Date: 28 March 2013 Speaker: Ken Booth, Senior Research Associate, Aberystwyth University; Editor, International Relations; Director, David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies, Aberystwyth, Wales Chair: Marco Cesa, Professor of International Relations, Johns Hopkins University SAIS Bologna Center, Bologna, Italy Realism, Critical Theory and Global Security Paraphrasing Trotsky, Ken Booth began by saying that “You may not be interested in international relations, but international relations is certainly interested in you.” The dynamics of international affairs – diplomacy, war, strategy, and economics among others – shape and have shaped global patterns of religion, language and wealth that directly affect the lives of individuals. In recognition of this impact, Booth’s lecture then focused on the evolution of international relations theory from state-focused realism to critical theory and the difficulty of confronting global problems in a world lacking effective international government. Realism today has many sects, but it can be divided into two main branches based on their major causal variable. The first branch is classical realism, whose major causal variable is human nature; this focuses on human selfishness, greed, evil and tragedy. The second branch is structural realism, whose major causal variable is the anarchy of the international system. Booth was dismissive of so-called human nature explanations, and proceeded to concentrate on structural realism’s fundamental tenets: the condition of anarchy, the distribution of power among state units and their desire to survive. These conditions explain why states operate in a “self-help” system, why some are better off than others, and why all are concerned with security. Structural realism does not attempt to explain everything (such as irrational leaders) but it does explain what Kenneth Waltz, its key theorist, calls “big and important” things. Both main branches of realism are focused on power, force and the national interest; they are state-centric and anti-idealist; they believe that this is the best of all possible worlds. Critical theorists, on the contrary, do not believe that we live in the best of all possible worlds. Rather, they believe that progress is possible. This is one core theme of critical theory. Booth identified several others. Objectivity is not possible: all knowledge is historically-situated knowledge. The political realm is inseparable from the ethical realm. The goal of emancipation is globally significant. Critical theory embraces common humanity and universal aspirations. And changes in ‘global realities’ are possible through changing ideas about global reality. Booth drew attention to Robert Cox’s distinction between ‘critical’ and ‘problem-solving’ theory. The latter seeks to deal with the problems of the status quo in the world; the former seeks to deal with the problems caused by the status quo. It is the difference between insider and outsider theorizing. Booth went on to develop the specific idea of emancipation, which has been central to the type of critical ideas he espouses. Emancipation, he said, is a simple idea in theory; the big challenge is how to put it into operation in specific situations. Booth argued that the meaning of “emancipation” can be derived from some words a nineteenth century English radical, William Lovett, used in the title of a book: the “Pursuit of Bread, Knowledge & Freedom”. Bread symbolizes material well-being; Knowledge refers to escaping from ignorance, superstition, the lies of governments and so on; and Freedom concerns the escape from political and economic tyranny. The concept of emancipation is viewed skeptically by those who reject the “universality” of such ideas, but history shows that they are widely accepted. The challenge is implementation in a multistate, multicultural world. While nations in principle might agree about the advancement of women’s rights, they may be reluctant to implement specific reforms if they are seen to conflict with religious or cultural norms. Today’s globalizing environment means that time and space are shrinking. The nuclear revolution in the last century meant that national defense is ultimately no longer possible, and today economic interdependence means we live in what a UN Report nearly twenty years ago called a “global neighborhood”. But this is not a happy neighborhood: the world does not work for millions of people, other animals, and biodiversity. Professor Booth divides global threats into two: existential and emancipatory. Existential threats include nuclear war, radical climate chaos and pandemics. Emancipatory threats are local dangers with potential global implications to human flourishing, such as economic collapse, violations of human rights, and lack of democracy. The current international system, it was argued, is not working, and instead of presenting solutions, the state-system itself is part of the problem. Efforts to promote human rights or control climate change are often blocked by the “national interests” of states playing the “game of nations.” The state system is being tested to the limit, and its day may be over. We are living in a decisive period of history. While structural realism helps explain where we are, progressive change requires the radical perspectives of critical theory. Today’s crisis of the global “business as usual” means, for example, that IR scholars should be shifting perspective and considering alternatives to the traditional game of nations – ideas such as “security communities”, “cosmopolitan democracy”, and even “world government”. Booth concluded his lecture with a provoking question: “If we, as international relations scholars, are unwilling to recognize the scale of today’s crisis and propose feasible ways ahead, who will?” 2 .