Paradigm Shifts: Critical Theories and Globalisation in Modern International Relations

For most of the twentieth century, the study of international relations was dominated by two big families of ideas: realism and liberalism. They asked who held power and how states cooperated. But when the Cold War ended in 1991 without the great-power war that realists had spent decades anticipating, the discipline faced an uncomfortable question. If the dominant theories could not explain the single most important event of the era, what exactly were they good for? Out of this crisis came a wave of new approaches-constructivism, feminism, and post-modernism among them-that did not just offer better answers but asked entirely different questions. This is the story of how international relations turned a critical eye on itself, and how globalisation kept that conversation urgent.

Why the old theories ran out of road 🔗

Realism and liberalism were both built on a shared foundation called positivism-the belief that the social world can be studied like the natural world, through observable facts, measurable variables, and law-like predictions. Realism viewed international politics as a permanent struggle for power among self-interested states. Liberalism stressed that trade, institutions, and democracy could soften that struggle. Both, however, treated states and their interests as fixed, given, and waiting to be explained.

The peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union exposed the limits of this approach. The dominant rationalist theories struggled to account for how the Cold War ended without a full-blown war, and a growing number of scholars began voicing dissatisfaction with the narrow range of explanations on offer. This intellectual upheaval is often called the “third debate” in the discipline-a confrontation between positivism and a cluster of post-positivist approaches that questioned whether objective, value-free knowledge of world politics was even possible.

Critical theories: a different way of thinking 🔗

The label “critical theories” covers a broad and sometimes uneasy family. It includes constructivism, feminism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, and the Marxist-inspired Frankfurt School tradition. What unites them is not a single doctrine but a shared instinct. They are interdisciplinary, and they challenge the traditional theories on questions of ontology and epistemology-that is, on what the world is made of and how we can claim to know it.

The deeper roots of this tradition reach back to the philosophical work of Immanuel Kant and Karl Marx, but the immediate engine was the Frankfurt School. Its scholars made a sharp distinction between traditional theory and critical theory. Traditional theory, in their view, simply describes the existing order and tries to predict how it will behave. Critical theory, by contrast, focuses on political struggles that reveal how an alternative society is already latent within the present one. The goal is not just to explain the world but to change it.

Constructivism: the world we build with ideas 🔗

Constructivism is the most widely accepted of these approaches, partly because it speaks a language mainstream scholars can recognise. Its core claim is that international relations is a social and historical construct rather than a fixed natural fact. Constructivism stresses the role of identity, norms, and shared ideas in shaping political action, and it emphasises the mutually constitutive relationship between agents (actors like states) and structures (the systems they operate within). In plain terms, states are not just billiard balls bouncing off one another; their interests are formed by how they understand themselves and others.

Consider a practical example. Why does India react very differently to nuclear weapons held by a friendly state than to those held by a rival? A purely material calculation cannot explain this-a warhead is a warhead. What differs is the social meaning attached to the relationship. Constructivists argue these meanings are not background noise; they are the very substance of international politics. Some scholars suggest constructivism is best understood not as a rival theory but as an ontology and method of thinking about international relations-a different lens rather than a competing prediction.

Feminism: making gender visible 🔗

Feminist international relations emerged largely from the late 1980s onwards, and the end of the Cold War opened a wider space for it to grow. Its central move is to ask a deceptively simple question: where are the women in world politics? Traditional theories, feminists argue, claim to be neutral and universal while quietly building their entire picture of “rational” state behaviour around a narrow, masculine model of power and conflict.

The political scientist V. Spike Peterson argued that as long as gender remains invisible, it is unclear what taking it seriously even means. Feminist scholars point out that ideas about masculinity and femininity shape everything from who fights wars to whose labour sustains economies during them. Because of this concern with how knowledge itself is constructed, feminist work in the discipline is broadly grouped within reflectivism, alongside constructivism and post-structuralism-approaches that see state identities and interests as continuously in flux rather than permanently fixed.

Post-modernism and the politics of knowledge 🔗

Post-modernism, often used interchangeably with post-structuralism in this field, takes the most radical position. It questions whether any single, objective truth about world politics can exist at all. Its most influential intellectual source is the French philosopher Michel Foucault.

Foucault’s central insight is the inseparable link between power and knowledge. For him, power is not simply something a state possesses, like money in a vault. It is relational and pervasive, and it works through the production of knowledge itself. Power produces knowledge, and that knowledge in turn reinforces power, so the two exist through one another. Applied to international relations, this means we should be suspicious of any theory that presents itself as plain common sense. When realism describes a dangerous, anarchic world, post-modernists argue, it is not just observing reality-it is helping to create the very competitive system it claims merely to describe.

Foucault said very little about international politics directly, yet his influence on the discipline runs deep. Scholars have used his work in three main ways: to take apart the assumptions of established theories, to analyse the language and discourse of global politics, and to study how power operates through everyday practices of governance. His ideas first entered through early critiques of the reigning paradigms, then discourse analysis, and later governmentality studies.

