Description
This paper offers a polemic rejoinder to the debate about the relevance of discourse-theoretical approaches to foreign policy analysis (FPA). It argues that Discursive Foreign Policy Analysis (DFPA) is now a well-established approach to the study of foreign policy and its proponents should not be too defensive about their achievements. On the other hand, there is a problematic tendency to reduce the study of discourse to a method, which obscures DFPA’s roots in critical theory and its explicit dedication to ‘changing the world’ (Marx). To gain broader relevance, DFPA should return to these roots and double-down on this ethical and political dimension, which is too often overlooked in the existing research. I will discuss this in two steps. First, I will review the recent call for a ‘critical turn’ made by some mainstream FPA scholars, suggesting that this opening could offer space for an interesting intellectual encounter. Important caveats are in place, though, especially concerning the potentially rather limited scope of critique that the mainstream FPA may be ready to accept. Second, and more importantly, I will turn to the question of DFPA’s broader public role, where I will argue for taking a more active public role, and outline what this might look like.
