Does post-modernism liberate or undermine international relations theory? (exam practice)

Since the end of the Cold War, there was an emergence of the debate between 'Postitivism' and 'Post Positivism'. The dominating theory during the Cold War was Neo-Realism for its emphasis on confrontation rather than cooperation. Kenneth Waltz further argued that the bipolar structure during the Cold War was necessary for the balance of power. However, the end of the Cold War posed a significant challenge to Neo-Realism. It also encouraged theories that were previously on the margins of the study of International Relations. Post-Modernism played a significant role in challenging not only Neo-Realism, but also Neo-Liberalism. Post-Modernism treated these theories with incredulity and suspicion for their claims to certain truths.

The debate was one that methodological. Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism were examples of theories based on the assumptions of 'Behaviouralism'. This is the idea that there is an external and 'real' world of international relations that operates in accordance to its own objective regularities and patterns. In this sense, it can be studied scientifically and objectively. These regularities and patterns can be detected and explained in terms of empirical models and theories. Post Modernism on the other hand, contends that this is not possible because people construct and constitute the worlds in which they live, including the international world which is an entirely human arrangement.

One of the main contenders of Post-Modernism was the French writer, Michel Foucalt. His main idea was that power requires knowledge, and that all knowledge relies on an reinforces existing power relations. Accordingly, Post-Modernists look at what power relations are supported by 'truths' and knowledge practices. In this sense, Post-Modernism critiques Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism for priviledging existing structures in international relations such as the state. However, in short, Post-Modernism can be defined as incredulity towards metanarratives. This is scepticism towards any theory that asserts it has clear foundations for making knowledge claims. As such, Post-Modernism is interested in deconstructing and distrusting any account of human life that claims to have direct access to the truth. Post-Modernists argue that metanarratives are always constructed by a theorist, and that they are always contaminated by his standpoint and prejudices.

Post-Modern International Relations theorists reject the notion of objective truth. They dispute the idea that there is or can ever be expanding knowledge of the human world. Such beliefs are intellectual illusions, they are subjective beliefs, like religious faith. For Post-Modernists, the Neo-Realists may think that they have found the 'truth', but they are mistaken. They are deeply sceptical of the ideas that institutions can be fashioned that are fair and just for all of humankind everywhere. In short, they debunk the notion of universal human progress.

If there is any contribution that has been made by Post-Modernism towards International Relations, it is the deflation of academic egos. Scholars typically claim too much for their theories. However, Post-Modernists have been accused of being 'too theoretical' and not concerned with the real world. Furthermore, the Post-Modernist critique towards theories of International Relations that make truth claims, can be turned on itself as also being, a truth claim. One can also argue, why should the deconstruction of theories be trusted any more than the original construction? If every explanation of the social world is biased, then Post-Modernism cannot be spared or excused. Finally, Post-Modernism has been accused as being criticism for its own sake. For this reason, it will continue to remain on the margins of the study of International Relations. Though it has played the role of undermining the 'Positivist' theories of International Relations, its lack of concern for the 'real' world has meant that many have failed to take Post-Modernism as a serious theory of International Relations.