i

The English School of International Relations Theory:

heir apparent or illegitimate pretender?

Major Mark Totten RM

What were the situational and psychological conditions in po

UK Student Disclaimer

“The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the UK Ministry of Defence, or any other department of Her

Britannic Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom. Further, such views should not be considered as constituting an official endorsement of factual accuracy, opinion,

conclusion or recommendation of the UK Ministry of Defence, or any other department of Her Britannic Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom”.

“© Crown Copyright 2012-05-30

ii

Abstract

This paper is a study into the contemporary relevance of the English School of international relations theory. It assesses the concepts at the heart of the English School approach, notably the international society and Martin Wight’s ‘three traditions’ of international theory. The enduring relevance of these concepts sets the foundation for the argument that the English School should be considered as a core theory of international relations. This argument is subsequently reinforced by considering the English Schools position as a theory that bridges the rationalist and reflectivist divide. The paper then facilitates the English School’s development towards this position by proposing that a Critical Realist philosophical foundation is established within the School and suggesting a normative model of international society through which to achieve greater ontological clarity.

1

The English School of International Relations (IR) theory corralled some of the most eminent IR

scholars and practitioners within the United Kingdom during the second half of the twentieth

century. A stream of enduring and insightful publications flowed from the network that formed

around the London School of Economics (LSE) and the British Committee of International

Relations. The School, however, remained on the periphery of the IR continuum until the turn of

the century, with even advocates of the approach disputing its origins and who to consider as its

central scholars. More recently, the English School has generated interest within the IR

community and now attracts a diverse range of followers, although it has yet to satisfactorily

breach the traditional geographical boundary that Roy Jones’ famous epithet so accurately

exposed.1

This paper will argue that it is time for the English School to come of age, in that it should be

considered as a central theory of International Relations (IR), which occupies the theoretical space

between the rationalist and reflectivist paradigms. With epistemological development and greater

ontological clarity, the School has the potential to move beyond being a via media between the

rationalist and reflectivist disciplines, into a position where it is regarded as a grand theory2 at the

core of IR theorising. The vision that the researcher wishes to advocate for the English School is

one where it occupies a sovereign position within the domain of IR theory, one from where other

avenues of enquiry can diverge, but to which there can remain an immutable link. The

development of two central English School concepts will be fundamental to this endeavour: first,

Martin Wight’s three traditions of international theory as an approach that encompasses a

spectrum of theoretical perspectives and second, the international society as an ontology that is

unrivalled in its completeness across the IR spectrum. How successful the School is in attaining

higher status will also be determined by the manner in which it can utilise behaviourist principles to

add greater weight and specificity to causal analysis, whilst retaining a distinctly interpretive

approach to theorizing that possesses critical capacity. The plausibility of this argument has been

charted by revisions suggested by scholars such as Barry Buzan and the rise of critical realism,

which will support the thesis by being positioned as a meta-theory to the English School.

The study that will unfold below is, therefore, an examination of the plausibility of the English

School theory as a means of examining international affairs. It will not attempt to use the theory to

arrive at conclusions regarding international politics as an end in itself: rather, analysis will centre

on assessing the validity of the English School approach. The argument will be developed in four

distinct elements. First, the paper will explore the origins of the School and its central features.

1 Roy E Jones, “The English school of international relations: a case for closure,” Review of International

Studies 7: 1, 1981, 1 – 13. 2 Barry Buzan, From International to World Society? The English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation, (hereafter FIWS), (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004) 25.

2

Second, how the central tenets of the School relate to and support other conceptions of

international relations will be examined. Thereafter, the argument for situating the English School

within a critical realist philosophy will be outlined. Finally, the dominant criticisms of the School will

be exposed and subsequently harnessed to support ontological development of the theory.

In his ground-breaking treatment of the English School entitled Inventing International Society, Tim

Dunne places the identity of the School firmly with the British Committee of international relations,

founded in January 1959.3 However, in his polemic criticism that coined the term itself, Roy Jones

situated the English School within the LSE.4 Ian Hall, furthermore, views the LSE as central to the

School, indicating that the School’s core ideas – particularly the ‘‘neo-Grotian’ nature of

international relations - was embodied in the LSE curriculum.’5 The purpose of this paper is not to

explore the origins of the School: it will consider the School as having been generated from a

closely connected group of academics and IR practitioners, who encompassed both the British

Committee and the international relations department of the LSE. The academic mix that was

present at the School’s inception set a tone that has shaped the theory. Wight considered that the

primary aim for the British Committee was to ‘discover patterns of theory and practice in

international relations.’6 Vilho Harle views the original composition as a strength within the School

and one which should be encouraged. He contends that the interdisciplinary nature of the School

gives it the potential to ‘become a core field located somewhere between the various disciplines

contributing to the study of the international.’7 The central figures for the purposes of this study are

Hedley Bull, Martin Wight, Herbert Butterfield, Charles Manning and R. J. Vincent. In addition, the

contributions of contemporary theorists to the development of the School will also be considered,

most notably those of Barry Buzan, Richard Little and Ole Waever,.

It is indeed with Buzan and Little that the analysis of the constituent parts of the School begins.

Before exposing the principal tenets of the English School, it is important to understand that it a

broad church, a feature which reinforces the central thesis of this paper. Buzan and Little assert

that ‘theoretical pluralism, and an attempt to capture the totality of ‘international relations’ is a

central feature of what holds the English school together.’8 They view the School, furthermore, as

3 Tim Dunne, Inventing International Society. A History of the English School, (hereafter, Inventing) (Basingstoke: Macmillan,1998), xi. 4 Roy E. Jones, ‘The English school of internation al relations: a case for closure.’ Review of International Studies 7: 1, 1981, 2. 5 Ian Hall, “Still the English patient? Closures and inventions in the English school.” International Affairs, 77,

3 (2001), 936. 6 Dunne, Inventing, 95. 7 Vilho Harle, “Towards Interdisciplinary Research Programmes in International Studies” International Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches, eds. Pami Aalto, Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio, (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), 105 – 107. 8 Barry Buzan and Richard Little, “The ‘English patient’ strikes back: a response to Hall’s mis-diagnosis.” International Affairs, 77, 3 (2001), 943.

3

‘a tradition of conversation…in which people can participate without being committed to particular

strictures.’9 The English School should, in broad terms, be considered as an interpretive theory

that possesses a strong normative dimension; it arrives at judgements on international affairs by

applying a wide theoretical lens to the interpretation of history and contemporary politics. The

extent of the School’s ‘theoretical pluralism’ and the reach of its borders will define its relationship

with other IR theories and ultimately, determines its ability to become a mainstream theory in its

own right.

Dunne draws the borders of the English School along what he describes as ‘family resemblances,’

expressed as three ‘preliminary articles.’10 First he identifies ‘self-identification with a particular

tradition of enquiry.’11 Dunne is referring to what Hedley Bull defines as the ‘classical

approach…the approach to theorizing that derives from philosophy, history and law.’12 The

classical approach advocated by Bull required study of classical thinkers such as Hobbes, Kant

and most importantly, Hugo Grotius, a Dutch philosopher of the seventeenth century. The

historical nature of the approach should be considered as primus inter pares and is, arguably, most

clearly seen in the culminating work of the British Committee: The Expansion of International

Society. In his introduction Bull asserts:

[O]ur subject can be understood only in historical perspective, and that without an

awareness of the past that generated it, the universal international society of the present

can have no meaning.13

This approach evolved with the British Committee and can most clearly be observed in the Wight –

Bull – Vincent lineage.14 Dunne argues that it is ‘self-identification’ with this approach that

characterises members of the English School and therefore, the British Committee’s centrality

within the School, as all of its members displayed conscious adherence to the classical approach

championed by Wight and Bull.15 Contemporary advocates of the English School display a

similarly historical approach. In his article ‘Culture and international society’ Buzan embeds the

evolution of the contemporary international society within his judgements on future developments

in terms of global international society.16

9 ibid., 944. 10 Dunne, Inventing, 5. 11 ibid., 6. 12 Hedley Bull, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” in Contending Approaches to International Politics, eds. Klaus Knorr and James N. Rosenau, (Princeton: Princeton University Press: 1969), 20. 13 Hedley Bull and Adam Watson, The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1984), 9. 14 Dunne, Inventing, 6. 15 ibid. 16 Barry Buzan “Culture and international society” International Affairs 86: 1 (2010), 1 – 25.

4

Second, Dunne considers that the English School is founded on an interpretive approach. Bull

saw IR theorizing characterised by ‘explicit reliance on the exercise of judgement.’17 He was,

however, aware of the limitations of the interpretive methodology and acknowledged that IR

propositions ‘cannot be accorded anything more than the tentative and inconclusive status

appropriate to their doubtful origin.’18 In this statement, Bull unconsciously rebukes a criticism that

has been levelled against the original English School scholars: namely, they have ‘not themselves

been very explicit about the epistemological nature of their contentions.’19 Bull’s article clearly

expresses, on behalf of the English School, the importance of an interpretive approach, based on

the study of philosophy, history and law and furthermore, acknowledges the inherent difficulties

associated with creating knowledge in this manner.

The third ‘preliminary article’ that Dunne attributes to the English School is the unification of the

scholars in their view of IR as a normative theory.20 Of the three articles, this is perhaps the least

prominent within the English School, in that the theory prioritises judgements on the values that are

displayed within international society over championing those that should be present. In his

introduction to The Anarchical Society Bull is clear that the purpose of the text is not to ‘canvass

the merits of any particular vision of world order.’21 This central work of the English School is

notable for the manner in which Bull conveys a sense of neutrality towards the relationship

between order and justice he exposes. That said, despite counselling readers that Human Rights

and International Relations is ‘written by a student of international relations who takes human rights

seriously, not by an advocate of human rights whose conviction makes him oblivious to his

environment,’22 Vincent portrays a strong normative position throughout the work. Wight’s

exposition of realism, rationalism and revolutionism centres on the distinctive moral position

represented within each.23 He expressed, furthermore, his disposition towards rationalism on the

grounds of its ethical advantages.24 Whilst the English School scholars vary in the degree to which

their approach was normative in the sense of Critical Theory, Dunne is certainly justified in his

inclusion of a normative approach being one of the ‘preliminary articles’ of the School.

The Three Traditions

17

Bull, The Case for a Classical Approach, 20. 18

ibid. 19 Linklater and Suganami, The English School of International Relations, 6. 20

Dunne, Inventing, 9. 21 Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, (London: Macmillan, 1977), xv. 22 R. J Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 3. 23 Dunne, Inventing, 9. 24 Martin Wight, “Western Values in International Relations” Diplomatic Investigations, eds. Herbert Butterfield and Martin Wight, (London: Unwin, 1966), 89 – 131.

