political thought, international relations theory and ...eprints.lse.ac.uk/84347/1/political thought...
TRANSCRIPT
Chris Brown Political thought, international relations theory and international political theory: an interpretation Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Brown, Chris (2017). Political thought, international relations theory and international political theory: an interpretation. International Relations. 31, (3) pp. 227-240. ISSN 0047-1178 DOI: 10.1177/0047117817723062 © 2017 The Author This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/84347/ Available in LSE Research Online: October 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it.
InternationalRelations:2017Vol31(3)227–240DOI10.1177/0047117817723062
PoliticalThought,InternationalRelationsTheoryandInternationalPoliticalTheory:AnInterpretation
ChrisBrown,EmeritusProfessorofInternationalRelationsLondonSchoolofEconomicsc.j.brown@lse.ac.uk
Abstract:
Therelationshipbetweenpoliticaltheory,includingthehistoryofpoliticalthought,andInternationalRelationstheory,includingthehistoryofinternationalthoughthasbeen,andtosomeextentremains,complexandtroubled.OnbothsidesoftheAtlantic,themid-twentiethcenturyfoundersofInternationalRelationsasanacademicdisciplinedrewextensivelyonthecanonofpoliticalthought,butapproachedthesubjectinanuncriticalway,whilepoliticalphilosopherslargelydisdainedtheinternationalasafocus.Thischangedinthe1970sand80s,withtheemergenceofthe‘justiceindustry’basedoncritiquesofRawls’sATheoryofJusticeandaconsequentrecoveringofthepasthistoryofcosmopolitanandcommunitarianthought.Anewdiscourseemergedinthisperiod–internationalpoliticaltheory–bridgingthegapbetweenpoliticalthoughtandinternationalrelations,andstimulatingafarmorecreativeandscholarlyapproachtothehistoryofinternationalthought.However,inasocialscienceenvironmentdominatedbythemethodsofeconomics,thatisformaltheoryandquantification,thenewdiscourseofinternationalpoliticaltheoryoccupiesanicheratherthanexistingatthecentreofthediscipline.
KeyWords:InternationalRelationsTheory;InternationalPoliticalTheory;EnglishSchool;HistoryofPoliticalThought;CambridgeSchool;EnglishSchool,JohnRawls;politicalscience;socialchoicetheory.
Introduction:
IntheframingdocumentwhichinitiatedtheSymposiumatwhichtheessays
collectedinthisSpecialSectionwerefirstpresented,thefocusoftheSymposium
wasexpoundedandaparadoxidentified:
2
‘ClassicalpoliticalthoughthaslongbeenpartofInternationalRelations.It
isthereforesomethingofaparadoxthatquestionsofinternational
relationstodayreceivecomparativelylittleattentionfrompolitical
theorists.Historiansofpoliticalthought,forexample,seldomengagesuch
questionsor,whentheydoengage,oftencriticizethewayinwhich
theoristsofinternationalrelationshandleclassicaltexts…..[Such]
criticismpromptsaquestionofconsiderableimport:what,ifanything,
doesthehistoryofpoliticalthoughtcontributetoInternationalRelations
theory?’
Thepurposeofthisessayistoprovideanextendedcommentaryonthese
propositionsandthisparadox;inwhatfollowsitwillbearguedthattheframing
ofthisissueisbroadlycorrect,butthatonceonedigsdeepersomeproblems
arise,problemswhichrequireareframingofsomeofthecoreelementsofthe
wayinwhichtherelationshipbetweenInternationalRelationstheoryandthe
historyofpoliticalthoughtistobeunderstood.Theelementsofthisreframing
willbepresentedinsummaryforminthisIntroduction,andthendefendedat
greaterlength.
First,itisindeedtruethat‘classicalpoliticalthoughthaslongbeenpartof
InternationalRelations’,butitisequallytruethattheaccountof‘classical
politicalthought’thatwascustomaryuntilquiterecentlywas,forthemostpart,
crude,caricaturedandun-nuanced;thiswasthecaseforbothmid-century
AmericanRealistssuchasHansMorgenthauandforearly‘EnglishSchool’
writerssuchasMartinWight.
