While progress is not an inevitable function of the arrow of time, International Relations is becoming increasingly dependent on the idea of progress for its survival
Modernity is a theoretical paradigm that champions the faculty of reason, individual and sovereign rights, universalism, and the notion of continual progress. Central to modernity is the concept of continual progress, defined as “a never-ending process of internal ruptures and fragmentation within itself [modernity]” (Harvey 1989, 10–12).
Modernity in international relations (IR) emerged from liberal thought during the European Enlightenment, with thinkers like Immanuel Kant, Montesquieu, and John Locke (Beardsworth 2011, 174). These philosophers believed in the "liberating power of reason" (Devetak 1995, 31) to enlighten society and challenge existing frameworks. Kant, for instance, posited that the "critical use of reason" facilitates continuous moral progress (Devetak 1995, 32–33), implying that truth should not be accepted without rational critique. Montesquieu emphasized the universality of justice based on common principles in both domestic and international law (Devetak 1995, 34). Locke argued that all individuals are born with inalienable natural rights—life, liberty, and property (Locke 1980). The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 legally established sovereign rights, entitling states to exist as independent, self-governing units (Osiander 2001, 269). For Kant, overcoming irrational social constructs that limit individual rights or state sovereignty was imperative (Hurrell 1990, 193). Thus, modernity embodies universal liberation through the power of reason to attain inalienable rights.
A common thread among Enlightenment thinkers—and later advanced by critical theorists like Georg Hegel, Karl Marx, and Theodor Adorno—is the idea of progress. This perspective suggests that "history is punctuated by catalytic episodes—events that can become guideposts toward a more open and civilized world" (Zelikow 2017). The notion of progress implies that the past was qualitatively inferior to the present, establishing a temporal hierarchy (Friedman 2015, 86). Such a framework can lead to overstating the importance of certain events while neglecting broader discourses. For example, emphasizing the Treaty of Westphalia in establishing sovereignty may obscure the role industrialization played in solidifying sovereign borders (Osiander 2001, 283). Spatially, modernity assumes that places where "new paradigmatic shifts" originate are superior to those that must "modernize" (Friedman 2015, 86). Kant advocated for an "authoritative interpretation of common rules [modernity] and the enforcement of those rules," even against the will of the "less modernized" (Hurrell 1990, 191).
In IR, this spatial and temporal divide has manifested hierarchically; European imperial powers often justified colonial expansion as civilizing missions, asserting dominance over colonized peoples. In pre-colonial India, time was measured through Yugas or epochs—cyclical temporal frameworks beginning with moral purity and ending with widespread immorality (Sundarraj 1997, 219). Rebirth within these Yugas was based on one's moral deeds or Karmas, making progress an individual measure (Sundarraj 1997, 219). Societies in the Indian subcontinent organized hierarchies and traditions around this narrative of karmic progress. British colonialism disrupted this temporal system and associated social identities.
While the inherent spatial and temporal politics within modernity make it an unreliable measure of progress, it remains an effective political tool in IR. Modernity and the idea of progress have provided much of the ideological foundation for contemporary IR. The Kantian vision of cosmopolitan organizations addressing global problems materialized through institutions like the United Nations (UN), INTERPOL, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) (Hurrell 1990, 203; Pevehouse and Goldstein 2021, 15). These organizations act as arbitrators of global conflict, protect human rights worldwide, and serve as forums to negotiate sovereign interests. Their expanding role in solving global issues like climate change and terrorism demonstrates the success of the modernist approach in IR (Pevehouse and Goldstein 2021, 265). Progress is central to these organizations, with global indicators like the Human Development Index, Gross Domestic Product, and Climate Change Reports measuring progress universally. Mechanisms like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) have emerged as norms of humanitarian intervention to safeguard citizens globally (Buzan and Hansen 2015, 215). Human rights movements such as universal suffrage, feminism, and LGBTQ rights have gained global momentum, affirming shared transnational identities and the imperative to defend them (Pevehouse and Goldstein 2021, 112–13).
The impact of international organizations, along with the proliferation of media and social media, has facilitated global responses to protect human rights. In 2014, Michael Brown, an African American man in the U.S., was killed in an incident of racially driven police brutality. Nationwide protests ensued, with activists using social media to "share video clips, experiences, and Facebook posts on police violence and excessive use of force against African Americans" (Zeitzoff 2017, 1975). The subsequent global outrage amplified the Black Lives Matter movement, garnering international recognition and support (Zeitzoff 2017, 1975). This illustrates how discourses can transcend socio-spatial boundaries through digital platforms.
In the twentieth century, scholars like Fernand Braudel, Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben, and Jacques Derrida developed a more contextual, transnational, and postcolonial understanding of modernity through postmodernity (Beardsworth 2011, 175). As identities became more transnational, the idea of progress localized. The ability of progress to narrativize discourses—national or international—makes it a potent political rhetoric. In contemporary IR, progress is central to justifying transnationalism and globalization. It fosters the notion of collective struggle that must "drive progress throughout the world," while recognizing an "international order of laws and institutions" (Zelikow 2017). Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asserted that the UN must "close the gap between the world as it is, and the world as it should be" (United Nations 2014).
Bibliography
Beardsworth, Richard. 2011. "The Postmodern Critique of Cosmopolitanism." In Cosmopolitanism and International Relations Theory, 172–80. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Buzan, Barry, and Lene Hansen. 2015. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Devetak, Richard. 1995. "The Project of Modernity and International Relations Theory." Millennium: Journal of International Studies 24 (1): 27–51.
Friedman, Susan Stanford. 2015. Planetary Modernisms: Provocations on Modernity across Time. New York: Columbia University Press.
Harvey, David. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hurrell, Andrew. 1990. "Kant and the Kantian Paradigm in International Relations." Review of International Studies 16 (3): 183–205.
Locke, John. 1980. Second Treatise of Government. Edited by C. B. Macpherson. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Osiander, Andreas. 2001. "Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Westphalian Myth." International Organization 55 (2): 251–87.
Pevehouse, Jon C., and Joshua S. Goldstein. 2021. International Relations. Harlow, England: Pearson.
Sundarraj, M. 1997. "Asvins—Time-Keepers." In Rg Vedic Studies, edited by N. Mahalingam, 219–40. Coimbatore: Rukmani Offset Press.
The Economist. 2019. "Narendra Modi and the Struggle for India's Soul." March 2. https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/03/02/narendra-modi-and-the-struggle-for-indias-soul.
United Nations. 2014. "Press Conference by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon at United Nations Headquarters." August 12. https://press.un.org/en/2014/sgsm16150.doc.htm.
Zeitzoff, Thomas. 2017. "How Social Media Is Changing Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution 61 (9): 1970–91.
Zelikow, Philip. 2017. "Is the World Slouching toward a Grave Systemic Crisis?" The Atlantic, August 24. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/08/zelikow-system-crisis/536205/.