Co-optations of the Critical as IR Theories Aversion

In the longstanding question of the relationship between theory and history in international relations, the present article uses two empirical cases from the international context to grasp the current historical juncture characterised by unprecedented political aversion to theorisation. It argues that this aversion takes the practical form of strategic co-optation of critical thinking to neutralise its cogency and determine a dangerous liberation of political praxis from theory and its presumed uselessness. Within the history of political thought, the epistemological relationship between theory and practice has always been based on a human need to access knowledge by modelling the perceived laws of the functioning of reality. These attempts at theoretical systematisation of empirical experience combined practical needs and ambitions of possible management and prediction of events and risks connected to human ontologies. Far from, historically, being free of tensions, there was, however, mutual recognition between theory and practice on the epistemic benefits of their complementary interplay. The article affirms that, currently, this reciprocity has reached the apex of a crisis that started in the last century. Practices of international relations have progressively established a problematic relationship with their theoretical grounds, with severe consequences, exemplified by the current IR context. The paper adds a second argument. The aversion of political practice towards theorisation takes the form of a convenient strategy of theory co-optation, which, with its responsibility, allows political practice to throw theory to a perimeter of irrelevance and even blame. Historically, this aversion originates and spreads beyond the political sphere, but precisely within politics, its most nefarious effects can be recognised today. Political praxis has developed a profound crisis in its relationship with its theoretical counterpart and seems not to have any expectations from theory except that of deriving from it a possible marginalisation of its presence. Here lies the paradox: sometimes feigning impotent deference towards theory, praxis uses theory to legitimise its ungrounded activities on the theoretical level; the impasses produced by current theories have legitimised their marginalisation. How? The practical strategy of theory co-optation exploits theoretical impasses due to the normative needs imposed by critical thinking. This results in uncritical forms of critique towards theorisation, holding the theoretical hostage of its caricature of inconclusive applicability. If the critical activity can be helpful, the danger for such a now besieged theorising is becoming a ‘regime practice’. Politics can fuel the legitimising effect on political action due to the alleged practical inapplicability of critical thinking. Politics can do much talk about the critical and its due relevance to deactivate its cogency. The paper discusses two examples from international politics. First is questioning democratic practice in the face of the unspecified theoretical benefits of possible authoritarian alternatives. Second, it is the circumvention of international humanitarian law principles to perform alleged emergency intervention strategies in the migratory and humanitarian fields. The paper’s conclusion puts pressure and increases the responsibility of those authentically carrying out the theoretical activity: they must ensure they are not subjected to any political co-optation practice.