Second,althoughthereissometruthinthechargethat‘questionsof
internationalrelationstodayreceivecomparativelylittleattention’from
historiansofpoliticalthought,itisalsotruethatotherpoliticaltheorists,
especiallyofananalyticalbent,donotneglectinternationalissues.Historiansof
politicalthoughthavethemselvesbecomemarginalisedinthemodernAnglo-
Americanacademy,andtheirinattentiontointernationalissuesmaybeaby-
productoftheirstruggletosurviveinahostileenvironment.
3
Third,therelativedominanceofanalyticalpoliticaltheoryintheAnglo-American
academyismirroredbytheriseofneo-positivist,socialchoicethinkingin
PoliticalScienceandInternationalRelations;thisperspectiveisgenerally
uninterestedinhistoryofanykind,butasubfieldofInternationalRelations
theoryopposedtothedominanceofneo-utilitarianismhasarisen,namely
InternationalPoliticalTheoryandthisnewsubfieldisgenerallymoreengaged
withthehistoryofpoliticalthought.
Fourth,whiletheexistenceofInternationalPoliticalTheoryhasstimulatedthe
emergenceofcontemporaryhistoriansofinternationalpoliticalthoughtwho
haveafarsuperiorgraspoftheirsubjectthantheirpredecessorsinthe
discourse,theydrawanaudiencefortheirworkfromasubfieldofthediscipline
ratherthanfromInternationalRelationsTheoryassuch.Unliketheir‘historians
ofpoliticalthought’cousins,historiansofinternationalpoliticalthoughtfilla
nichethatitiswidelybelievedoughttobefilled,buttheyareindeedofferinga
nicheproductratherthancontributingdirectlytothemainstream.
Fifth,insummary,weseethatashifthastakenplace.Tooversimplifythestory,
fiftyyearsagoscholarsinthefieldwerepassionatelyconcernedwiththehistory
ofinternationalthought,andindeedwithinternationalhistoryingeneral,but
theiraccountoftheclassicsdidnotstanduptoclosescrutiny.Now,thereare
numerousscholarsofinternationalpoliticalthoughtwhohavedonethekindof
in-depthtextualanalysisthatearlieronwasmissing,buttheirplaceinthewider
disciplineismoreproblematicthanusedtobethecase.Justatthepointat
whichexpertiseonthehistoryofinternationalthoughtisatitszenith,a
knowledgeoftheclassicsisnolongerthoughttobeanecessitybythemost
influentialmodernscholarsofeitherPoliticalScienceorInternationalRelations.
Therestofthisessaywillfillouttheargumentspresentedinshorthandabove,
butbeforeproceedingtothistaskitisnecessarytoacknowledgetwolimitations;
first,thefocushereisonAnglo-AmericanwritersandtheAnglo-American
academy.Anglo-Americaninthiscontextisdefinedasincludinganyonewhose
professionallifeisconductedmainlythroughthemediumofEnglish,thus
4
includingmostNorthEuropeans,butnotincludingmostFrancophones.Very
clearlyawhollydifferentstorycouldbetoldabouttherelationshipbetweenthe
historyofpoliticalthoughtandthediscourseofInternationalRelationswerethe
focustobeonFranceratherthantheAnglo-Americanworld.Thetwoworlds
are,ofcourse,nothermeticallysealed,therearepost-structuralistsinLondon
andNewYork,CopenhagenandBerlin,andthereareutilitariansinParis,but
nonethelesstheseworldsremaindistinct,asacursorysurveyofthekeyjournals
ofAnglo-Americawillconfirm–overthetwenty-yearhistoryoftheEuropean
JournalofInternationalRelations,thelackofmaterialthereinfromFrance,Italy
orSpainhasbeenaconstantcomplaintofitshostorganisation,theEuropean
ConsortiumofPoliticalResearch.WhetherthenewEuropeanInternational
StudiesAssociationwillbridgethisgapremainstobeseen.
