Introduction
The research community of quantum social theory has grown rapidly in the last decade and a half with the publication of books by Karen Barad (2007), Emmanuel Haven and Andrei Khrennikov (2013, 2017), Alexander Wendt (2015), and Laura Zanotti (2019). While the two earliest interventions noted here come from the disciplines of philosophy of science and finance, respectively, the latter two projects emerge from the growing âquantum communityâ within the discipline of International Relations (IR). Recent regional and annual conventions of the International Studies Association have seen a plethora of panel discussions and roundtables, alongside the Project Q symposia series at the University of Sydney and other events at the Ohio State Universityâs Mershon Centre and OP Jindal Global Universityâs Centre for Complexity Economics, Applied Spirituality, and Public Policy (CEASP). While much of the early attention in International Relations has been paid particularly to Wendtâs Quantum Mind and Social Science, the quantum IR community in fact includes a diverse set of approaches to the quantum question.1 Wendtâs pitch is grounded in what I will later call âquantum realism,â and he argues that there is a quantum reality to the social world, scaling quantum coherence from the smallest (panpsychist) subatomic particles in our brain neurons to the largest social phenomena. From this point, Wendtâs quantum social theory proceeds as a positivist enterprise that reports the world as it is actually constructed through quantum processes and interactions. Wendtâs compelling book and the sustained attention it has received in the half-decade since its release means that when people hear about quantum IR, there is sometimes an assumption that one is speaking of a Wendtian quantum realismâbut as Wendt himself acknowledges, there are multiple approaches to quantum thinking.
The strong association of âquantum IRâ with Wendtâs hard pitch for quantum realism has led many critical IR scholars to view the whole project with scepticism. Frequently, panels are questioned if the quantum project is but mere fetishism of science, a positivist project lacking in laboratory evidence, or an unnecessary import of complicated terminology to describe mechanisms and relations that can be adequately described in more established social-scientific or -theoretic language. While scepticism is encouraged and concerns about scientific fetishism and other issues are valid, it is my hope that the simultaneous recognition of the pluralism of quantum IR (on the part of new readers) and clearer articulation of the value of quantum social theory for existing research communities (on the part of quantum social theorists) would serve to assuage many concerns that critical IR scholars may have about quantum approaches. There is no one way to bring quantum thinking into International Relations, and just because one pathway appears problematic does not mean that any kind of quantum journey is similarly fraught. Just as critical scholars of International Relations do not assess the critical utility of IR theory writ large through an evaluation of political realism alone, the reluctance to accept a hard pitch of quantum realism should not dissuade engagement with similarly critical approaches to quantum social theory.2 This is not to say that a hearty dose of scepticism is unwarranted, but that dialogue with friendly interlocutors will prove most welcoming for critical IR scholars. I will focus in this book on how quantum social theory presents an intuitive vocabulary for scholars of critical IR.
This introductory discussion will briefly explore how quantum mechanics and critical IR remain open to uncertainty and paradox and introduce the concept of the âNewtonian imaginaryâ before explaining the structure of the main text. Identifying the common ground between quantum mechanics (or quantum social theory) and critical IR serves to foreground why âquantizing critiqueâ through translation and application of core concepts in quantum social theory will in fact present an intuitive vocabulary for many critical IR scholars. Both quantum mechanics and critical IR interrogate rather than gloss uncertain and paradoxical elements of reality. The preliminary exploration of the common ground shared by what we might call the quantum and critical dispositions offers encouragement for future engagement with the topic. The discussion turns to a consideration of a core idea that appears throughout the bookâthe physical imaginary. Given the importance of language and thinking in structuring our range of experience with the world as researchers,3 I argue that an important part of quantizing critique consists of interrogating how Newtonian assumptions are embedded in social science. As will be discussed below, moving from a Newtonian to a quantum physical imaginary is a key step on the journey to realizing the new questions that open up when we quantize our modes of critique.
Critical IR and Quantum Theory: In Search of Common Ground
The history of âcritical IRâ is as complex and contingent upon significant but arbitrary delineations as the subject matter it interrogates. One common narrative claims an origin in the work of R.W. Cox, especially in his oft-cited division between critical theory and problem-solving theory (1981), similarly expressed as âdissident thoughtâ in a formative special issue of International Studies Quarterly (Ashley and Walker 1990). The critical project in IR grew through pluralizing, opening up space for new objects of study, theoretical frameworks, and methodological designs, all motivated to ask a new set of questions about the worldâthe mission was not to solve problems of efficiency for policy-makers, but to âstan[d] apart from the prevailing order of the world and as[k] how the order came aboutâ (Cox 1981, 129). While Coxâs formulation calls both for the questioning of the prevailing order and the pursuit of transformational politicsâin a move similar to but distinct from Horkheimerâs separation of critical and traditional theory (Brincat 2016)âthe trajectory of critical IR often now focuses more on the former mission than the latter (see Hynek and Chandler 2013).
The moniker of âcritical IR,â then, is at its most valuable as a separation of approaches seeking to question prevailing wisdom from other approaches which are then cast as precisely that prevailing wisdom to be questioned. For the purposes of this book, I will bracket the gatekeeping debates internal to various communities of research, including the necessity of forwarding emancipatory political aims. I take a big-tent perspective on critical scholarship that includes all communities following Coxâs call to question the prevailing order rather than to solve its problems or tinker around the edges. Holding this definition follows Coxâs strategic move4 rather than his substantive concern with emancipation. The effectiveness of this strategic move is not lost on proponents of âcriticalâ subfields, demonstrated clearly in the editorial launches of recent journals, including Critical Studies on Terrorism (Breen Smyth et al. 2008), Critical Studies on Security (Mutimer et al. 2013), and Critical Military Studies (Basham et al. 2015). While the subjects covered and methodologies employed in these and other self-identified âcriticalâ research communities vary widely, membership in the big-tent definition of critical IR entails a shared desire to question in new ways and favour precise details over predictability.
The rise of quantum mechanics can be seen as a moment similar to the rise of critical IR. As many commentators from the philosophy of science have noted (e.g. Kuhn 2012), everyday activity in scientific research aims for marginal progress that solves minor problems of the day before, and grand revolutions can only come about when the dominant paradigm collapses under the weight of contradictions. The development of quantum mechanics out of classical mechanics did not happen immediately, but was possible only because of paradoxical elements of Newtonian science which sojourned in the liminal space of the âOld Quantum Theory.â Here, the central mission of people like Planck, Einstein, and Bohr was to find new ways of accounting for the number of conceptual problems evident in Newtonian physicsâ explanations of microscopic phenomena that grew steadily as experimental technologies and mathematical models became more sophisticated. Einsteinâs 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect is notable to this end precisely because he is explicit about finding a new way to look at the problem from the very title: âOn a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Lightâ (Einstein 2005). It was clear that, to progress, physicists would have to change course and develop a new imaginary that permitted new kinds of questions to be asked about the microworld than were possible within the conceptual apparatus of Newtonian science.
Much like the parallel sometimes posited between Newton and Einstein within physics circles, the parallel here posited ...