5

Martin Wight’s articulation of the three traditions of international theory - realism, rationalism and

revolutionism - sits at the theoretical core of the English School and is arguably, an aspect that

Dunne did not treat comprehensively enough in his definitive volume. Wight argued that

international affairs could only be comprehensively considered by the employment of realist,

rationalist and revolutionist perspectives. Robert Jackson describes this approach as a

‘comprehensive academic enterprise which emphasises the interactive relationship between all

three of these basic human inclinations in international relations.’25 The three traditions of

international theory seeks to capture the spectrum of beliefs that are used to explain international

politics, ranging from observations of state-centric national self interest to the normative belief in

the benefits of a Kantian world society.26 It is only through the employment of the three theoretical

traditions that one can hope to reach a holistic explanation of international politics: the inclusion of

all three within a single theory is a powerful argument in itself for the English School becoming a

grand theory of IR.

At this point it is necessary to expand each of the three traditions further and uncover the distinct

epistemologies behind them, as this is central to how the English School views IR theorising and

accordingly, our central thesis. Wight sees realism as a view that emphasises international

anarchy, power politics and warfare. Wight forwards E. H. Carr’s assertion that ‘it is from politics,

the conflict for power, that both morality and law derive their authority.’27 He considers realism to

apply an ‘affirmation about what is real’ and posits that realism is an acceptance of the

‘disagreeable aspects of life.’28 The acknowledgement of unpalatable, social facts comes as a

result of realism’s inductive methodology. Unsurprisingly, Wight argues that the realist theory is

based on a scientific approach, which he places in three distinct categories. First, he identifies a

mechanistic theory, adopted by Machiavelli and from which the concept of the balance of power

emanated. Second, he contends that a biological theory underpins the realist ‘philosophy’, which

he unambiguously ascribes to Darwin. Wight credits Darwin’s Origin of the Species and the theory

of natural selection as having had enormous influence in realist theory during the nineteenth

century. Finally, the psychological theory advanced by Hobbes was underpinned by a behaviourist

approach that discarded ethics. In sum, therefore, Wight accepts the positivist philosophy that

underpins realism and asserts: ‘the affirmations of Realists are empirical generalisations arrived at

inductively, they are statements of social laws.’29

Wight considers revolutionists to be those who believe in the ‘moral unity of the society of states.’

Revolutionists adopt a cosmopolitan view of international policies and strive for a revision of the

25 R. H. Jackson, “Is there a Classical International Theory?” in The English School of International Relations, 14. 26 Totten, MA Special Subject Essay, ACSC 15, 2012.. 27 Martin Wight, International Theory: The Three Traditions, (London: Leicester University Press, 1991), 17. 28 ibid., 16. 29 ibid, 21.

6

international structure in the name of universal justice for mankind. This is clearly a normative

approach that forwards how members of society view what ought to be and has been expressed in

theological ethics, as well as totalitarian and bourgeois revolution.

Rationalism, on the other hand, emphasises discourse and cooperation taking place in a

circumstance of international anarchy. Wight places diplomacy and commerce at the heart of

rationalism,30 an important emphasis for practical application of the theory. Traditional rationalists

unsurprisingly consider man to be rational, despite his inherent flaws. This position begins with the

epistemological approach of philosophers, such as Descartes, who contend that reason exists

beyond sensory experience. Wight, however, elevates Locke’s justification of rationalism: ‘men

live together according to reason even when they have no common government, as in the

condition of international relations.’31 Ultimately, Wight and other English School scholars, credit

Grotius as being the dominant rationalist thinker. Indeed, the term rationalism is used

interchangeably with ‘Grotian’ throughout the English School. Rationalism considers the world to

be governed by more than just the positive laws states have agreed upon, but also by laws of

nature that govern the universe. There are, in addition, institutions such as diplomacy and the

balance of power that regulate the international society, in the absence of a world government.32

Rationalism should be considered as the approach that best captures the aspects of international

society and is therefore afforded appropriate weight by English School writers.

If one places the three traditions at the centre of the English School, it is apparent that Dunne’s

‘preliminary articles’, whilst extremely perceptive, stop short of accounting for the epistemological

span that the English School encompasses. From the paragraphs above one can note that Martin

Wight did not discount the positivist approach that supports realism; it would be incoherent if he

did, as he viewed realism as axiomatic to a profound understanding of international relations. It is

undoubtedly this aspect of the theory that has led to the English School being dismissed as merely

a form of realism.33 It is also clear, however, that by encompassing the teleological approach of

rationalism and the normative, ethical stance of the revolutionists, Wight moves the theory

significantly beyond realism. Indeed, Wight stated that ‘reality’ was a three way conversation

between the three traditions.34 He allows this epistemological relativism to exist in a single theory

by arguing that context provides the stimulus for movement between each approach, so that ‘the

reflective person will perhaps feel free to move around the circle…without settling anywhere.’35

Wight defends the contextual approach by arguing, for example, that between 1914 and 1939 the

30 ibid, 7. 31 ibid, 14. 32

Dunne, Inventing, 59. 33 ibid, 3. 34 ibid, xiii. 35 Wight, International Theory, 268.

7

Kantian Bolshevik revolution and the Machiavellian Realpolitik of Nazi Germany destroyed the

ultimate Grotian achievement of the League of Nations.36 The inter-war period, therefore,

minimised the utility of the rationalist theorising as the international society was shaped by those

who applied international statecraft from realist and revolutionist perspectives.

If the English School is to achieve prominence within the IR discipline, the justification of

movement between what may be seen as three distinct theories must be articulated. Whilst

context provides a convincing argument for adjusting the theoretical position from which one

understands a particular event, or period, in international affairs, it does not rigorously validate the

co-existence of the three approaches in a single theory. If the theorist is permitted to oscillate

around Wight’s circle of traditions, can any single approach be held to account regarding its

account of what is true? Wight identified this weakness and offered the mitigation that one must

know where one stands at any given time to be capable of imparting advice. Wight did, however,

argue that his construct required a composite understanding of international theory:

They are not philosophically constant and pure like three stately, tranquil and independent

streams…They are streams, with eddies and cross currents, sometimes interlacing and

never for long confined to their own river bed. They are, to vary the metaphor, interwoven

in the tapestry of Western civilisation. They both influence and cross-fertilise one another

and they change, although without, I think, losing their identity.37

In this powerful metaphor Wight combines the three traditions into a single theory, emphasising the

mutual relationship that exists between the triad. He urges the reader to think about international

theory in a new manner: one where contending perspectives can support each other in explaining

the complexity of international affairs. Wight’s proposition was something entirely new in the field

of IR and certainly challenged the mind-sets that gave rise to the first and second great debates. It

is remarkable that Wight encouraged students of IR to reject the methodological fission that was

occurring in the discipline at the time, in favour of theoretical fusion that enables one to tackle the

enormous complexity of the international world in a holistic manner. The English School, therefore,

implies a rejection of the separateness that occurs in positivist driven taxonomies for an approach

that acknowledges the benefits that diversity brings to understanding as a whole. The fact that the

School rejects a theoretically defensive stance provides strong justification for it assuming a central

position within the spectrum of IR theories. One must, however, provide greater philosophical

rigour and boundaries for this epistemological diversity if one is to enjoy the holism that the School

permits. Establishing the English School on a critical realist meta-theoretical base offers an

opportunity to address this issue and will be explored later in the paper.

36 ibid, 163. 37 ibid, 260.

8

International Society

Now that the epistemological approach of the English School has been outlined, the study will

progress onto the ontology that the theory espouses. The belief in the presence of an international

society originates in Grotian thought and generates the ontological bedrock of the School. It was

Manning who made progress in drawing attention to international society as a ‘formally anarchical

but substantively orderly social environment.’38 In this aspect, however, the paper will concentrate

on Hedley Bull, as he sets out most clearly what constitutes an international society. Bull’s starting

point for the international society is the international system, which at its most basic level is where

two or more states have sufficient contact so as ‘to make the behaviour of each a necessary

element in the calculations of the other.’39 As the relationships thicken, societies of states form:

“A society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states, conscious of

certain common interests and common values, form a society in the sense that they

conceive themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one

another, and share in the working of common institutions.”40

Bull considers that all societies form to achieve three primary goals. First, any society will provide

some measure of protection against violence. Second, societies seek to ensure that promises or

agreements are undertaken. Third, societies aim to ensure that possession of things is stable and

not subject to constant challenge.41 It is important to note the material requirement Bull establishes

for the formation of societies. Possession of things and of life cannot be goals of society without

acknowledging the material objects that lie behind the goals. The degree with which a society

achieves these goals indicates the degree of order that is present within the society; this premise is

the cornerstone of Bull’s assertion that order and justice are intertwined. 42

The attainment of Bull’s three primary values, which he paraphrases as life, truth and property,

relies on an international society capable of implementing three fundamental rules, the foremost of

which is the normative principle of the primacy of sovereign states within the society. Suganami

holds that Manning took the same stance: ‘that international society is made possible by the

prevalence of the orthodox diplomatic assumption that sovereign states form an international

society.’43 Second, Bull identifies the ‘rules of coexistence’, which guide how states should interact

38 H. Suganami, “C. A. W. Manning and the Study of International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 27 (1), 91 – 107. 39 ibid, 10. 40 Bull, Anarchical Society, 13. 41 ibid., 5. 42

Ibid., 97. 43 Suganami ‘The Argument of the English School’ in The English School of International Relations, 51.

9

with each other over macro issues such as the use of force or implementation of agreements. The

third rule he cites is that of ‘co-operation’, in not only the political, but also the social and economic

domains. Bull then proceeds to argue that the rules are implemented by five institutions: the

balance of power, international law, diplomacy, war and the concert of Great Powers. These

institutions are a symbol of collaboration; they do not usurp the central role of states in carrying out

the political functions of international society but symbolise the existence of a society that is greater

than the sum of its member states.44 Indeed, the institutions of international society are products of

the very existence of state structures and reinforce the state’s centrality within the international

society. The institutions are, furthermore, interrelated. In the contemporary world, diplomacy

remains a vital medium through which regimes communicate with each other, one object of which

is to maintain or adjust the balance of power. One should note at this juncture the agent –

structure relationship, an aspect of the English School’s ontology that has a close relationship with

critical realism.