Asecond,perhapsmoreimportant,limitationconcernsInternationalLaw.It
couldwellbearguedthatmanyoftheissueswhichhavebecomecentraltothe
discourseofInternationalPoliticalTheorywerefirstrehearsedbyInternational
Lawyers;figuressuchasGrotius,PufendorfandVattelareobviouslyimportant
here,asareearlytwentiethcenturyfiguressuchasHansKelsenandHershel
Lauterpacht,and,inourera,MarttiKoskenniemiandJamesCrawford.And,of
course,somefigureswhoarerenownedasInternationalRelationstheorists
beganlifeasInternationalLawyersorlegalphilosophers–C.A.WManningand
HansJMorgenthauarethemostobviousexampleshere.Theproblemisthatto
doanythinglikejusticetotheimportanceofInternationalLawinthe
developmentofInternationalPoliticalTheorywouldrequiremorespacethanis
availabletomehere–better,allthingsconsidered,simplytoacknowledgethe
limitationandmoveon.
PoliticalThoughtandIRTheoryintheMid-TwentiethCentury
ThehistoryofthedisciplineofInternationalRelations–if‘discipline’istheright
wordinthiscontext–ishotlycontested;itiscommongroundthatspeculation
aboutthenatureofrelationsthatwouldnowbedescribedas‘international’hasa
longhistory,intheWesterntraditiongoingbacktoclassicalGreeceand
5
Thucydides,butwhenthatspeculationcrystallisedintosystematicstudyis
anothermatter.1Manystandardtextstake1918asaconvenientpointoforigin,
BrianSchmidtseescontinuitybetweennineteenthcenturypoliticalscienceand
themoderndiscipline,whileNicolasGuilhotdates‘theinventionofInternational
Relationstheory’toaRockefellerFoundation-fundedconferencethattookplace
in1954.2Forthepurposesofthisessay,Guilhot’sdate,ifmadealittleless
precise,makesthemostsense:importantthoughtheinter-waryears
undoubtedlywereitisintheperiodfrom,roughly,1945to1965–theperiod
dominatedintheUSbytheso-called‘classicalrealists’,inparticularHans
Morgenthau,ArnoldWolfers,JohnHerzandinthebackground,Reinhold
NiebuhrandintheUKbyscholarssuchasC.A.W.Manning,HerbertButterfield
andMartinWight,thelasttwoofwhomlatercametobeseenastheoriginators
oftheso-called‘EnglishSchool’–thatInternationalRelationstheorycametobe
seenasadistinctivefocusofstudyuponwhichthehistoryofpoliticalthought
did,ordidnot,impinge.3
Alloftheaforementionedscholars,withthepossibleexceptionofthetheologian
Niebuhr,groundedtheirthinkingoninternationalrelationsintheirknowledge
ofhistory,andallmadefrequentreferencestothecanonofEuropeanpolitical
thoughtstretchingbacktotheClassicalGreeks.Thesereferencespresenta
rathermixedpicturetothemodernreader.Ontheonehand,Niebuhr’sreading
ofAugustinestandsupverywell,andindeedthedepthofknowledgeoftheEarly
ChristianFathersexhibitedbyfiguressuchasWightandButterfieldisvery
impressive,incidentallyunderliningtheextenttowhichBritishintellectuallife
remaineddeeplyChristianinthe1940sand50s–oneofthemostimportant
influencesontheBritishCommitteeonInternationalTheory,theforerunnerto
theEnglishSchool,wasthetheologianDonaldMackinnon.4Ontheotherhand,
EarlyChristianFathersaside,therangeofsourcestowhichthesefigures
referredwasquitelimited,andmanyofthejudgementstheyofferedvergedon
caricature,indeedactuallycrossedthelineintocaricatureinsomecases.
