![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Marxist tradition as a social philosophy has sought to locate emancipation in the person of the working class or various other sub-state actors. However, it has been obvious for long that the metahistorical agency entrusted with those forces is less than viable. Offering an alternative perspective to the question of the agent of emancipatory action, the present research attempts to situate the potential of emancipatory praxis in international relations with the state acting as the primary actor for dialectical change. It holds that, if a radical shift from the contemporary conditions of economic and political subjugation to respect for sovereignty, inclusive development and peaceful coexistence is to be realized, the direction of emancipatory flow must be from international to national. Thus, through a re-contextualization of emancipation at the interstate level of analysis, this study proposes a thorough evaluation of China’s conceptualization of international governance against the backdrop of its ongoing material and ideational emergence.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on Contributor
Serafettin Yilmaz (Yao Shifan, Chinese name) is Associate Professor at the School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University, China. His research interests include international relations theory, China’s foreign policy, energy security, South China Sea, and East Asia regional development. His recent articles appeared in Europe-Asia Studies, International Relations of the Asia Pacific, The Pacific Journal, and China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies.
Notes
1 Haacke wrote that to demonstrate the theory’s worth as a viable analytical tool, critical international relations theorists would have to “(1) reveal the possibilities for change immanent in social relations; (2) offer a compelling normative base for its critique; and (3) illustrate real-world instances of a reconceptualized praxis.” It must be noted that, by “reconceptualized praxis,” Haacke mainly refers to international institutions (Haacke Citation1996, 256).
2 Immanent critique is inherent in emancipation because, by identifying the forces that arrest historical progress, it uncovers the potential for change.
3 Among others, critical authors such as John M. Hobson, Robbie Shilliam, Tarak Barkawi, Claus Offe, Theda Skocpol and Alexander Anievas have analyzed extensively the internal and external factors of the Global South subjectivity and lack of economic and political development.
4 According to Skocpol, states have the potential for autonomy and this autonomy has been overlooked by most Marxists. She observes that Marxists have ignored the fact that the state system and the economic systems operate on the basis of different principles and dynamics. Her argument relies heavily on the idea that state is an independent source of power, which composes the historical and empirical basis for autonomy. However, she also maintains that the degree to which states are autonomous may vary (Barrow Citation1993, 126–127). According to Poulantzas, the degree of autonomy relies on the class relations and conflicts, and the intensity of social struggles (Held Citation1984, 69).
5 In The End of the State, Levine (Citation1987) discusses the state of statelessness, taking up the issue of “the republic of ends” in the Rousseauian/Kantian sense and investigating if it is possible for the state to wither away. To this end, he debates several key concepts that were articulated by Rousseau, Kant, and Marx and then were further developed by such modern philosophers as Althusser, Wallerstein, and Arendt. Levine argues that Rousseau’s vision of a free people living cooperatively through the exercise of its general will under a stateless condition is not merely utopian nonsense but can be an applicable and realist vision. However, in order for this to happen, Rousseau has to be expanded beyond his own economic and historical framework through the incorporation of Marxian political theory, especially the concept of historical materialism (Levine Citation1987, 154).
6 For example, Levine admitted that even in a socialist society, class exploitation and oppression might continue. However, he did not see that exploitation or oppression by itself could prevent the Rousseauian/Marxian ideal from being materialized. As an alternative to this undesired likelihood, Levine suggested a democratized socialism under which the exploitation of underprivileged classes would be done away with. At that point, the state would end and a republic of ends would take its place (Levine Citation1987).
7 Barrow analyses the Marxian theory of the state under five major schools of thought: The Plain Marxism (Instrumentalist School, Ralph Miliband and Paul Sweezy), Neo-Marxism (The Structuralist Approach, Nicos Poulantzas), Derivationism (Elmar Altvater), Post Marxism (The Systems-Analytic Model, Claus Offe and Jurgen Habermas), and the Organizational-Realist Approach (Theda Skocpol). Although Barrow discusses the antinomies of Marxist political theory and concludes that none of these approaches could maintain a dominant position over the rest, he identifies two themes that are shared commonly by all these five schools: The first is the question of how the state realizes the interests of the capitalist classes, and the second is the question of why the state prefers to serve the interest of the capitalist classes. The answer to the first question is simple: The capitalist state realizes class interests through public policies and specific arrangements of the state apparatus. The answer to the second question is less clear: Empirical and historical forces push the state to be in the service of the dominant classes (Barrow Citation1993).
8 For Wertheim, “restriction of the concept of emancipation to class struggle, with the proletarian class as the dynamic force, is much too narrow an interpretation of emancipation as an historical and sociological phenomenon” (Wertheim Citation1992, 258).
9 Liberation of national, in part, suggests, as argued by Wertheim, a check on the “market forces standing in the way of emancipation, or to protect the popular masses from catastrophic developments.” Catastrophic developments may include destructive interference by “the neo-colonial forces which dominate the economy” and by other potential threats such as sanctions and invasions (Wertheim Citation1992, 275).
10 In another word, while ahistoricism suggests state of being, anti-historicism suggests state of becoming. In the contemporary international system, the anti-historical state is embodied in the hegemonic agency which ensures that the existing order is maintained and emancipatory demands are subdued. Ahistorical states often cluster around the principal anti-historical agent and, at times, act in coordination with the principal agent, e.g., participating in wars as part of a coalition of the willing. However, it is the anti-historical principal agent that poses the most formidable challenge to the emancipatory forces because of its inherent ideational capacity standing on strong political and economic fundamentals.
11 It is true that “the state’s role in world politics has been growing dramatically.” However, although states have multiplied in number as the dominant form in global system ever since decolonization, their sovereignty has remained in danger because of the presence of the threat of intervention. In this sense, the state’s status as a primary actor has not been reflected in actual practice of international governance (Bull Citation1979, 112). In Hoffmann’s words, “The old boy is still there, but he has lost much of his vigor and bite” (Hoffmann Citation1968, 42).
12 For a detailed account of the basic principles of China’s foreign diplomacy, see Ye (Citation2014).
13 Material capacity is seen as the precondition to actualize the emancipatory intent. As a matter of fact, according to Marcuse and Neumann, it has been the radical transformations in the mode and relations of production, which “cut across the fixed distinctions” among social classes, that lead to “the result of the emancipated individualistic interests and of the ever changing constellation of economic forces” (Marcuse and Neumann Citation1994, 117).
14 The proto-realist arguments of many Marxist theorists of new imperialism (e.g., Alex Callinicos, David Harvey, Peter Gowan, etc.) view all great powers (including China) as essentially capitalist and thus operating under the same intersecting logics of geopolitical and economic competition and domination.