Similarly, the English School approach considers the international society, contemporary or

historic, to be dependent upon the great society of mankind, or world society. Bull asserted that

‘states are but groupings of men’ and went on to stipulate that international order only had value

because ‘it is instrumental to the goal of order in human society as a whole.’45 We can now

recognise that the English School’s ontology comprises three elements – the international system,

the international society and the society of mankind. Whilst the approach considers the

international society as predominant, all three exist at any moment and the relative strengths are

never constant, as Bull cautioned: ‘international society is no more than one of the basic elements

at work in modern international politics, and is always in competition with the elements of a state of

war and of transnational solidarity or conflict.’46 The English School, therefore, consciously

incorporates interdependence, division and tension into the ontology of the international structure.

This is an issue that sits at the very heart of the theory and furthermore, at the heart of the debate

as to whether or not the approach can attain grand theory status. Where international society

begins and where it ends has never been defined within the English School. The absence of fixed

boundaries reflects the conviction held across the founder members of the School that the nature

and scope of international society was too capricious to warrant more than loose articulation of its

relationship to the international system and world society. This holistic ontology inevitably draws

varying interpretations regarding vital second order analysis, such as the level of pluralism or

solidarism within international society.

The extent to which the international society is pluralist or solidarist in the sphere of interaction and

shared norms across state regimes is, as Dunne argues, a principal concern of the English School.

44 ibid., 74. 45 ibid, 22. 46 ibid, 51.

10

This is one of the most difficult abstractions within the approach, but if properly understood can

yield great benefit to both the IR analyst and practitioner. To increase clarity it is necessary to

return to Bull’s description of the three rules that exist within international society. Bull’s first two

rules denote the pluralist stance, namely the sovereign state system being the normative

foundation of the society and the rules of coexistence reflecting the dominance of the Westphalian

scheme.47 It is within Bull’s third rule, that of co-operation, where room is left for solidarist

expansion. The international society, therefore, ‘thickens’ and gains greater alignment with the

society of mankind when room for cooperation is greatest, such as in economic exchange or

agreement on fundamental human rights. In the same way that context dictates which one of the

three traditions is the most appropriate lens through which to view international affairs, context will

determine to what extent solidarism can exist within international society. Context will, however,

be determined in many different ways: historical ties, cultural proximity, political homogeneity and

shared security concerns are some examples. Context can also be said to drive states towards

solidarism in some areas and pluralism in others. Consider the European Union: it displays high

levels of solidarity due to the cultural, economic and political homogeneity that its member states

display. The context that prompted this solidarity and the expansion of international society in this

region was the shared experience of two industrial-scale wars. On the other hand, the same

historical context has meant that European member states display significant pluralism in terms of

their approach to national security. Even in this close knit community, solidarism and pluralism are

not uniform conceptions across the range of international affairs.

The fact that the English School acknowledges and fosters such a debate on this issue leads one

to conclude that it views pluralism and solidarism as positions on a spectrum of a single condition,

as opposed to what Buzan describes as ‘mutually exclusive opposites about which a choice has to

be made.’48 Bull’s interpretation leads him towards emphasising the pluralist nature of international

society, whereas Vincent emphasises the solidarity that exists within the international society and

indeed, argues that solidarist doctrines such as human rights can reinforce the normative rule of

sovereignty.49 The English School, therefore, views pluralism and solidarism as germane to an

international society, which is founded on a society of mankind. They are, accordingly, contending

positions on a spectrum that connects the international society, the international system and world

society. This does not, however, reduce international society to being a rationalist safe-guard

between the polarised positions of a realist international system and a revolutionist world society.

Rather, all three elements are fundamental to constructing the nature of the social world in the

international domain, in the same way as the three traditions are all vital to effective theorizing

about it. Buzan contends that placing pluralism and solidarism along a spectrum of a single 47

Buzan, FIWS, 53. 48

ibid, 48. 49

Vincent, Human Rights and International Relations, Ch 8.

11

condition reinforces the position of international society as: ‘the via media between state-centric

realism and cosmopolitan world society.’50 In so doing, he relates the pluralism – solidarism

debate to Wight’s three traditions of international theory, via the three elements of international

structure. The researcher’s position is, therefore, that this analysis of the international society

demonstrates that the English School’s ontology of the international structure is as comprehensive

as any other within the IR discipline.

A brief study of the response to the attacks on the United States (US) on 11 September 2001 will

illuminate both the three traditions at the heart of the English School theory and the concept of

international society. The shock of an attack on the US homeland set the context for President

George W. Bush to adopt a realist response to the perceived threat that Al Qaeda posed.

Essentially, the attack challenged Bull’s three rules of international society. Whilst the injustice of

the attacks was expressed by states across the international society, it was the sense of a threat to

order within the society of states that prompted near universal acceptance of the US’ right to

intervene. Bull would see the challenge to his rule of coexistence as occupying the minds of state

actors in this instance. The English School advocates that those who wield power within the

international society dictate to some extent the values that are expressed across it: the unrivalled

US hegemony at that time was a factor in driving international consensus. The fact that the target

of the US response was located in Afghanistan, a state on the periphery of the international society

allowed the response to take the interventionist form it did, as the relationships that Afghanistan

had with other actors displayed rudimentary pluralism. Had the attack emanated from France,

solidarism within ‘western’ international society would have demanded a different approach. One

can note how the borders of the ‘three traditions’ are open: the realist initial response led to

attempts to establish liberal democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Realism, therefore, was

subsequently expressed by degrees of revolutionism and a US appetite for dominance in the

region, all the while justified in rationalist terms. Moreover, the very existence of the Iraq and

Afghanistan campaigns, especially the nature of their execution, has prompted solidarity and a

revolutionist spirit amongst elements of the Islamic umma.51 This short analysis allows one to note

the English School’s utility in three areas. First, it highlights the benefit of moving the theorist

beyond the straight jacket of a single approach. Second, through considering the three basic

premises of international society and its vanguardist nature, one can contend with the interplay

between national self interest, international order and universal values. Finally, the School’s

treatment of pluralism and solidarism within international society adds clarity in understanding the

symbiosis between the relationships actors have with each other and policy making.

Relationships with other IR Theories

50 Buzan, FIWS, 50. 51

Peter Mandaville, Global Political Islam, (London: Routledge, 2007), 302.

12

If the English School is to become accepted as a grand theory, its relationship with other IR

approaches must be clarified. It is the extent of the English School’s compatibility with other

theories that makes it unique and of significant importance for the IR discipline as a whole. This

section will, however, begin with what makes the English School distinct, before exposing the

degree of similarity the approach shares with both the rationalist and reflectivist domains.

Buzan and Little view the English School as central to IR theorising for three principal reasons.

First, they argue that the English School recognises ‘that the nature of international systems has

taken different forms at different times and different places.’ 52 It is the emphasis that the English

School places on a tradition of historical enquiry that leads it to acknowledge the variations that

have occurred. Wight was, perhaps, the most fervent advocate of the historical approach and went

so far as to advise his students that: “[O]ne of the main purposes of university education is to

escape from the Zeitgeist, from the mean, narrow, provincial spirit that we are at the summit of

human achievement, that we stand on the edge of unprecedented prosperity or unparalleled

catastrophe.”53 In this regard there is a significant distinction between the English School and both

neo-realism and neo-liberalism, which Stephen L. Lamy describes as ‘system maintainer

theories.’54 Lamy regards adherents of both approaches to be ‘generally satisfied with the current

international system and its actors,’55 a trait one struggles to attribute to the proponents of the

English School. Vincent’s normative stance on human rights highlights how English School

advocates can challenge the status quo by bringing ‘ethical considerations to the fore.’56 Bull and

Wight did not pose such direct challenges but their interpretation of the durability of the sovereign

state system should not be regarded as satisfaction with the structure. The School’s ‘preliminary

articles’ of adherence to a (historical) tradition of enquiry and its normative approach provide

English School theorists with room for critical treatment of international affairs that can be

appreciated by elements of the reflectivist disciplines, such as advocates of critical theory and even

Marxists.

Second, Buzan and Little see the English School as important in satisfying the need to distinguish

between international systems, international society and world society, although they are critical of

the School’s differentiation thus far between the latter two. Again, neither neo-realism nor neo-

liberalism, despite the latter theory’s focus on transnationalism and complex interdependence,

develop the distinctions between the different levels within the international structure as profoundly

as the English School. Indeed, in From International to World Society Buzan makes a concerted

52 Buzan and Little, The 'English patient' strikes back, 946. 53 Hedley Bull, “Martin Wight Memorial Lecture” in British Journal of International Studies 2 (1976), 103. 54 Stephen L. Lamy, “Contemporary mainstream approaches.” in The Globalisation of World Politics, eds. John Baylis, Steve Smith, Patricia Owens, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 117. 55

ibid. 56 Dunne, System,” State and Society: How Does It All Hang Together?” in Millenium 35 no. 1 (2005), 167.

13

effort to develop yet further the School’s taxonomy regarding the international structure, a move

that attempts to provide additional coherence at the centre of the School’s ontology. Finally, they

credit the English School with acknowledging the importance of emphasising one aspect of

‘international reality’, namely international society. Both scholars consider it important for a theory

to privilege one aspect as a means to gain clarity regarding how all elements relate to each other

as a whole. 57

The privilege that is given to the ontology of the international society is supported by theoretical

diversity, embedded in the three traditions, which enable the theorist to use perspectives from

across the IR spectrum. Realism is firmly embedded within the English School and the liberalist

spectrum is accommodated by both the rationalist and revolutionist traditions. The neo-neo debate

sits, furthermore, on the boundary between realism and rationalism: both ‘neo’ approaches come

from an ontological base as states being gain-maximisers, but with a neo-realist focus being on the

maximisation of power through politics and neo-liberalism being the maximisation of relative gain

through exploitation of international institutions.58 Wight’s approach sees neo-realism and neo-

liberalism working together to explain an aspect of international politics, as opposed to being

mutually exclusive viewpoints, which happen to share an epistemology and ontological common

ground. As we have seen, it is primarily context within international politics that dictates which

perspective is most appropriate and allows one to move around the theoretical spectrum. Context

may be considered as a theoretical ‘market force’, which drives English School scholars to favour

one ‘theoretical currency’ over another.