Partlythiswasafunctionofthedeterminationofmostofthesewritersto
understandinternationalrelationsasinter-staterelations,andtofocusonthose
6
figuresinthecanonwhoexpresslyaddressedsuchrelations.Thus,forexample,
neitherPlatonorAristotle,northeStoicsfeaturedintheiruseofthecanon,
insteadThucydideswasturnedtoassomeonewhoexplicitlyaddressedinter-
staterelations.Ofcourse,thecitieswhosewarThucydidesobservedwerenot
‘states’inthemodernsenseoftheterm–norindeedweretheItaliancity-states
thatMachiavelli,anotherfavouredsource,wroteabout–buttheywere
unproblematicallytreatedassuchbymostoftheauthorsunderconsideration
here.Wight’sview,famouslyexpressedinhisframingarticlefortheBritish
Committee,‘Whyistherenointernationaltheory?’,wasthatpoliticaltheoryis
resolutelystate-centricandhasbeensincePlato,while‘internationaltheory’is
somethingdifferent,markednotonlybyitspaucity,butalsobyintellectualand
moralpoverty.5Tobean‘internationaltheorist’onhisaccountitwasnecessary
toaddressinter-staterelationsdirectly.Asaresult,manyoftheauthorswho
wouldlaterfeatureverysubstantiallyintheInternationalPoliticalTheoryofthe
1980sandonwards–inparticularKantandHegel–weregivenveryshortshrift
indeed.InsofarasKantisreadatallinthisperioditisasautopianthinker;in
F.H.Hinsley’sgenerallyvaluablestudyPowerandthePursuitofPeace,Kant’s
‘PerpetualPeace’isseenasthelastinthelineofeighteenthcenturypeace
projects,andreadoutsideofthecontextofKant’smoralphilosophy.6InPolitics
AmongNationsMorgenthaureferstoHegelsimplyasaGermannationalist;
Wightgoesonebetter,referringtotheNazisandCommunistsasthechildrenof
HegelandKant.7
PartlybecauseofthelimitationsthatIRtheoristsimposedupontheiruseofthe
canon,therewasrelativelylittleinteractionwithpoliticaltheoristsand
historiansofthought.IntheUK,forexample,theLondonSchoolofEconomicsin
the1950sand60swasthehomebothtoleadingBritishCommitteemembers
MartinWightandHedleyBullinitsInternationalRelationsDepartment,andto
oneofthelargestcoteriesofhistoriansofpoliticalthoughtinthecountry,
groupedaroundthecharismaticfigureofMichaelOakeshottinitsGovernment
Department,butthereisverylittleevidenceofthesegroupsinfluencingeach
other.Severaldecadeslater,scholarssuchasTerryNardinandRobertJackson
wrotemajorworksofInternationalPoliticalTheorywhichwerehighly
7
influencedbyOakeshottianideas–indeedNardinhasbecomeoneoftheworld’s
leadingscholarsofOakeshott’sphilosophy–butthereisnoevidencethat
contemporaryInternationalRelationsscholarsinthe1950sand60sinteracted
inanymeaningfulwaywithOakeshottorhiscolleagues.8
IfinteractionbetweenhistoriansofthoughtandstudentsofInternational
RelationstheorywasverylimitedatLSE,inotherBritishcentresoflearningit
wasevenmoreattenuated.Generally,intheUnitedKingdombothscholarsof
InternationalRelationstheoryandhistoriansofpoliticalthoughtwerethinon
theground.Fromtheperspectiveofthemid-sixtiesthemajorexpansionof
InternationalRelationsasanacademicdiscoursewouldtakeplacesometwo
decadeslater,the‘Cambridge’approachtothehistoryofthoughtbuiltaround
J.G.A.PocockandQuentinSkinnerhadyettobedevelopedandtheanalytical
philosophydominantamongstOxfordpoliticaltheoristswasnotconduciveto
thestudyofthehistoryofpoliticalthought.IntheUnitedStatesthedetailswere
different–forexample,inpoliticalthoughtthehighly-influentialfigureofLeo
StrausshadnoobviousequivalentinBritishacademiclife9–butthegeneral
pictureofapparentmutualindifferencebetweenhistoriansofpoliticalthought
andstudentsofInternationalRelationstheorywasmuchthesame.Butinthe
1970sthingsweretochange,bothforIRtheoryandforthehistoryofpolitical
thought,andadifferentconjunctionofideasemerged.
