Robert W. Cox’ Contribution in the International Relation

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

International relation is a discipline principally developed as an avenue of facilitating peaceful processes of change hence avoiding mass conflicts in the future after WWII. Since the modern international relations view this aim as crucial in that field, political complexities are characterizing the modern world call for an extension of the discipline to incorporate wider perspectives.

International relations theories entangle “the development of conceptual frameworks and theories to facilitate the understanding and explanation of events and phenomena in world politics, as well as to analyze and informing the associated policies and practices” (Jones 2000, p.11). To provide an impeccable understanding of international relations discipline, people have advanced several theories since its inception.

The paper presents the contribution of the works of Robert W. Cox in enriching the discipline of international relations. It accomplishes this by sketching his autobiography, development of his scholarship thereby conducting a summary of his work followed by evaluation and contextualization of the contribution of his works to the wider field of IR. It also warrants a critique of Cox’s texts based on the introspection of two authors who have proactively engaged with his work.

Autobiography

Born in 1926, Robert W. Cox graduated with a master’s degree in history from Mc Gill University situated in Montreal. He started his professional career life in 1947 where he worked at the international labor organization based in Geneva, Switzerland. During this time, he proactively participated in the engineering of the international institute for labor. In 1965 to 1971, he served as the director of the international institute for labor studies, a constituent organization of the international labor organization.

Upon leaving the international labor organization, he joined the Columbia University, teaching staff. Later in 1977 to 1992, he worked in York University situated in Toronto, Canada in the capacity of a political science professor. Upon his formal retirement, he continued to give occasional lectures at the same university.

Development of Robert W. Cox scholarship

Robert Cox is perhaps famous for “his fierce and unwavering challenge of orthodoxy, as well as his historical approach” (Moolakkattu 2010, Para 2) in his scholarship. His first scholarly contributions, while at the University of Columbia, were merely conventional and predominantly reflective of his experience at the ILO.

As Moolakkattu (2010) notes, while at York University “he began to reassert himself in a historical manner, reflective of his previous training at McGill University, which enabled him to take on more ambitious themes” (Para.3). It is from here that Robert W. Cox emerged as a critical theorist, highly inspired by Marxist theories.

He argued, “Theory is always for someone for some purpose” (Cox & Sinclair 1996, p.76). Building on the earlier ideas brought by Gramsci, coupled with some other sources, he developed the critical theory of international relations. In addition to Production, Power, and World of Orders, Robert W. Cox also wrote publications such as Forces in Making of History in 1987 and Political Economy of Plural World Critical Reflections on Power and civilizations in 2002.

Summary and contribution of Robert W. Cox’s work to the wider field of international relations

His inputs to the field of international relations tend to hold the discipline of international relations in a framework that is transformational. As Moolakkattu (2010) reckons, “his theory goes beyond the neorealist state-centric framework, bringing out the connections between material conditions, ideas and institutions in what he terms the formation of world orders” (Para.1).

In the production sphere, people organize themselves in certain ways. Cox asserts that these ways affect not only people’s lives but also their states and the order of the world.

In his scholarly work, he objects the propositions of Marxism proclaiming that the changes of an order may emanate from material conditions, institutions and or spheres of ideas. He “identifies the creation of a vibrant civil society, emergence of organic intellectuals representing the marginalized, development of community-level solidarity, participatory democracy, non-violent methods of conflict resolution, pluralism and multilateralism as key elements of his transformational agenda” (Cox & Sinclair 1996, p.53).

Through this theory, he adds an incredible amount of information into the existing knowledge of international relations. His ideas focused on transformations of the discipline of international relations coupled with the conception of strategies deemed appropriate for such transformations.

In the wider field of international relations, the contribution of Cox’s work narrows down to the development of neo-Gramscian perspectives. The key influencers of his scholarly work such as Braudel, Vico, and Gramsci portray Cox’s commitment to the historical methodology of bringing in new approaches of understanding the concerns of international relations.

This is contrary to “an alternative tradition to positivist social science and…is the proper route towards the study of historical structures and structural change” (Cox & Sinclair 1996, p.29). The ontology of the world of orders constitutes another significant contribution of his scholarly work toward widening the knowledge base, as well as the capacity to understand the field of international relations. In this ontology, some topics are imperative towards fostering this contribution.

One of such topics is “the role of a revitalized civil society in determining the future of global governance and the prospect of generating legitimacy through the coexistence of peaceful civilizations” (Cox & Schechter 2002, p. x). By noting the complexity of the modern political interactions, this topic has immense substance on the new approaches of international relations in the future political conflicts resolutions.