If the English School accommodates the classic realist and liberalist traditions, as well as their

‘neo’ mutations that are currently categorised within the rationalist discipline, how does the theory

relate to the work that takes place within the reflectivist sphere? Whilst the English School’s

relationship with constructivism is often overstated and the founding members of the School were

not consciously constructivist in their reasoning, there is, without doubt, commonality between both

approaches. Dunne argues that the two have three basic elements in common. First, both

approaches view the state as the principal unit of analysis in international political theory. Second,

the key structures that the English School promotes are predominately constituted by social

factors. The normative foundation of state sovereignty and Bull’s primary institutions of

international society are constituted by actors within the realm of international politics and are at no

point treated as brute facts. Whilst Bull’s thesis on how states form presupposes material entities,

the English School’s approach is steeped in social construction, particularly regarding the manner

in which international society is sustained. Finally, Dunne reinforces the second point by

contending that state identities and interests are a key component of the social structures around

57 Buzan and Little, The ‘English Patient’ strikes back., 946. 58 Lisa Martin, “Neoliberalism” International Relations Theories, eds. Tim Dunne, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith (Oxford: University Press: 2001), 110.

14

which the School’s ontology is built.59 One can see, therefore, that the English School views

institutions such as sovereignty and non-intervention as central to how actors view reality within

international society and that these constitutive parts are sustained by a process that Dunne

articulates as the ‘reproduction of practices.’60 As these institutions are largely formed by ideas,

there is room for values to drive change within the institutions themselves, as evidenced by the

increased appetite by (western) states for interventionist policies since the end of the Cold War.

Importantly, Emanuel Adler sees this as a significant area of advantage: he views constructivism

as ‘analytical rather than normative,’ possessing explanatory power on why ‘norms and dialogue

matter, rather than critical injunctions about social change.’61 As well as providing depth to the

English School’s ontology of the international structure, its constructivist tendencies provide an

important element of analytical rigour within the theory.

The proximity to constructivism is perhaps most clearly discernible if one considers Wendt’s three

cultures of anarchy. The English School considers the international structure to be characterised

by sovereign states co-existing and cooperating without world government, which Bull famously

characterises as The Anarchical Society. Wendt views anarchy as being cultural or ideational

rather than material,62 a concept that relates to the English School’s view of the international

structure being sustained by ideas and culture. Wendt posits that the culture of anarchy leads

states to represent themselves and view others as either friend, rival or enemy – roles which are

constituted by, or constitute, what he considers to be the three ‘macro-level cultures of international

politics: Hobbesian, Lockean and Kantian.’63 Hobbes, Locke and Kant are all fundamental to the

development of Wight’s three traditions of international theory and the three levels of the

international structure (international system, international society and world society) that the School

relates to each respective tradition. Indeed, Bull views Locke’s concept of nature as a society

without authority, where individual members judge and enforce laws, as central to the development

of his view of international society.64 One can summarise, therefore, that shared reference to

classic political philosophers leads the English School and constructivism beyond merely exhibiting

agreement on aspects of the ontology of the international structure into the realm of a synthesis

between structural analysis and normative critique. This quest for synthesis will move along a

critical realist path as the paper develops.

59 Dunne, Inventing, 187. 60 ibid, 188. 61

Emanuel Adler, “Barry Buzan’s Use of Constructivism to Reconstruct the English School: ‘Not All the Way Down’” in Millenium 35 no. 1 (2005), 172. 62 Alexander Wendt, A Social Theory of International Politics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 43. 63 ibid, 279. 64 Bull, Anarchical Society, 58.

15

The critical aspect of IR theory is attested to within the English School by the inclusion of

revolutionism within Wight’s three traditions. Moreover, Bull devotes a considerable portion of The

Anarchical Society to the study of alternative world orders. This, combined with the School’s

widespread sense of pessimism regarding the impact of solidarism within international society,

reflects a normative disposition, which as we have seen, moves the School beyond being a

‘system maintainer theory.’ The English School is capable of relating to two fundamental dialectic

approaches of critical theory. First, as outlined in the paragraphs above, the School’s conception

of international society accommodates a dialectic process between agents and structures.

Structures and institutions, such as the universal sovereign-state constitution and the balance of

power, generate the possibility of social identity and corresponding actions but are not in

themselves determinate: they require ‘human agents to continuously re-enact their structural

roles.’65 Second, the historical tradition of enquiry, whilst not historically dialectic in itself, is

compatible with the view that human beings are ‘simultaneously the producers and the products of

historical processes.’66 The School’s three ‘preliminary articles’ enable it to consider how the world

has been produced by ‘historically situated human social agents.’67 These are important issues as

the School’s approach to structures and agents is one of the factors we will draw on to argue for

establishing symbiosis with critical realism.

One can determine, therefore, how Buzan comes to argue that the English School approach ‘takes

the focus away from oppositional either/or approaches of much IR theory…and moves it towards a

holistic, synthesising approach that features the patterns of strength and interplay amongst the

three pillars.’68 The vision of the English School being at the core of IR study is, however,

undermined by one of the most frequently cited criticisms of the approach: its epistemological

inconsistency. The School is primarily interpretative but, as outlined above, the approach retains a

close link with positivism and has a normative, ethical dimension. Precisely how the architect of

the ‘three traditions’ viewed their compatibility has already been adequately explained. It is safe to

argue that Wight’s clarity of vision has been lost due to a common misunderstanding over how

rigorously the British Committee rejected the scientific approach. The confusion regarding

perceptions of the School’s stance on positivism, set against its inclusion of realism at its heart,

stems from a misinterpretation of the stance Hedley Bull took during his participation in the second

great debate. The focus here will be on Bull as the other members of the Committee did not

commit themselves publicly to the debate.

Dunne posits that ‘Hedley Bull’s critique of scientism is more complete than his defence of

traditionalism.’69 Bull was, however, considered by other members of the British Committee to be

65 Mark Rupert, “Marxism and Critical Theory” in International Relations Theories, 151. 66 ibid. 67 ibid. 68 Buzan, FIWS, 10. 69 Dunne, Inventing, 119.

16

their ‘leading expert on the behavioural revolution.’70 It must be argued that Bull’s critique was not

solely against a behaviourist approach itself, but rather against the behaviourist approach being

adopted in isolation as a methodology that underpins IR theorising. His essay ‘International

Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach’ has been used by many academics to portray Bull as

offering an outright rejection of scientism. This stance should be rejected in favour of a more

nuanced reading of his position, one which acknowledges his consideration of the scientific

approach, where it is used to assist interpretation. In stating that ‘where practitioners of the

scientific approach have succeeded in casting light upon the substance of the [IR] subject it has

been by stepping beyond the bounds of that approach and adopting the classical method,’71 Bull

suggests that there is a degree of mutual benefit that both approaches can bring. He cites Thomas

Schelling as an example where the combination of game and bargaining theory with ‘a shrewd

political judgement and philosophical skill’ has led to illuminating observations and offers

Oppenheim as an example of a scientific approach sitting within a classical one.72 Bull clearly

considered interpretation and judgment, with all their limitations, as the fundamental methodologies

but indicated how they could be supported by scientific approaches. From this position, Bull holds

the door open to how the methodology of the English School can develop.

One must, however, question whether the School’s acceptance of theoretical diversity and its

synthesising approach calls into question its very validity as a theory? If one accepts Wight’s

position that international relations are described by: ‘Realism in sociological terms; international

Rationalism in teleogical terms and international Revolutionism in ethical and prescriptive terms

and in the interpretative mood,’73 the English School’s position as a theory in itself is challenged by

its apparently meta-theoretical stance. Indeed, this observation formed one of Roy E. Jones’

principal arguments in his famous critique of the approach. Jones contended that the ‘basic

standpoint’ of the School was metaphysical, due to the manner in which it ignored scientific

practice and their ‘indifference…to the experience of the other social studies.’74 What we have

encountered so far is an approach that employs three perspectives and the methodologies that

underpin them to make judgements on what should be and what is within international politics.

The key question is whether all of the above can plausibly, and with coherence, sit within a single

theory that draws on a common epistemology?

Introducing critical realism as a meta-theory

70

ibid, 117. 71 Bull, Case for A Classical Approach, 28. 72 ibid, 29,36. 73 Wight, International Theory, 24. 74 Jones, The English School of International Relations, 8.

17

Critical realism offers the English School the opportunity to build a meta-theoretical base that is not

only consistent with the key tenets of the School, but also the methodological and theoretical

pluralism that make it such an attractive approach. By considering critical realism as a meta-theory

that underpins the English School, the ‘three traditions’ will be supported by a philosophical

approach to enquiry that drives an epistemology, which accepts the theoretical range we have

exposed thus far. This will allow the School to place Wight’s concept at the core of a grand theory

that possesses a clear structure in its approach to knowledge generation, thereby banishing the

opportunity to accuse the School of existing purely in meta-theoretical terms. Jonathan Joseph

describes critical realism in its simplest sense as being ‘a belief in the independent existence of

reality.’75 Milja Kurki expands this notion by asserting that the belief that reality exists

independently of human observers drives the critical realist in Aristotle’s path of accepting that

‘’nothing comes from nothing’,…all events processes, objects and agents arise out of some

conditions and influences,…from a pre-existing causal context.’76 Kurki argues that this particular

ontological approach of critical realism makes it a ‘distinctive approach for the philosophy of

science.’77

A distinct material and social ontology arises out of these underlying assertions, which Robert W.

Cox describes as being forged by ‘the interaction between three points of a triangle: material

conditions, ideas and institutions.’78 Applied to IR, therefore, being is constituted by material and

social factors. As a result, an epistemology that necessarily considers structural analysis,

interpretation and a critical approach is required by the critical realist’s ontological position. Whilst

an affiliation between the two approaches has not yet been proposed within the English School,

there is discernible correlation. Buzan hints at this line of enquiry by observing that one way to

understand the English School theory is as ‘a set of externally imposed concepts that define the

material and social structures of the international system.’79 The researcher wishes to argue that

the English School can be situated on the distinct critical realist philosophy. Dunne offers a

positive insight into the viability of this partnership:

There is no a priori reason why an interpretive approach cannot incorporate the existence

of systemic logics such as brute facts and material capacities, while showing how these

impact on the behaviours of individuals and communities.80

75 Jonathan Joseph, “Philosophy in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Approach,” Millenium 35, no. 2 (2007), 345. 76 Milja Kurki, “Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations,” Millenium 35, no. 2 (2007), 365. 77 ibid, 364. 78 Robert W. Cox, “The International’ in Evolution”, Millenium 35, no. 3 (2007), 514. 79

Buzan, FIWS, 12. 80

Dunne, System, State and Society, 170.

