect or represent an external reality. Given the central importance post-structuralists place on language, the concept of 'power' may be better conceived as a representative phenomenon rather than a concrete, material entity.

Considering that post-structuralists primarily engage in critiquing existing theories and discourses, it is more accurate to view post-structuralism in the realm of international politics as a method or analytical tool. This is especially pertinent because, as this essay will demonstrate, post-structuralism generally does not aim to present a specific worldview of its own. In essence, our understanding of post-structuralist thinking is best derived from examining how they critique other perspectives. As Foucault asserts, post-structuralist critique "only exists in relation to something other than itself. With this in mind, this paper will evaluate the nature and intent of post-structuralist critique, particularly in its interaction with the concept of 'state sovereignty'.

 Foucault once posed a profound question: "Do you know up to what point you can know?" This query encapsulates the core of post-structuralism, as it inherently challenges established structures of knowledge, transforming it into an act of 'critique'. However, within the realm of post-structuralism, it's important to distinguish between 'critique' and 'criticism'. Judith Butler notes that Foucault viewed 'critique' as a practice that suspends judgment, offering a new framework of values through this suspension. In essence, post-structuralists don't aim to pass value judgments; proposing an alternative action or thought necessitates acceptance of existing boundaries and principles. Instead, through 'critique', they engage in critical thinking that problematizes and destabilizes established frameworks, creating space for new possibilities. Thus, post-structural critique differs from conventional 'criticism' in that it seeks to challenge rather than replace.

 

Post-structuralists posit that language is pivotal in understanding the social world, contending that there exists no reality external to the language we employ. They draw from Nietzsche, who argued that what we say about the world is intrinsically linked to our conception of it, shaped by acquired assumptions and linguistic conventions. For post-structuralists, all facets of human experience are fundamentally bound to textuality. Critiquing a text or discourse, to them, is tantamount to critiquing the world itself.

 

A significant focus of post-structural critique lies in identifying binary oppositions and dichotomies. Jacques Derrida posited that Western thought's very structure stems from such binary distinctions, defining things largely by what they are not. Post-structuralists contend that these binaries permeate political life at its core. In the realm of International Relations, Connolly asserts that our understanding of 'international relations' today was shaped by the interplay between old and new worldviews. He traces this to historical contexts, particularly the influence of Christianity, which often employed processes of 'othering' when encountering deviance from faith. Post-structuralists suggest that these binaries persist in the modern political landscape, operating under the banner of the sovereign state.

 

Post-structuralists employ the genealogical method to scrutinize pieces of knowledge, interrogating their origins and beneficiaries. This approach challenges conventional narratives on sovereignty, revealing vested interests tied to historic political structures. Foucault contends that this critique plays an ethical role, shedding light on phenomena in twentieth-century political history, such as state-organized mass atrocities. Post-structural critique, in this view, holds those in power accountable. The double reading is another method employed by post-structuralists, involving an analysis of discourse or theory from two perspectives. The first reading interprets the subject matter as intended by the author, while the second scrutinizes its benefits, omissions, and potential biases. This method aims to expose how stories rely on suppressing internal tensions to maintain a sense of homogeneity and continuity.

 

Richard Ashley uses the double reading technique to critique the sovereign state and the realist paradigm. His first reading treats the paradigm as a monologue, granting unquestioned dominance to the controlling sovereign presence. Ashley's second reading transforms the discourse into a dialogue, exploring how practices in discourse production interact with various external texts. Through this approach, Ashley aims not to destroy but to deconstruct the discourse, opening up new possibilities. This deconstructive process destabilizes the locus of sovereign power, challenging the seemingly secure foundations of the discourse.

 Post-structuralists, in contrast to mainstream positivist approaches in International Relations, view the production of knowledge as a multifaceted process with aesthetic, normative, and political dimensions. Language, for them, is not a neutral medium of communication, but a complex system of habits, conventions, values, and biases that shape our understanding of the world. This perspective leads to an intertwining of knowledge and power, forming a "nexus of knowledge-power," as articulated by Foocau. In this framework, knowledge and power mutually reinforce and imply each other, underlining that the production of knowledge is inherently political.

 

Derrida's concept of deconstruction serves as a pivotal tool in unraveling the perceived intimate connection between power and knowledge. Deconstruction identifies elements of instability that challenge the cohesion of conceptual oppositions. Derrida notably focused on the binary of 'speech/writing', contending that speech is often considered primary and authentic, while writing is relegated to a derivative status. By advocating for a generalized understanding of writing, Derrida disrupts the established hierarchy between speech and writing.

 

Edkins and Zehfuss extend this notion to the realm of global politics, particularly the binary of 'sovereign domestic/anarchic international'. They argue that this dichotomy sets up the international system for failure when measured against the criteria of a 'sovereign' domestic order. They envision an alternative interpretation of world politics that transcends these divisions, fundamentally altering the dynamics of power and challenging assumptions about shared values and cultures.

 

Post-structuralists, like Campbell, contend that the sovereign state relies on discourses of danger to reinforce its power. They reject the notion that sovereign states have an originary existence prior to political practice, asserting that they are instead performatively constituted. This challenges the idea of an inherent and static reality, prompting a reevaluation of existing theories and discourses in IR.

 

While Frost suggests that post-structuralists could be considered "super-realists" due to their concern with power dynamics, it's essential to note that they fundamentally question the realities presented by mainstream discourses and theories. Rather than offering concrete ethical guidelines, post-structuralism introduces the possibility of viewing international politics from alternative starting points, encouraging critical thinking beyond traditional paradigms.

 

In this context of unforeseen political shifts, the open-mindedness advocated by post-structuralism remains pertinent. While it may not present explicit theoretical innovations, its methods prompt a reexamination of established frameworks, offering a valuable perspective in navigating a rapidly changing global landscape.