World Politics

"The traditions of all the dead generations weigh like a nightmare upon the

brain of the living" / K. Marx.

"We have discovered that nothing can be known with any certainty, since all pre-existing "foundations" of epistemology have been shown to be unreliable; that "history" is devoid of theology and consequently no version of "progress" can plausibly be defended." / A. Giddens

Are the dominant theories of world politics outdated in the present modern world, and does Postmodernism offer a viable alternative to these understandings?

Once, political theory was regarded as coming to unravel the "truths" within international relations, but in today's era of globalisation and withering powers of nation-states, the comprehension as to which theory of world politics is most efficacious, has turned political thinkers to exploring alternative theories, such as Post-modernism. This essay chooses therefore to explore the perennial dilemma of understanding the complexity of world politics theories, challenging the traditional rationalist theories with Post-modernism arguments.

Broadly speaking three main theories of world politics can be seen to have dominated the agenda of discourse during the last hundred years. These are Marxism, Liberalism and Realism with the latter being the most dominant and widely accepted in the field. The complexity and subdivisions within these theories are too extensive to be explored in this essay, but a general overview of them shows us that they do possess a unifying factor. The prime element that unites them is their epistemology; in their study of the human or societal nature and the observable patterns of interaction between different societies or social groups. Whilst reaching very different conclusions as to the foundations behind these patterns, these three predominant theories still unite as epistemological rationalist theories of world politics. It is this Rationalist approach that will to a greater extent be contested in this essay. Although these different theories, defined as rationalist, have in truth little in common, they bind together by being explanatory. Explanatory theory believes itself to be able to explain the world through a neutral scientific account of causal factors, This understanding most often ties on to the foundationalist belief, that after unravelling these patterns of behaviour and giving explanations to them, the existence of foundations can be established. i.e. Marxists observe the phenomena of class income, liking this to the explanation of the materialist conception, and binding this to the foundation of capitalism.

One of the prime challengers of the epistemology of rational theory is Post-modernism. Despite the term Post-modernism, accommodating a variety of different understandings of political theory, it can, in a simplistic way, be defined as "a radical rejection of the past to understand the present." The Post-modernist's position is to contest and deconstruct the rationalist's assumptions that all international relations are based on rational logic and therefore that the interests of actors within world politics are not always given. Instead, Post-modernists want to see away from all grand narratives and all historical constrictions of the past, which attempt to provide meaning and direction to the present. As Francis Lyotard defines it "simplifying to the extreme I define Postmodernism as incredulity towards meta-narratives." The key concept in this definition being meta-narratives, which refers to "a theory which asserts it has clear foundations for making knowledge claims". In opposition to the rationalist theories above Postmodernists deconstruct all forms of "clear foundations" denying that political theories can claim access to any "objective facts". Through this deconstruction of the narratives of the past, Postmodernists see themselves freed from traditional political thought and liberated into new understandings of the political world.

The epistemology and fatalistic assumptions of the theories with their origins in the ideas of the enlightenment, has been the prime target of critique by Post-modernist. The two predominant theories of this tradition are Marxism and Liberalism, but it is crucial at this stage to point out, that the theories presented in this essay are substantial simplifications of their true complexity.

The basic assumption of Liberalism is anchored around the liberty of the individual. Divergences within Liberal theory as to the causes of conflict exist, but a general liberal assumption lies in the belief that democratic institutions and free-market economies are the ultimate tools for establishing the "peaceful and harmonic" natural order of a society. Liberalism is described as a "tradition of optimism" assuming that the free individuals "rational choices" ultimately lead to progress and the harmonic natural order of societies.

Marxism, on the other hand, despite striving for equal objectives of "equality and peace", places a central emphasis on the role of economy and class in its political theory, in opposition to liberal emphasis on individual liberty. The Marxist theory of the materialist conception demonstrates this understanding clearly, by claiming that historical change is ultimately a reflection of the economic development of society and not of individual action. Marxists argue that in a capitalist society the main axis of conflict is one between the bourgeoisie (the capitalists) and the proletariat (working class). The political and cultural institutions in such a society will therefore, in a more or less mediate form, be a re-enforcement of this oppression, unless the economic situation changes from a capitalist economy. Explaining world politics, Marxists apply these assumptions when referring to the "capitalist system's" oppression of the developing world. i.e. analysing phenomena such as globalisation. Marxist theory of world politics would explain it as the perennial foundations of capitalism at work.

Post-modernists are sharply critical of these two theories (Liberalism and Marxism) since the narratives of political development used by them, naturally assume they are "true" hence, turning into "meta-narratives". The essence of Post-modern thought is rejection and deconstructing of all "meta-narratives", since they not only offer explanations to the past, but also naturally imply how we should interpret