18

The critical realist philosophy regarding what is accepted as knowledge is, therefore, consistent

with the English School’s relationship with both the rationalist and the reflectivist disciplines, due to

the School’s relationship with the positivist and post-positivist philosophies that underpin the

respective camps. Joseph asserts that because positivist approaches deny that one can talk of

unobserved structures, ‘they inevitably paint a picture of an atomistic world with no underlying

relations.’81 Critical realists accuse mainstream theories, such as neo-realism and neo-liberalism,

of merely problem-solving within limited fields of analysis and ignoring the fundamental social

questions.82 In short, the positivist’s empirical approach leads to over-emphasis regarding the role

of states, due to a singular approach to knowledge generation. The positivist insistence that one

can only study what one can observe drives a prejudice towards evidence that is predominantly

generated by state institutions. Critical realists direct positivists to ‘engage with other

methodologies,’83 but importantly do not reject positivism outright. The critical realist recognises

the importance of science in knowledge generation, values critical explanations, empirical evidence

and causal analysis. One can see how this approach chimes with the analysis of Bull’s advocacy

of the classical approach given above: interpretation and judgement are predominant but scientific

methods may assist. There are, on the other side of the coin, a number of areas of convergence

with the post-positivists in the reflectivist domain. Both critical realists and reflectivists share a

critique of positivist science, emphasise methodological openness in social inquiry and seek critical

engagement with social forces in international politics.84 The common ground that critical realism

shares with positivists and post-positivists echoes the relationships identified above between the

English School, rationalists and reflectivists.

An alignment between the English School and critical realism, allows the central position that the

English School rightly occupies amongst IR theories to become grounded in a philosophy inherent

to the School: as a result, the case for a leadership role within the IR discipline is much

strengthened. With critical realism justifying the expansive epistemological approach that has

drawn such wide critique in the past, the theory can be armed with a genuine philosophical

premise on which the inclusion of ‘three traditions’ that span the rationalist / reflectivist divide can

be based. As the three traditions originate from diverse philosophies, their inclusion within a single

theory has been contentious and, as argued above, requires a new approach to theorising. Critical

realism offers a foundation from which this ‘new approach’ can be more rigorously defended than

is currently the case.

81 Joseph, Philosophy in International Relations, 346. 82Robert Cox, “Social Forces and World Orders” Millenium 10, no.1 (1981), 126. 83 Kurki, Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations, 374. 84 ibid.

19

The materialism that lies at the heart of critical realism is, moreover, supportive of the ontology of

the international society that English School theorists advocate. Buzan notes that social interaction

‘presupposes physical interaction of some sort’ but identifies a vital reverse dependency: namely

that ‘physical action without social content is, if not quite impossible, at least rather rare and

marginal in human affairs.’85 Roy Bhaskar, regarded by many as the architect of the critical realist

agenda, posits that the concept of materialism has three distinct elements. First, he cites

epistemological materialism, which, as we have already noted, is the notion of the independent

existence of objects. Second, Bhaskar argues for ontological materialism – essentially, the

dependence of the social world on the biological and the physical, in that the former emerges out

of the latter two. This concept leads one to recognise the complexity that forms in the social world.

Social sciences must, therefore, account for the fact that meaning is given to material objects

through their inherent properties, as well as the judgements people make on them. Likewise,

social structures are conditioned by the material items they relate to. The nature of the Nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty, for example, is conditioned by the nature of the weapons they relate to,

as well as historical legacies and the number of contending interests, values and prejudices of its

members. Third, Bhaskar describes the transformative power that mankind has as practical

materialism.86

One can note a close affinity between the first two concepts and the English School’s picture of the

international system, international society and society of mankind. International society emerges

from the international system and the nature of the latter is constituted, to some extent, by the

properties of the former. International society cannot develop without the communicative ability

that is organic to the international system, for example. Bull’s assertion that societies formed

around the need to secure life, truth and property acknowledges clearly that two of the primary

social goals are underpinned by a physical requirement. Life and property have material attributes.

Moreover, a factor in the increasing solidarity discernible across world society is communications

technology: the nature and, therefore, our understanding of an element of the international

structure is conditioned by the physical properties of computing power and internet connectivity.

However, materialism alone does not explain the true nature of systems or societies, as their

structures and agents are conditioned by unobservable factors such as bias, interpretation, history,

envy, pride. A positivist methodology alone does not possess enough explanatory potential. The

English School’s acknowledgement that international society can expand and contract, as well as

its accommodation of the pluralist – solidarist debate, is based on the transformative power of

mankind that Bhaskar identifies. Through our interaction with social structures we are conditioned

by their existence, but have the ability to change their nature if circumstances allow. NATO’s

ability to evolve after completion of the Cold War is an example of how mankind has the ability to

85

Buzan, FIWS, 99. 86 Roy Bhaskar, Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom, (London: Verso, 1993), Chapter 2, 79 - 95.

20

adjust the meaning of an institution of international society, a concept that both the English School

and critical realism share.

The next argument for constituting critical realism as a foundation of the English School is the

approach critical realists adopt to causation. Critical realists begin with the contention that causes

exist as real forces in the world. However, many causes are not observable and as Kurki argues, a

purely empirical approach to identifying causes is problematic.87 Causes are, therefore, more than

‘if A, then B’ in nature and one can identify that complex causal links exist where more than one

factor will contribute to an effect, which reciprocally affects the factors that contributed to the initial

change. In the social world causes take many forms, from reasons and norms to discourse and

social structures, only some of which can be empirically measured.88 Tim Dunne’s three

‘preliminary articles’ of the English School demonstrate a commitment to explaining through

interpretation and historical enquiry how the international society is possible, as well as what made

it actually so. Causal analysis has, therefore, been a part of the English School approach but

critical realism offers the School an opportunity to place causal analysis firmly within the

methodology of the theory, in a manner that is justified by the philosophical start point. This should

not only justify the interpretive foundation, but foster a more rigorous approach to historical enquiry

that embraces the constructive elements of the positivist approach, such as the emphasis on

evidence. However, the School’s ability to tackle complex causal forces moves it beyond

rationalist theories that are restricted due to positivist methodology. It has, furthermore, important

explanatory faculties that are absent within a number of reflectivist theories due to their

unwillingness to embrace causation, despite the fact that the ‘norms, rules and discourses that

many constructivists, feminists and post-structuralists inquire into are…distinctly causal.’89

Alignment with critical realism offers the School an opportunity to develop further its explanatory

potential and therefore, its advantage over those on both shores of IR theory.

This potential will only be realised if the School embraces greater methodological clarity. Heikki

Patomäki, a contemporary critical realist, contends that ‘the notions of context and complex form

the core of CR methodology.’90 These notions are certainly at the core of the English School but

are as yet, underdeveloped. Indeed, Suganami criticises the English School for neglecting the

causal mechanisms that bring about political change.91 The elements of the critical realist

methodology that Patomäki outlines offers the School an opportunity to establish a means of

exploring causation more fully that is consistent with its organic methodological range. Patomäki

87 Kurki, Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations, 361. 88

ibid. 89 ibid, 367. 90 Heikki Patomäki, after International Relations. Critical Realism and the (re)construction of world politics, (London: Routledge, 2002), 119. 91 Linklater and Suganami, English School of International Relations, 7.

21

identifies ‘causal complexes’ that consist of actors; regulative and constitutive rules; resources;

relational and positioned practices and meaningful action. These complexes must then be

considered in relation to context. Patomäki acknowledges how history shapes each cause and

advocates the use of hermeneutics to uncover the relevant parts of the relevant context.92

Consideration of each element in the complex, along with its historical and contemporary context,

is necessary for a full understanding of what happens and why it happens within global politics.

There is not space within this paper to expose Patomäki’s methodology in rich detail, yet one can

identify that the approach sits very neatly within the English School. His technique shines a light

on a method of approaching the enormous complexity involved in determining causation within

international relations and indicates processes through which the English School can enhance

causal explanation.

Causal explanation must, however, be accompanied by a penetrative understanding of what

shapes each element within a causal complex. Greater inclusion of hermeneutic methodology

within the English School will promote understanding at this level and give greater depth to how it

addresses causation. Hermeneutics develops interpretive understanding by analysing how a

subject relates to itself and the structure in which it is located, but also how the researcher himself

relates to both elements. It is grounded in an awareness of the importance history plays in

constituting social facts, a philosophy of language and the irrefutable need for self-understanding.93

Roger Epp supports this view: he argues that the English School’s interpretive orientation ‘bears

strong resemblance to the practical philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics.’94 Epp

contends that the English School’s emphasis on diplomacy, which is central to the five institutions

of international society outlined by Bull, requires that the ‘hermeneutic elements of language and

understanding’95 are axiomatic to any research methodology. Epp’s study of Gadamer leads him

to conclude that the philosopher’s focus on language, prejudice and tradition takes him away from

the ‘sharp subject-object dichotomy that is central to modern epistemology’ and that ‘Gadamer’s

account of what it is to understand is essentially dialogical in character.’96

Gadamer’s view holds particular weight in relation to the English School as language, prejudice

and tradition will influence the manner in which Dunne’s ‘preliminary articles’ are applied to

theorizing. Epp stresses, furthermore, that the critical aspect of the English School that resides in

revolutionism may be developed through hermeneutics, as considering what has shaped the world

is a prerequisite to arriving at judgements regarding how it actually is. In after International

Relations Patomäki describes in detail a ‘double hermeneutic’ methodology, which consists of two

92

ibid, 123. 93

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics. (accessed 28/0512). 94 Roger Epp, The English School on the frontiers of international society: a hermeneutic recollection, (British International Studies Association, 1998), 49. 95 ibid. 96 ibid, 51.

22

essential elements: first, the movement of a researcher between theories; and second, the three-

way relationship between the researcher, models employed and their lay meanings.97 He

considers this to be a means to understanding phenomena within causal complexes, ‘without

imposing blind or distortive prejudices on them.’98 Epp and Patomäki both illuminate how the

critical realist hermeneutic methodology can be consistent with the three ‘preliminary articles’ that

Dunne identified. They concur on the need to address historical enquiry and the importance of

norms and values within an interpretive methodology. Critical realism indicates, furthermore, how

causal explanation can be developed within an interpretive approach and therefore, offers the

School an opportunity for improvement in this area and the means to answer Suganami’s

challenge to ‘explore the mechanisms of political change.’99

How critical realism views the relationship between structure and agency provides the final reason

for a connection between the English School and this meta-theory. In essence, critical realism

argues for the existence of unobservable structures that can contribute to causation. As outlined

above, this stance moves critical realism beyond positivism and a narrow ontology of international

politics. Whilst the ideational aspect of these structures is important, we have already noted that

they have a material aspect and are, therefore, both observable and non-observable.100 This

ontology is based on Roy Bhaskar’s social cube. Bashkar contends that society is based on 4

elements: (1) material transactions with nature; (2) interpersonal interaction; (3) social relations

and (4) intra-subjectivity.101 The reader is asked to note the relationship between Bhaskar’s cube

and three fundamentals of the English School. First, one can identify the material implication of

Bull’s contention that societies form to satisfy a collective desire to protect life, truth and property.