Andrew Linklater and the promise of emancipation 🔗

If post-modernism asks us to doubt every claim to truth, where does that leave the hope of making the world better? This is where the work of the British theorist Andrew Linklater becomes important. Inspired by the Frankfurt School, Linklater dedicated much of his career to building a critical and emancipatory research agenda for international relations.

Emancipation is the key word. For critical theorists, the purpose of studying world politics is to identify the structures that needlessly harm and exclude people, and then to imagine ways of dismantling them. The Frankfurt School argued that analysing complex social dynamics matters only insofar as it helps scholars see how social movements could be mobilised as a pathway for emancipatory politics.

Linklater pushed this further by questioning the moral significance of national borders. In works such as The Transformation of Political Community, he argued for a more cosmopolitan ethics-one that does not stop caring about people simply because they happen to live on the other side of a frontier. His project was an attempt to move beyond both realism and Marxism by widening the circle of who counts in our moral and political reasoning. Whether such universal ethics can survive in a world of competing states remains one of the discipline’s most absorbing debates.

Globalisation: the great accelerant 🔗

These theoretical shifts did not happen in a vacuum. The very same years that produced critical theories also produced an explosion of globalisation-the deepening integration of economies, cultures, and political systems across borders. Globalisation gave critical theory something concrete to chew on, because it scrambled the neat picture of a world neatly divided into sovereign states.

The opportunity and the inequality debate 🔗

For India, the turning point was the balance-of-payments crisis of 1991, when foreign exchange reserves had fallen so low they could barely cover a few weeks of imports. The government responded with the reforms collectively known as Liberalisation, Privatisation, and Globalisation (LPG), dismantling the old licensing system and opening the economy to foreign investment.

The results were genuinely transformative, but also deeply uneven, which is exactly the tension critical theorists highlight. Growth accelerated and consumer choice expanded, yet the benefits were concentrated among urban, skilled, and capital-rich groups while large rural populations saw far slower gains. Income inequality widened sharply: one study notes India’s Gini coefficient rose from around 0.32 in 1991 to roughly 0.38 by 2018. Critical theorists would press a further question here: who decides that “growth” is the right yardstick in the first place, and whose experiences get left out of that measurement?

The challenge to sovereignty 🔗

Globalisation also unsettled the concept at the heart of traditional theory: sovereignty, the idea that a state holds supreme authority within its own territory. As nations integrate into global markets, their freedom to set independent trade and investment policy can be constrained. India’s deeper economic integration may compromise its sovereignty in decisions over trade and investment, while heavy reliance on imports can weaken domestic industries.

Powerful international institutions add another layer. Membership in bodies like the World Trade Organization, and the influence of the IMF and World Bank, mean that bodies beyond a nation’s borders exert real leverage over its internal choices, which directly challenges the classical idea of sovereignty. For constructivists and post-modernists, this is fascinating evidence that the sovereign state-long treated as the natural, permanent unit of world politics-is itself a construction that can be reshaped over time.

Why these debates still matter 🔗

The arrival of critical theories did not settle international relations into a tidy consensus. If anything, it made the field messier and more honest. Mainstream realists and liberals still produce influential work, and critics rightly point out that some critical theories can be abstract, dense, or short on practical policy guidance. Yet the overall effect has been to reveal the discipline as far more dynamic and contested than the old two-theory picture suggested.

Constructivism reminded everyone that ideas and identities shape interests. Feminism insisted that whole categories of human experience had been written out of the story. Post-modernism, through Foucault, taught a permanent suspicion of any theory that claims to be simply describing reality. And thinkers like Linklater kept alive the moral hope that understanding the world is the first step toward improving it. Set against the backdrop of globalisation-with its tangled trade-offs between prosperity and inequality, integration and sovereignty-these approaches give us the vocabulary to ask harder, fairer questions about how the world is actually organised.

What do you think? If our theories of world politics help create the reality they claim only to describe, what kind of international order might we be building right now without realising it? And when globalisation forces a trade-off between economic growth and rising inequality, whose voices should decide where the balance lies?

References

1. https://www.e-ir.info/2024/12/29/introducing-the-major-international-relations-theories/
2. https://www.academia.edu/39118124/THEORIES_OF_INTERNATIONAL_RELATIONS_II
3. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/university-of-delhi/ma-political-science/3a-critical-theory-andrew-linklater-international-relations-theory-for-21st-century/95734789
4. https://www.academia.edu/23204965/Constructivism_Postmodernism_and_Feminism_in_International_Relations
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_international_relations
6. https://www.e-ir.info/2020/04/30/problematic-positivism-a-post-structural-critique-of-power-under-neorealism/
7. https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/12/foucault-and-international-relations/
8. https://www.scielo.br/j/cint/a/LbVykRykNVqs3By54G8GV9g/?lang=en
9. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360902380_Bringing_the_Critical_Thinking_Back_in_A_Critique_of_Andrew_Linklater's_Theoretical_Contributions_to_International_Relations
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Linklater
11. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/impact-of-liberalization-privatization-and-globalization-lpg-on-the-indian-economy/
12. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/social-science/india-and-globalisation-class-12-political-science-notes/
13. https://lotusarise.com/globalisation-and-indian-society-upsc/