TheRiseofthe‘JusticeIndustry’andofInternationalPoliticalTheory
ThestartinggunforthischangewasfiredbythepublicationofJohnRawls’sA
TheoryofJustice,arguably,themostimportantworkofAnglo-Americanpolitical
theoryinthetwentiethcentury.10TheTheoryofJusticeis,onthefaceofit,a
workofliberalanalyticalpoliticalphilosophy,developingitsideasinachainof
reasoningfromfirstprinciplesbutitalsodrawsheavilyonareadingofKantand
oftheutilitarians.Thoughmoderninitsanalyticalmethod,itisaworkof
politicalphilosophythatconnectsreadilywiththeclassics,notleastbyits
ambition–thisisabookwhichintendstotelluswhatjusticeisand,not,for
example,simplyhowthewordisused,thelatterbeingtheobjectiveofmost
8
politicalphilosophyinthemid-twentiethcentury.Becauseofitsscopeand
ambition,andalso,ithastobesaidbecauseofitsoccasionalobscurity,The
TheoryofJusticeisaworkthathasattractedanenormousamountof
commentary–theterm‘justiceindustry’isbarelyanexaggeration–andagreat
dealofthatcommentaryhasfocusedontheinternationalimplicationsofhis
theory.Rawlsdidhavesomethingstosayaboutinternationalrelations,and
wouldlaterelaboratehispositioninhisshortbookof1999,TheLawofPeoples,
buthismaincontributiontoInternationalRelationstheoryhasbeentoprovoke
hiscriticstochallengehisthinkinginthisarea;11intheprocess,anewdiscourse
aboutinternationalrelationsandanewrelationshiptosomeelementsofthe
canonofgreatpoliticalthinkersemerged.
Rawls’ssubstantiveaccountofjusticeinsocietyinvolvedpoliticalfreedomand
whathecalledthe‘differenceprinciple’whichholdsthatinequalitiescanbe
justifiedonlyiftheyworktothebenefitoftheleast-advantagedinsociety.His
accountofinternationaljusticeofferstheequivalentofpoliticalfreedom,thatis
sovereignequality,non-interventionandtheinternationalruleoflaw,butno
equivalentofthedomesticdifferenceprinciple.Fromtheearliestcritical
reactiontoRawls’stheoryonwards,itwasgenerallyagreedthatthisdecisionnot
toproduceanaccountofeconomicandsocialjusticethatappliedtointernational
societywasatleastproblematicifnotactuallyperverse,giventheobvious
importanceofinternationalinequalityinthemodernworld,andwriterssuchas
BrianBarry,CharlesBeitz,andlaterThomasPoggemadeRawls’spositionon
thisissuethecentrepieceoftheircriticismofhisproject.12Noneofthesewriters
wasparticularlyinterestedinthehistoryofpoliticalthought;inreactionto
Rawlsposition,politicalphilosopherswereincreasinglynowfocusedonthe
international–indeedthecasecanbemadethatRawlswasthelastinalongline
ofliberalpoliticaltheoristswhobelieveditpossibletothinkofdomestic
societiesasboundedcommunitiesseparatefromeachother–butwhilethenew
studentsofglobalsocialjusticemayhavemadecontactwiththeinternational
theydidnotdosoviathemediumofthehistoryofthought,butratherthrough
abstracttheorisinganda‘presentist’orientation.
9
Nonetheless,itcanbearguedthatitwasasaby-productofthedebatesbetween
Rawlsandhiscriticswhichfocusedattentiononglobalsocialjusticeandglobal
inequalitythatsomeimportantre-evaluationstookplaceinthe1970sand
1980s,re-evaluationsofgreatimportfortherelationsbetweenthehistoryof
politicalthoughtandInternationalRelationstheory.Mostimportantly,the
criticsofRawlsrevitalisedthestudyofcosmopolitanismandthesearchforits
roots.Whereasadecadeorsoearliercosmopolitanismhadbeenlargely
associatedwithutopiantheoriesofinternationalrelations,theorieswhichhad
beendiscreditedbythetriumphofrealism,thecosmopolitanismoftheliberal
criticsofRawlslocatedtheoriginsoftheirpositioninthethoughtofthe
EuropeanEnlightenmentandespeciallythatofImmanuelKant,and,toalesser
extentofKarlMarxandtheMarxisttradition.ForfiguressuchasBeitzandPogge
itwasthemoraltheoryofKantthatwascentraltocosmopolitanthought,and
Kant’s‘PerpetualPeace’cametobeunderstoodasanexpressionofthatmoral
theory,ratherthanassimplyanotherimplausiblepeaceproject,whichishow
thepreviousgenerationofscholarshadlargelyseenthiswork.13Conversely,
criticsofcosmopolitanismlookedtotherootsofamorecommunity-oriented
accountofpoliticalmorality,andfounditintheworkofG.F.W.Hegeland/or
JohnStuartMill.14Forbothcosmopolitansandcommunitarians,thehistoryof
internationalthought,anditslinkstothehistoryofpoliticalthoughtmore
generally,becamesalientinspiteofthepresentistinclinationsofmostofthe
participantsintheglobaljusticedebates.