Second, Bhaskar’s cube attests to the major role that ideas and culture play in shaping society –

an aspect that the English School acknowledges strongly within the international society. Finally,

the intra-subjectivity of society lends itself towards Wight’s three traditions as a tool for unravelling

this complexity.

The consideration of structures as observable and non-observable entities ensures that in critical

realist ontology they are dynamic, deep-rooted and in some instances, causal. Joseph argues,

moreover, that social structures are dependent on human actions for their reproduction.102 Critical

realism considers that humans engage with social structures on two levels: conscious and

unconscious. It is the unconscious level at which acceptance of social structures occurs and

where their reproduction is enabled. Conscious engagement is generally in the form of accepted

97 Double Hermeneutics of Iconic Modelling: described in after International Relations Chapters 4 and 5. 98 ibid. 99 Linklater and Suganami, English School of International Relations, 115. 100 Joseph, Philosophy in International Relations, 357. 101 Roy Bhaskar, Dialectic, 160-1. 102 ibid, 358.

23

practice, but importantly allows for structures to be transformed. The English School is cognisant

of the endurance of the structures of international society, as well as their capacity for change.

Critical realism offers a supporting explanation. The relationship between critical realism’s

approach to social structures and the English School’s treatment of international society gains

further traction when one considers that Bhaskar identifies the need for mediating agents such as

marriage and work to bridge the gap between society and individuals, which he considers to be

ontologically distinct:

“[T]he mediating system we need is that of the positions (places, functions, rules, tasks,

duties, rights, etc.) occupied (filled, assumed, enacted, etc.) by individuals, and of the

practices (activities, etc.) in which, in virtue of their occupancy of these positions they

engage.” 103

Bull’s institutions of international society play a similar function in enabling the interaction between

two distinct entities: a state and the society of states. As the society of states is a social

construction with material roots, an association between Bhaskar’s social model and the English

School’s emphasis on Bull’s three primary rules of international society, as well as the institutions

that uphold them, is not only viable but reinforces the validity of this aspect of the theory. Critical

realism can, therefore, support the English School’s concept of an international society that is

relatively enduring but subject to change and that is sustained by the discourse between structures

and agents.

In 2005 Dunne, Alder and Buzan collectively argued for the English School to adopt ‘a dynamic

and more comprehensive epistemological approach that combines both structural and hermeneutic

features.’104 What we have explored above is a start in this direction. Establishing the English

School on a critical realist foundation represents an opportunity for significant progress to be made

along this path. Hermeneutics, as employed by Patomäki, are central to understanding historical

context, the motivations of agents, as well as the theorist’s own conception of both agents and

structures. This approach complements casual explanation, which is a crucial component of

understanding the origin and continued transformation of structures. Bhaskar’s expansive

concepts of epistemological and ontological materialism, in addition to his social cube, ensure that

structural analysis is implicit with critical realism. The English School has manipulated both

approaches since the establishment of the British Committee but a critical realist foundation allows

it to advance with a comprehensive, yet orchestrated, epistemology.

Criticism and development of the English School

103 Bhaskar, Possibility of Naturalism, (London: Routledge, 1979), 40 – 41. 104 Adler, Buzan and Dunne, “Forum Afterword” in Millenium 35, no. 1 (2005), 199.

24

Introducing critical realism is certainly a noteworthy step in the development of the English School

but work is required beyond the philosophical. If this paper’s advocacy of the re-positioning of the

School is to be complete, the criticisms of the theory must be exposed and if possible, used to

advance the approach. Buzan’s (and co-author Richard Little’s) From International to World

Society will be employed extensively in this section, as it represents the most comprehensive and

constructive analysis of English School theory to date.

The principal ontological criticism of the English School is that it has not devoted sufficient attention

to non-state actors and institutions within the international structure. In particular, the School has

yet to meticulously tackle the impact of international markets. Wight does, however, express the

rationalist position in terms of diplomacy and commerce; additionally, Bull refers to markets within

his discussion regarding cooperation in society.105 Buzan asserts that Vincent correctly

acknowledged the important political connection with the international economy, in terms of a

reciprocal relationship in legitimacy generation, but neglected the economy as he focussed on

state human rights abuses.106 As an institution of international society, it is fair to argue that the

market has been overlooked within the English School. This omission is being tackled by some

contemporary English School advocates, notably encouraged by Buzan himself who claims that:

‘[T]he market has become a global institution in the sense that most states conform to market

rules, and powerful intergovernmental organisations exist to support this conformity.’107 It is not

contentious to affirm that the market is an enduring feature of international society and even with

shifts in international order, it will remain a central institution. Whilst markets require some degree

of regulation, they are constituted from shared values and exhibit a strong agent – structure

relationship. Their creation, permanence and development can, therefore, be adequately

explained by the English School approach. Greater incorporation of international markets as an

institution within the English School does not undermine the theory, it is merely a development of it.

Development in this sector is, however, urgently required. Economic security is overshadowing

concerns regarding military or physical security in stable, developed elements of the international

society and has become the principal arena for interstate competition. Europe, for example, is

preoccupied with economic security and pays comparatively little attention to hard power. The

current shift in the balance of power is being driven by economic growth. This is not new: the

economy was central to the rise of the British Empire, as well as US emergence as a superpower.

As markets continue to increase their influence on the decision making processes within state

regimes, the light touch of the English School in this sector undermines its validity as a grand

theory.

105 Bull, Anarchical Society, 70. 106 Buzan, FIWS, 19 – 20. 107 Buzan, “Culture and international society.” in International Affairs (86: 1 2010), 24.

25

The lack of depth that the English School exhibits with regard to the international political economy

is a symptom of its marginalisation at the end of the twentieth century. The School’s approach to

the concept of security, for example, remains rooted in the mid-twentieth century perspective. IR

theorists have expanded the notion of security to encompass the social, environmental and

economic, as well as the traditional political and military domains. Despite Vincent and Wheeler’s

efforts to address humanitarian intervention and the concept of human security, the English School

has not kept pace with the how international understanding of security has developed. However as

with the argument regarding the economic sector, this omission is quite simply just that, an

omission. The marginalisation of a theory and the resulting gaps within the approach do not render

the theory implausible. Buzan’s inclusion of the Market, Environmental Stewardship and Equality

of People as institutions within international society satisfies the requirement for the School to keep

pace with developments in both theory and practice.108 It accords, moreover, with what Andrew

Linklater describes as the English Schools willingness ‘to consider substantive moral questions as

integral to the study of international relations.’109 The critical aspect of the English School is not to

be overlooked and Buzan’s revision of the institutions considers the normative dimension. These

additional institutions acknowledge, furthermore, the interplay between the material and social

elements that shape structures and actors within the international society: their inclusion is,

therefore, consistent with the critical realist philosophy that has been outlined as a foundation for

the English School.

Buzan goes on to criticise the founding fathers of the School for not giving adequate consideration

to levels within international society. He argues that distinction should be made between “global

international / world society on the one hand, and subglobal, and particularly regional, international

/ world societies on the other.”110 In light of the current shift from US hegemony towards a multi

polar society, that has a distinctly regional consistency, Buzan’s observations are valid. History

also demonstrates that the international society has not been global in nature; indeed, the English

School acknowledges that even today it continues to expand in a vanguardist fashion. Buzan’s

contention is not that the international society ontology presupposes global proportions: it is, rather,

that no matter what coverage is attained, regional level (international) societies are excluded from

analysis by those within the School.111 However, a significant portion of Watson and Bull’s

Expansion of International Society describes the process whereby ‘non-European states came to

take their place alongside European states not merely as participants in a single international

system, but as members of the same international society.’112 The concept outlined in Part II of

this volume clearly denotes an international society that, whilst dominated by Europe, is regional in

nature. Contemporary English School theorists must certainly ensure their observations relate to

108

Buzan, FIWS, 187. 109

Linklater and Suganami, English School of International Relations, 115. 110

Buzan, FIWS, 18. 111 ibid., 205. 112

Bull and Watson, Expansion of International Society, 7& Part II.

26

the current shifts within the international structure; contemporary relevance is, after all, a criterion

by which any theory must be judged. Buzan’s criticism on this issue appears, however, to omit the

work that exists within the School and concentrates on structural shortfalls that stem from the

hiatus in the School’s development, as opposed to permanent ontological features of the theory.

Buzan’s most important contribution to the English School is, nonetheless, the taxonomy he

imposes on international society, which is a product of his social structural reading of the theory.

His motivation for doing so is a desire to develop a lens through which to view globalisation.113

Buzan redraws the ontology of the international structure around world society and places within it

three domains: interstate society, inter-human society and transnational society. Interstate society

encompasses the pluralist – solidarist spectrum and ranges from asocial, where contact is limited

to wars of extermination, through to confederative, where solidarism meets a single political entity.

The span of inter-human society starts with fragmented groups, builds to large-scale imagined

communities and extends to universal identities. Finally, transnational society begins with a

situation where no transnational actors (TNA) exist and extends to a situation of pure –

medievalism, where the international community is made up solely of TNAs of various sorts. The

domains can co-exist and indeed overlap but hard boundaries are imposed between them for the

purposes of analysis. Buzan sees this model as privileging the state’s current position within world

society, whilst acknowledging the possibility of an international structure that is not composed of

states. If the three domains constitute the what aspect of theory, Buzan looks to Wendt’s triad of

coercion, calculation and belief to explain the how/why dimension of shared values.114 These

factors penetrate the pluralist – solidarist spectrum within the interstate society in such a way that

any combination of the three can account for the level of ‘thickness’ within a particular community.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was distinctly solidarist but this situation did not arise

primarily out of belief: coercion and calculation had considerable bearing on the inception and

longevity of the bloc.

Buzan’s work is, not surprisingly, an exemplar of systematic theorising and his model provides a

robust framework in which to consider the issue of globalisation. Wight, however, quipped that ‘the

purpose of building pigeon holes is to reassure oneself that the raw material does not fit into

them.’115 Indeed, Buzan’s strict taxonomy leads one to reflect on Wight’s more serious assertion

that classification is valuable ‘only at the point where it breaks down.’116 Buzan’s model is most

valuable by virtue of its illumination of the complexity of international politics, despite its admirable

power of reduction. The concept of interstate, inter-human and transnational domains is valid but

113

Buzan, FIWS, 229. 114

ibid, Ch4 & 5. 115

Wight, International Theory, 259. 116

ibid.

