Critical Terrorism Studies, Critical Theory and the 'Naturalistic Fallacy'

This article problematizes how Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS) utilizes Coxian and Frankfurt School Critical Theory to support an emancipatory project. The article broadly takes the example of CTS to illustrate the dangers of the 'pearl fishing' method, occasionally used within critical international relations, where a section of a philosophical position is appropriated without regard for the whole. As Horkheimerian Critical Theory relies upon a far broader philosophy than CTS acknowledges, it is argued that the appropriated emancipatory foundation cannot make sense in soundbite form. Such stunted interaction with the wider philosophy of Critical Theory leaves CTS susceptible to the charge of logical error, specifically that contained in the 'naturalistic fallacy'. The naturalistic fallacy is a charge drawn from the philosophy of logic that takes improper derivation of 'ought' from 'is' within argumentation as its referent. The relationship between international relations and Critical Theory does not have to be so unsatisfactory, however, and this article concludes with suggestions for a route whereby emancipatory commitment might be adopted without such problems of normative origination.