Theworkthatmostaccuratelyreflectsthisneworientationtothehistoryof
internationalthoughtisAndrewLinklater’sMenandCitizensintheTheoryof
InternationalRelationswhichbeganlifeasaPhDthesiswritteninthe
InternationalRelationsDepartmentatLSE(Linklater,1982).15HereKant’s
cosmopolitanismisliberatedfromthechargeofutopianism,Hegel’saccountof
therationalstateisnolongerseenasacoverforGermannationalism,andMarx’s
thoughtisstudiedinitsowntermsandnotthroughLeninistlenses.Manyofthe
judgementsLinklatermakesinthispath-breakingbookhavenotnecessarily
stoodthetestoftime,butthisisaworkinthehistoryofpoliticalthoughtbyan
InternationalRelationstheoristthatrepresentsagiantstepawayfromthekind
10
ofcaricaturesthatwereonofferacoupleofdecadesearlier.Inthesameperiod
TerryNardin’suseofOakeshott’spoliticalthoughtinLaw,Moralityandthe
RelationsofStatesrepresentsanotherstep-leveladvanceontheworkofthe
1960s,bringingtogetherpoliticaltheoryandIRtheoryinawaythatwouldhave
surprisedbothsidesofthedivideinthe1960s.MichaelDoyle’sappropriationof
Kantinordertoformulateanearlyversionof‘democraticpeacetheory’israther
closertoacaricature,butstillfindswithin‘PerpetualPeace’muchmorethandid
HinsleyorWight.16Again,MervynFrost’s‘constitutivetheory’presentsapicture
ofHegelthatmany,probablymostHegelianswouldhardlyrecognise,but,again,
hisworkrepresentsamajoradvanceonthecrudecharacterisationsofHegel
currentafewyearsearlier.17
Whatisnoticeablehereisthattheseauthorswereallscholarsofinternational
relationswhoturnedthemselvesintohistoriansofpoliticalthoughtbecausethey
wantedtosaysomethingthattheyfounddifficulttosayfromthestartingpoint
ofconventionalInternationalRelationstheory.Linklater,forexample,was
steepedintheBritishCommittee/’EnglishSchool’writingsofBulland,
especially,Wight–and,indeed,returnedtothesesourcesinhislaterwork–but
MenandCitizensisnotinanyconventionalsenseanEnglishSchoolwork.The
resultwasthattheseauthors,alongwiththecriticsanddefendersofRawls
referredtoabove,ineffectcreatedanewdiscourse,InternationalPolitical
Theory,distinctfrom,thoughclearlyrelatedto,InternationalRelationstheory.
MoreontheimportanceofInternationalPoliticalTheorylaterinthisessay,but
firstitisworthnotingaparticularfeatureofthebirthofthissub-field;ifthe
creatorsofInternationalPoliticalTheoryareanalyticalpoliticaltheoristsand
politicaltheory-orientedinternationaltheorists,thenthequestionarises,where
arethehistoriansofpoliticalthoughtproper?Itisstrikingthattherearevery
fewworksonthehistoryofinternationalthoughtbyhistoriansofpolitical
thoughtpublishedinthisperiod.OnesuchwouldbeW.B.Gallie’sPhilosophersof
WarandPeace:Kant,Clausewitz,Marx,EngelsandTolstoy,ashortbutvaluable
bookbasedontheauthor’sBelfastWileslectures,butitisdifficulttofinda
secondexample.18Lateronthenewly-formedCambridgeSchoolofhistoriansof
thoughtwouldproduceimportantworkon,forexample,colonialismand
11
imperialism,butinthe1970sonlyJ.G.A.Pocock’sTheMachiavellianMomentisof
directsignificanceforInternationalPoliticalTheory.19Thelackofengagement
withtheinternationalbypoliticaltheoristsinthemid-TwentiethCentury
continuedtwentyyearslater,evenasInternationalRelationsscholarssuchas
LinklaterandNardinweresuccessfullyengagingwiththehistoryofpolitical
thought.Howisthistobeexplained?