27

to impose a hard boundary between them limits representation of the mutual dependence that

exists between the three within international society. Every TNA relies on state support to some

degree and states are now wedded to commercial TNAs as never before. The separation of

interstate society and the inter-human domain, likewise, does not emphasise the relationship

between individuals and states, most notably in the delivery of justice through order within the

international society. Likewise, TNAs require human capital but this is secured, educated and

mobilised with considerable state assistance.

Expanding the Normative

The ontological clarity that was called for at the outset of this paper is, therefore, best delivered in

two ways: through a detailed normative reading of international society ontology, aligned with an

expanded analysis of institutions. A normative reading of international society is the best manner

through which to tackle the social and historical factors that shape international reality, without

ignoring the aspect of material necessity. This enables the English School to reflect its theoretical

pluralism, as there is the opportunity for the relationships with other IR theories to be exposed.

Most importantly, it is through a normative reading that the utility of the three traditions can be

capitalised. This ontology is, moreover, appropriate for both the critical realist philosophy and its

attendant methodology that offer to enhance the English School. Ole Waever forwards a typology

of international society that is an excellent starting point:

“1. rationalist atomism (institution-building for rational egoists to realise potential co-

operation gains);

2. constructivist voluntarism (open struggle over formative rules and principal norms);

3. materialistic necessity (hard rules to which the single unit has to bow); and

4. culturalistic holism (co-operation conditioned by shared civilisation or culture).”117

As one can identify, Waever has employed rationalist institutionalism, constructivism and post-

structuralism to formulate this typology, an approach that attests to a prominent thread within this

paper. He views rationalist atomism as cooperation ‘without assumptions of altruism or collective

commitment.’118 It is fair to assume that this equates to the international system, although Weaver

does not explicitly articulate this relationship. It is at this level that Bull’s normative principle of

sovereignty stands alone. The move to stage two, where Bull’s rule of cooperation begins to take

shape is enabled by Buzan’s concept of systemic pressure and international society’s development

arising out of dynamic density and interaction capacity.119 He develops the second and third

117

Ole Waever, “Four Meanings of International Society”, International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, ed. B. A. Robertson, (London: Continuum, 2002), 127. 118

ibid. 119 Barry Buzan, Charles Jones, Richard Little, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), 66.

28

stages from a post-structuralist approach, contending that ‘’laws’ and ‘structures’ are products of

social practice and even of purposeful actions.’120 Weaver’s view aligns with the critical realist

stance that there is an immutable link between structures and agents, with structures setting

boundaries within the unconscious dimension of agents: ‘The purposive actions are not self

consciously aimed at setting up these structures, but they nevertheless create or reproduce

them.’121 At level three, Bull’s rule of cooperation is firmly embedded and a societal increase in

common understanding enables the transition to a Kantian notion of cultural holism.

As stated above, Waever’s typology is an excellent starting point. With some development it is

possible to construct a layered, normative structure that encapsulates the English School ontology.

Weaver’s typology does not account for the international system’s material requirement that Bull

alluded to, nor does it encapsulate the defining feature of the society of mankind: aspiration.

Furthermore, if one transfers elements of Buzan’s social structural model and combine it with

Weaver’s approach, the typology becomes sharply refined. A more complete model can be

considered below:

1. Anomalous atomism (self contained existence without recourse to other groups).

2. Rationalist atomism; (institution-building for rational egoists to realist potential co-

operation gains).

3. Constructivist coexistence (open struggle over formative rules and principal norms).

4. Materialistic necessity (hard rules to which the single unit has to bow).

5. Constructivist cooperation (structural and normative coalescence).

6. Cultural convergence (structural and normative solidification).

7. Materialistic aspiration (non-state structural integration for gain maximisation, catalysed

by cultural proximity).

8. Structural fusion (integration of state institutions and non-state consolidation).

120

Waever, Four Meanings of International Society, 113. 121

ibid.

29

Figure 1: A normative reading of English School ontology.

What lies above is a normative typology that incorporates key elements of Buzan’s extensive

structural analysis, and which provides a degree of ontological clarity to the centre piece of the

English School. The layered approach displays distinct similarity to the concept of stratification

that is embedded within critical realism, but is undeniably an English School construct.

Importantly, international society is pre-eminent, underlining the emphasis on state structures and

agents as central components of the ontology. The international system and world society are

present at each stage, as we return to Bull’s contention that international society presupposes

both. The interaction capacity within international society develops with each step: physical

capacities develop most in stages three to four, with institutional capacity (such as diplomacy)

intensifying from stages five to eight. The cultural and social aspect of inter-human relations and

their inherent causal power are best captured by the term society of mankind. Non-state actors are

not, however, clustered within this element, as it is impossible to untangle the state and non-state

elements that formulate international society itself. Whilst the primary goals of mankind that Bull

identified remain constant, the level of cultural and social proximity within the society of mankind

increases at each stage, enabling a crucial nexus of gain maximisation and cultural similarity at

stage seven. By this the author contends that any lasting revision of international society requires

a certain level of cultural and social proximity, even if this revision is driven by hegemonic interests.

Revision is, however, prompted by ambition to develop gain maximisation beyond the parameters

of the contemporary structure.122 Importantly, our study does not determine that a move from

material aspiration to structural fusion necessarily follows an increase in social and cultural

proximity. Hegemonic coercion may drive a society immediately from stage three to stage eight

but, even in such a scenario, an increase in cultural and social homogeneity and progress through

the stages is necessary for the development to achieve permanence within international society.

Whilst international society is overwhelmingly prejudiced within the classification above it is not

envisaged to be uniquely global. Buzan’s emphasis on regions is an important structural

consideration that one must capture. The return to a normative typology does not exclude

application at both regional and world levels. It is, therefore, entirely feasible to have a region

embraced by material aspiration (stage seven), whilst the global dimension of international society

is engaged with constructivist cooperation (stage five). The pluralism to solidarism spectrum is

reflected across the levels, although it is by no means a constant variable. The level of pluralism

or solidarism will vary between the regional and global level, and across the state, non-state and

inter-human dimensions. For example, within the Middle East there one can observe solidarity

amongst the Islamic umma, whilst Islamic states are distinctly pluralist in their conduct of foreign

122

Gain maximisation is broader than economic gain: it can include security or political gains, for example.

30

affairs.123 Researchers are obliged to consider these factors as they work through causal

complexes that affect a particular issue. Anomalous atomism marks both a start point but also

acknowledges the fact that states or groups can exist without meaningful contact with the society

of states. Bull and Wight both tackled this issue in their discussions regarding barbarians.

From this departure point, international society moves through the limited cooperation of rational

atomism to stage three, which is labelled constructivist coexistence, reflecting the fact that while

the meaning of institutions is being developed through a dialectic process, these institutions are

nonetheless established and enabling international relations. The fourth stage remains unchanged

from Waever’s concept of a stratum where rules have been largely internalised by actors. This

marks the point where structure begins to have an unconscious effect on agents and is where any

notion of structural permanence can be meaningfully considered. Stages five and six indicate the

process by which structures become embedded to a point where their permanence is assumed

and interaction capacity enables the development of shared values regarding issues such as

human rights within institutions. At stages five and six the terms coalescence and solidification

have been employed to reflect convergence in the perceptions of structures and institutions that

agents hold, as well as increased normative convergence amongst agents themselves. When

international society reaches cultural convergence (stage 6), the presence of common domestic

structures is a feature. Stage seven marks the point at which the stability of the existing structure

and normative proximity enables risk to be taken on how the goals of mankind can be better

achieved and values further embedded. It is important to note that this may not be a voluntary

process and Buzan’s trilogy of coercion, cooperation and belief will shape the aspirations of actors.

The final stage expresses the possibility of structural (political) union between groups of states,

with the contemporary European Union being an obvious example. These final two stages

together introduce a fourth rule of international society to Bull’s longstanding trio: the rule of

transformation should be added to our understanding of international society. As long as states

have existed, a feature of the international structure has been attempts to maximise gain through a

revision of sovereignty, be that voluntary or imposed. Inclusion of this rule alongside two levels of

international society enables English School ontology to truly reflect the span of Wight’s three

traditions.

The centrality of Wight’s three traditions is, moreover, reinforced by compelling theorists to move

beyond monopolising rationalism as the English School’s view of international society,124 or indeed

beyond aligning realism, rationalism and revolutionism with the international system, international

123 Mandaville, Global Political Islam, 348. 124 Linklater and Suganami, English School of International Relations, 259.

31

society and society of mankind respectively.125 In Why Is There No International Theory? Wight

uses the Hobbesian, Grotian and Kantian perspectives to outline what he believes should

constitute international theory,126 indicating that all three are vital to explaining international

relations. As has been argued above, Neumann correctly identifies that Wight saw the three

traditions as vital to ‘presenting the history of international theory’ and necessary to ‘illuminate

patterns of policy and thought.’127 Any reading of international society, structural, normative or a

synthesis of both, should enable the utility of all three traditions to be applied throughout the depth

of international society.

The second manner in which to develop clarity within the English School is to combine a normative

reading of international ontology with an element of structural analysis: specifically, an expanded

vision of the institutions of international society. It is institutions, as via media between structures

and agents, that indicate most completely what drives international society. Analysis of institutions

can prove instructive: from how pluralist, or solidarist, international society is to what priorities lie

within regions or state actors themselves. Institutions are fundamental to each element of

Patomäki’s causal complexes, which have been cited as an example of how the English School

can develop research methodology within an interpretive framework. Since the institutional

framework represents the confluence between international society, the international system and

the society of mankind, it is where structural analysis, hermeneutics and normative critique can

derive real mutual benefit. Moreover, the evolutionary nature of primary institutions and their

derivates sits easily with the historical tradition of enquiry that must be zealously protected within

the School. Buzan provides an excellent account of the institutions of international society and

with his trademark rigor, breaks seven master institutions into derivatives and then secondary

institutions.128 The result is a detailed portrait of the daily workings of international society, from

the master institution of sovereignty to developments within environmental stewardship, such as

the Montreal Protocol. This is where the structural emphasis within the English School should

reside as it is the domain where the complexity of international reality manifests most clearly.

Secondary institutions, in particular, will be subject to revision and debate. Indeed, the institution

domain will be the element of greatest flux within international society ontology. Institutions,

therefore, should be established as an essential complement to the any normative account of

international society, such as the one outlined above. Furthermore, they promise to yield

significant progress within English School and should be prioritised as research field within it.