Scholarly Criticisms

Richard Wyn Jones is one of the scholars who rose up to applaud the critical theory. In his book Critical Theory And Worlds Of Politics, he claims that historical awareness is a central feature of the critical theory, which recognizes that all categories and perspectives have to be amended, even abandoned entirely, as societies change” (Jones 2000, p.43). This truth is, in fact, present in the Marxism IR theory.

In an attempt to place dialogue, exclusion, and the existence of differences at the fore fronts in the resolution of international stalemates, according to Jones’ critical theory is subtle for consideration. However, he believes that “one recurrent criticism of critical theory in international studies is that it has to deliver a substantive research agenda” (Jones 2000, p.45).

This criticism extends to concerns of ontology. In this context, Jones argues based on how IR stands out as a misleading and an inadequate approach of attempting to find the objects of searching for ample knowledge in the manner in which the international community interrelates. This argument is significant since the critical theory is part of the wider discipline of IR.

Leysen is yet another scholar significantly inspired by the work of Robert W. Cox. In The Critical Theory of Robert W. Cox, he argues, “The inspirations’ wellbeing of Robert W. Cox’s work is often misunderstood and incorrectly represented” (Leysens 2008, p.5). He further asserts that Cox’s works, especially the critical theory, presents both opportunities and challenges for future economists who deploy political perspectives, which are critical in nature.

Cox’s tolerance to ambiguities of diversity, according to him, is vital for bridging the gap “between rationalists and interpretive approaches to political economies by pointing us towards a critical empiricist theory of political economy” (Leysens 2008, p. 47). Cox’s contribution to the IR body of knowledge is significant especially in the modern world of diversity and sophistication of political systems.

Personal criticisms

Upon reading Robert W. Cox’s Critical Theory of World of Order, several queries come to mind. The magnitude of the truth of Cox’s claims about the role of critical theory in the field of international relations intrigues me. His ideas on the role of the theories of IR perhaps depict more of an endeavor to introspect the world the way it is instead of unveiling the way it ought to be: the reality. In this extent, he inculcates a methodology of understanding it coupled with altering it via the power of criticism.

According to him, a theory serves two principle functions. “…One of them is the problem-solving purpose that is synchronic, which deals with the givens, trying to manage the smooth functioning of the system” (Cox 1985, p.91). The second purpose perhaps exemplifies itself in the critical theory.

In this end, theory purposes in aiding one to “become aware of the situations not chosen by one, and to establish an emancipatory perspective” (Cox 1986, p.87). Consequently, from a Coxian frame, it is perhaps evident that the concerns of international relations resulted from its inception, following the end of the Second World War. They relied on the purposes of theorizing the necessity of a smooth system.

Realism, as a form of a critical theory of international relations, is impeccably dependent on Robert W. Cox’s interpretation and differentiation of problem-solving and critical theory. Critical theory is predominantly normative. It advocates for a conception of probable structural transformations. On the other hand, problem-solving approaches in international relations tend to be tactical.

Now, Cox deserves to admit that his proposed critical theory is perhaps an attempt to advocate for a critical approach to handling international relations matters. The question here is what yields more fruits in terms of resolution of international stalemates. Is it adopting problem-solving strategies or critical introspection of the causes of such stand offs?

This question is perhaps significant by noting that the former concerns itself more with looking for a solution that fosters coexistence in the future upon the resolution of conflicts. The latter seeks to unveil the realism of such conflicts.

Conclusion

The discipline of international relation came after the Second World War as a means of fostering a peaceful coexistence of people across the globe. Since then, people have put forward many theories to explain the concerns of the discipline.

Robert W. Cox is one of such theorists. While noting the contribution of his critical theory in the international relations discipline, the paper recognizes the need for additional theories and frameworks in an endeavor to amplify the scope of the existing understanding of the discipline. This perhaps may result in the emergence of more subtle practices and policies that are essential for giving rise to better ways of handling international conflicts of the future.

References

Cox, R., 1985. Realism, Marxism, and an approach to a critical theory of world order, inApproaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Cox, R., 1986. Social Forces, States and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theory. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cox, R., & Sinclair, T., 1996. Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, R., & Schechter, M., 2002. The Political Economy of a Plural World: Critical Reflections on Power, Morals and Civilization. London: Routledge.

Jones, R., 2000. Critical Theory and World of Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Leysens, A., 2008. The Critical Theory of Robert W. Cox. New York: Mac Millan Publishers.

Moolakkattu, J., 2010. Robert W. Cox and His Critical Theory of International Relations. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!