PoliticalScience,InternationalRelationsandPoliticalTheory
Theratherunexpectedpatternoutlinedaboveisatleastpartlyexplicablein
termsofchangesthatweretakingplaceinthewiderdiscourseofAmerican
PoliticalScience,inparticulartheincreasingsignificanceinthisperiodofsocial
choicetheory,formalmodellingandquantification,importedintoPolitical
SciencefromthedisciplinesofEconomicsandEconometrics.Inthisperiodfrom
themid-60sthroughtothemid-80s,‘politicaltheory’becameincreasingly
understoodasformaltheorising,ontheexplicitanalogyofeconomicmodel-
building.And,justasmosteconomistshaveverylittleinterestinthehistoryof
theirdiscipline,somostpoliticalscientistscametodownplaythesignificanceof
thehistoryofpoliticalthoughtandthestudyofthecanoncametobe
marginalised.Ofcourse,thiswasnotaprocessthathappenedovernightoratan
evenrateeverywhere;someofthemostprestigious(andwealthy)universities
continuedtosupportthestudyofthehistoryofpoliticalthoughtinmuchthe
samewaythattheysupportedthestudyof,forexample,medievalphilosophy
andlanguages,thatisassubjectsofnopracticalsignificance,embodyinganethic
oflearningforitsownsake.And,ofcourse,therewerepocketsofresistanceto
thenewlearningfromtheleftintheformofcriticaltheoristssuchasCharles
TaylorandWilliamConnolly,andfromStraussiansontheright.20
Still,withintheAmericanacademytheriseofsocialchoicethinkingwas
inexorable,andcametoincludeworkinInternationalRelationstheory;rather
surprisinglyandsomewhatagainsttheirowninclinations,thestructuralrealism
ofKennethWaltzandhisfollowers,andtheliberalinstitutionalismofRobert
Keohaneandhis,formedthebasisforasocialchoicereorientationofthisendof
12
thePoliticalSciencediscipline.21Returningtothefocusofthisessay,withinthis
newdispensationthecosmopolitancriticsofRawls,alongwithatleastsomeof
theircommunitariancritics,foundarelativelyhappyhome;thekindofpolitical
theorytheyengagedin–liberalandanalytic–wascompatiblewiththekindof
formaltheorisingthatwasnowveryhighlyvaluedinthediscourse–butthe
historyofinternational,aswellaspolitical,thoughtfelloutoffashion.
ThingswereverydifferentintheUnitedKingdominthisperiod.Inthe1960s
throughtothe1980smostdepartmentsofpoliticsandgovernmentinBritain,
withthemajorexceptionoftheDepartmentofGovernmentatEssex,werestill
largelyorientedtowardshistoricalandinstitutionalanalysisandwereresistant
totheriseofformaltheorisingandquantification.22Thestudyofpoliticswas
largelyunderstoodasanactivitythatfellwithintheHumanities,andinelite
circles,inandoutofacademia,thedivisionbetweentheartsandthesciences
andtheovervaluingoftheformerattheexpenseofthelatteroutlinedbyC.P.
Snowinhisaccountof‘thetwocultures’stillheld.23Inshort,PoliticalStudiesin
BritainwasresistanttoAmericantrends,andtoanextentstillis,althoughthere
arenowamuchgreaternumberofAmerican-stylePoliticalScientists,and
PoliticalScienceDepartments,intheUKthanthereoncewere.
Ofequalimportanceintermsofthesubjectmatterofthisessayisthefactthatin
theUnitedKingdomInternationalRelationshasnotnecessarilybeenseenasa
sub-fieldofPoliticalScienceinthewaythatisusuallythecaseintheUnited
States.ThelargestInternationalRelationsdepartmentsintheUKwereformed
asfree-standingentities,establishedaroundnamedChairsthatwerenotlocated
withindepartmentsofPoliticsandGovernment–indeed,mostofthelargest
DepartmentsofInternationalRelationsarestillseparatefromPolitics
(Aberystwyth,StAndrews,KingsCollegeLondon,LSE,Sussex,).Thishas
implicationsthatarenotsimplybureaucraticoradministrative;theself-
understandingofthedisciplineofInternationalRelationsintheUKisnotasa
sub-fieldofPoliticalScience,butasaneclecticfieldofstudy,drawingonthe
studyofHistory,LawandPhilosophyandwellasthatofPolitics.24Thisprovided
forInternationalRelationsanadditionallayerofdefenceagainstthe
13
encroachmentofAmericanformaltheorisingandquantification–andtogive
informalsupportforthisgeneralisationitcanbenotedthatthoseUniversities
whereInternationalRelationsdoesnothaveaseparateinstitutionalidentity
havebeenmostopentoAmericanmethods(inwhichcontextseeOxford,
UniversityCollegeLondonandWarwickaswellasEssex).