Conclusions

125

Buzan, FIWS, 7. 126 Wight, Why Is There No International Theory?, 31 – 33. 127 Iver B. Neumann, ”John Vincent and the English School of International Relations” The Future of International Relations, eds. Neumann and Weaver, (London: Routledge, 1997), 41. 128 Buzan, FIWS, Ch 6.

32

This paper has demonstrated that the English School is indeed the heir apparent within the realm

of IR, as it offers the most comprehensive reading of international politics within the discipline. The

plausibility of this argument rests on the ontology forwarded by the theory, which thanks to the

concept of international society, its components, rules and institutions, displays an unparalleled

degree of holism. The fact that international society comprises the international system and

society of mankind, and therefore incorporates both the physical and the normative dimensions,

only adds to its completeness. This ontological completeness is supported by Wight’s three

traditions: realism, rationalism and revolutionism are fundamental to the School’s approach to

theorising and capture the evolution of the international society, as well as its contemporary

travails. Rationalism, rightly, is afforded primus inter pares, as it is from rationalism that

international society itself issues forth.129 The School’s potency, however, derives from the

explanatory potential that arises from the three traditions being used in concert. The three

traditions permit the English School to avoid the narrowness within the rationalist perspective,

whilst retaining the ability to account for events that is scarce within reflectivist theories. The

School’s theoretical pluralism, therefore, enables it to tackle the complexity that is inherent to

international politics from a position that draws on the most advantageous aspects within the

rationalist and reflectivist domains. Naturally, advantage is often accompanied by disadvantage.

The English School’s principal strength is also its Achilles heel, as ontological holism and the

accommodation of three theoretical approaches under one roof calls the School’s suitability as a

research mechanism and its very theoretical viability into question.

We have noted how a judgement of illegitimacy can be averted in two ways. First, the English

School’s theoretical status rests on its ability to advance knowledge of international politics. The

British Committee of International Relations and those founding members within the LSE

developed understanding of international theory itself, the constitution of international society, as

well as our understanding of order and justice within it. These issues are vital to theorising about

and engaging in international politics; a significant amount of contemporary IR theorists build on

the body of work that was generated within the Wight-Bull-Vincent lineage. Second, the School’s

epistemological and ontological coherence has been progressed. We have seen how critical

realism provides a philosophical foundation that supports the epistemological range demanded by

Wight’s three traditions. The fundamentals of critical realism, aligned with the English School

tradition of enquiry, open the door to a synthesis between structural analysis, interpretive and

critical theorizing. Critical realism appears to ratify the English School approach and their

collaboration is an avenue of enquiry that demands future development. Furthermore, this paper

began with a call for ontological clarity and it is now evident the School’s ontology is best

considered in normative terms. In charting progress towards this goal, Dunne reminds us: ‘that a

129

Bull, Anarchical Society, 24.

33

historical / normative approach should sit alongside any analytical / structural dissection of

international society.’130 One must, however, afford the former approach dominance within this

union.

The English School of International Relations addresses the complexity that exists within the

international arena more completely than any other single approach across the IR spectrum. Its

long standing interpretive strength, explanatory potential and critical engagement provide powerful

arguments for its constitution as the grand theory within the field. Brian Schmidt has described ‘an

absence of large-scale explanatory theory in Britain.’131 The English School has a rich tradition of

enquiry that, with focussed development, can not only answer Schmidt’s call, but remove

unwarranted impediments and assume global prominence.

130 Dunne, System State and Society, 170. 131 Brian Schmidt, “International Relations Theory: Hegemony or Pluralism?” Millenium 36, no. 2 (2008), 303.

34

Bibliography Books Aalto, Pami, Harle, Vilho and Moisio, Sami, International Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Baylis, John, Smith, Steve, Owens, Patricia, The Globalisation of World Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Bhaskar, Roy, Dialectic: The Pulse of Freedom. London: Verso, 1993. Bhaskar, Roy, Possibility of Naturalism. A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. London: Routledge, 1979. Bull, Hedley, “International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,” in Contending Approaches to International Politics, eds. Klaus Knorr and James N. Rosenau. Princeton: Princeton University Press: 1969. Bull, Hedley, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Macmillan: London: 1977. Butterfield, Herbert and Wight, Martin, Diplomatic Investigations. Northampton: Unwin, 1996. Bull, Hedely and Watson, Adam, The Expansion of International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 1984. Buzan, Barry, From International to World Society? The English School Theory and the Social Structure of Gobalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Buzan, Barry, Jones, Charles, Little, Richard, The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Buzan Barry, de Wilde, Jaap and Waever Ole, Security: a new framework for analysis. London: Lynne Reinner, 1998. Checkel, Jeffery T., International Institutions and Socialisation in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Dunne, Tim, Inventing International Society. A History of the English School. Macmillan: Basingstoke: 1998. Dunne, Tim, Milja, Kurki, Smith, Steve, International Relations Theories. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2001. Foot, Rosemary, Lewis Gaddis, John and Hurrell, Andrew, Order and Justice in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Halliday, Fred: Rethinking International Relations. London: Macmillan, 1994. Linklater, Andrew and Suganami, Hidemi, The English School of International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Mandaville, Peter, Global Political Islam. London: Routledge, 2007. Neumann, Iver B., ”John Vincent and the English School of International Relations” The Future of International Relations, eds. Neumann and Weaver. London: Routledge, 1997.

35

Neumann, Iver B., Weaver, Ole, The Future of International Relations. London: Routledge, 1997. Patomäki, Heikki, after International Relations. Critical Realism and the (re)construction of world politics. London: Routledge, 2002. Robertson, B. A. International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory. London: Continuum, 2002. Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken and Zalewski, Marysia, International theory: positivism and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Stern, Geoffrey, The Structure of International Society. London: Pinter, 1995. Vincent, R. J., Nonintervention and International Order. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. Vincent, R. J., Human Rights and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Waever, Ole, “Four Meanings of International Society”, International Society and the Development of International Relations Theory, ed. B. A. Robertson. London: Continuum, 2002. Wendt, Alexander, A Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Wight, Martin, International Theory The Three Traditions. London: Leicester University Press, 1991. Wheeler, Nicholas J., Saving Strangers, Humanitarian Intervention in International Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Articles Adler, Emanuel, “Barry Buzan’s Use of Constructivism to Reconstruct the English School: ‘Not All the Way Down’” in Millenium 35 no. 1 (2005), 171 – 182. Adler, Emanuel, Buzan, Barry, Dunne, Tim, “Forum Afterword” in Millenium 35, no. 1 (2005), 195 – 199. Brown, Chris, “Situating Critical Realism” in Millenium 35, no. 2 (2007), 409 - 416. Buzan, Barry, “Culture and international society” International Affairs 86: 1 (2010), 1 – 25. Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard, “The ‘English patient’ strikes back: a response to Hall’s mis-diagnosis.” International Affairs, 77, 3 (2001), 943 - 946. Bull, Hedley, “Martin Wight Memorial Lecture” in British Journal of International Studies 2 (1976), 101 - 105. Chernoff, Fred, “Critical Realism, Scientific Realism, and International Relations Theory” in Millenium 35, no. 2 (2007), 399 - 407. Cox, Robert W., “The International’ in Evolution”, Millenium 35, no. 3 (2007), 513 – 527. Cox, Robert, W., “Social Forces and World Orders: Beyond International Relations Theories” Millenium 10, no.1 (1981), 126 - 155.

36

Dunne, Tim System,” State and Society: How Does It All Hang Together?” in Millenium 35 no. 1 (2005), 157 – 170. Epp, Roger, The English School on the frontiers of international society: a hermeneutic recollection, (British International Studies Association, 1998), 48 - 63. Guzzini, Stefano, “Constructivism and the role of institutions in international relations” in Rassegna Italianadi Sociologia (2003), 1 - 21. http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/gus06/gus06.pdf (accessed February 10, 2012). Guzzini, Stefano, “Power in International Relations: concept formation between conceptual analysis and conceptual history” in 43rd Annual convention of the International Studies Association (March 2002), 1 - 28. http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/gus03/gus03.pdf (accessed May 23, 1012). Hall, Ian, “Still the English patient? Closures and inventions in the English school.” International Affairs, 77, 3 (2001), 931 - 940. Hopf, Ted, Kratochwil and Lebow, Richard Ned, “Reflexivity: Method and Evidence” in Mershon Center Working Paper, (Mar 2000). http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/sites/mershon.html (accessed May, 19, 2012). Jones, Charles, “Cristian Realism and the foundations of the English School” in International Relations 17(3) (2003), 371 – 387. Jones, Roy E. “The English school of international relations: a case for closure,” Review of International Studies 7: 1, (1981), 1 - 14. Joseph, Jonathan, “Philosophy in International Relations: A Scientific Realist Approach,” Millenium 35, no. 2 (2007), 345 - 359. Kurki, Milja “Critical Realism and Causal Analysis in International Relations,” Millenium 35, no. 2 (2007), 361 - 378. Onuf, Nicholas, “The Strange Career of Constructivism in International Relations” in (Re)Constructing Constructivist International Relations Research, Centre for International Studies (Oct 2001), 6 – 21. Schmidt, Brian, “International Relations Theory: Hegemony or Pluralism?” Millenium 36, no. 2 (2008), 295 – 304. Schouenborg, Laust, “A New Institutionalism? The English School as International Sociological Theory” in International Relations 25(1), 26 – 44. Suganami, Hedemi, “C. A. W. Manning and the Study of International Relations”, Review of International Studies, 27 (1), 91 – 107. Totten, M., Analyse the conduct of Islamic States in foreign affairs using the English School Theory of International Relations. Discuss the utility of the theory as an aid to understanding this topic., MA Special Subject Essay, JSCSC, 2012. Waever, Ole, “Discourse Analysis as Foreign Policy Theory: The case of Germany and Europe” Centre for German and European Studies, University of California at Berkeley, (Nov 2007). Wight, Colin, “ A Manifesto for Scientific Realism in IR: Assuming the Can-Opener Won’t Work!” Millenium 35, no. 2 (2007), 379 - 398.

37

Websites http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics. (accessed May 22, 2012). http://www.polis.leeds.ac.uk/research/international-relations-security/english-school/ (accessed February 20, 2012). http://www2.lse.ac.uk/internationalRelations/Home.aspx (accessed May 23, 2012).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this paper are entirely and solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect official thinking and policy either of

Her Majesty’s Government or of the Ministry of Defence.

Published by Defence Academy of the United Kingdom

Tel: (+44) 1793 314828Email: admin.hq@defenceacademy.mod.ukhttp://www.da.mod.uk/publications