The Relationship Between Problem-Solving Theory And Neutrality

Continuing on the suggestion that theory and neutrality cannot coincide, Cox elaborates by describing each theory as having a perspective which is derived from a “social and political time and space” (Cox, 1981: 128). These perspectives stick to theory, but do not always lead them. “Sophisticated theory is never just the expression of perspective” (Cox, 1981: 128), and therefore, even though theory may have a perspective and ‘some purpose’, this does not mean it cannot transcend it. However, it will still be there in the background, aware of social pressures that present themselves as problems to the consciousness (Cox, 1981). The nature of theory is to be aware of these problems, and to serve two possible purposes; provide a guide of tactical

The relationship between problem-solving theory and neo-realism is that they share the flawed notion of assuming that theory can be universally valid. His stance on the outgrown position neo-realism has within IR shows through his dismissiveness towards problem-solving theory and his likeness towards critical theory. Cox gives pros and cons of both problem-solving and critical theory, describing the relationship between them as “the strength of one is the weakness of the other” (Cox, 1981: 129). However, when disproving the value-free status of theory, he focuses mainly on problem-solving, concluding that its strength of assuming a fixed point of reference is actually an ideological bias (Cox, 1981: 129). He comes to this conclusion by labelling problem-solving theory as conservative and value bound to the prevailing order. His harsh criticisms leave the (allegedly unintended) impression that it is a “distinctly second-rate activity” (Brown, 2016: 47). He dismisses problem-solving theory as not value-free because of its ideology and biased perspective, but this implies that critical theory is not ideological and based on a particular perspective, which then disproves his original claim on theory (Brown, 2016: 48). Although Cox does not deny the importance of solving direct, real-world problems, the loose technicalities within the explanation of problem-solving theory insist otherwise. His categorizing of problem-solving theory leads to an attitude where “being concerned directly with real-world problems is, in some sense, a matter of buying into a problem-solving frame of mind and turning away from the real task of critical theory” (Brown, 2016: 48). If this were the case, society would be stuck in constant structural change whenever conflict