Putthesefactstogetherandtheapparentlyparadoxicaldevelopmentsoutlined
intheprevioussectionofthisessaybegintomakemoresense.Theintellectual
environmentofthe70sand80swasfavourabletotheriseofthe‘justice
industry’withallitsimplicationsforinternationaltheorybecausethesenew
cosmopolitansweremethodologicallycongruentwiththenewPoliticalScience.
Thehistoryofpoliticalthought,ontheother,wasaless-valuedactivity,surviving
onthemarginsratherthanoccupyingcentre-stageinanintellectualworld
wheresciencewasthewatchword.Theworkthatwasdonetocreatethe
discoursethatbecameInternationalPoliticalTheorydrewontheworkof
membersofthejusticeindustry,butitsmoreconventionalstudiesofthehistory
ofinternationalthoughtwerebasedinInternationalRelationsratherthan
PoliticalScience,andweredisproportionallyBritishinoriginbecause
InternationalRelations,especiallyInternationalRelationsinBritain,wasless
focusedonformaltheorisingthanthewiderdiscourseofPoliticalScience.
Interestingly,whiletheterm“InternationalPoliticalTheory’iswidelyusedto
describethisneworientationintheUK,intheUSuniversitycoursescovering
similarmaterialwilloftenbetaughtundertherubric‘EthicsandInternational
affairs’,amorelimitingdescriptionofthenewdiscourse–thesameterminology
canbeobservedintheInternationalEthicsSectionofthe(American)
InternationalStudiesAssociation,andintheleadingAmericanjournalinthe
field,Ethics&InternationalAffairsthejournaloftheCarnegieCouncilforEthics
andInternationalAffairs.Inanyevent,thusitwasthatanewdiscourseemerged
inthe1980s,thecharacterofwhichisworthexamininginmoredetail.
InternationalPoliticalTheoryandtheHistoryofPoliticalThought
14
InternationalPoliticalTheoryemergedasadistinctdiscourseinthe1980s,
distinct,thatis,frombothInternationalRelationstheory,whichwasbecoming
increasingdefinedintermsofcausaltheoryandfromPoliticalTheorywhichwas
increasinglyformalandabstract,divorcedfromthekindofhistoricalresearch
thathadcharacterisedearliergenerations.Inshort,fromthe1980sonwards
threediscoursesexistedinafieldthatoncecontainedonlytwo,butitis
importanttonotethattheboundariesbetweenthesethreediscourseswere
permeableandneverclearlydefined.Thus,forexample,some‘classical’realists
whorejectedtheneo-positivismofstructuralrealismcouldeasilybeseenas
InternationalPoliticalTheoristsand,attheotherend,asitwere,ofthenew
discourse,analyticalpoliticaltheoristswhoaddressedinternationalissuesmight
wellalsoturntheirmindstowardsdomestictopics–CharlesBeitzcomesto
mindinthiscontext,thewriterofaseminalbookonPoliticalTheoryand
InternationalRelationsbutalsoofworksondemocratictheory.25Also,some
topicsweresuchthatallthreediscourseswereengagedatonetimeoranother–
‘humanrights’wouldbethemostobviousexamplehere,andalsoperhapsthe
notionof‘justwar’.Still,althoughtheboundariesmaybehazyInternational
PoliticalTheorydoeshaveadistinctivecore,andhasdevelopedasetofoutlets
foritswork–mostobviouslytheReviewofInternationalStudies,Ethics&
InternationalAffairs,and,morerecently,TheJournalofInternationalPolitical
Theory(although,ofcourse,goodworkturnsupelsewhereaswell).
ThepointaboutInternationalPoliticalTheory,whichappliesevenifthe
discourseweretobemorelooselydefinedthanitisabove,isthatitprovidesa
homeforworkinthehistoryofinternationalthoughtthatneitheroftheother
twodiscoursescanoffer.Initially,asnotedpreviously,muchofthisworkcame
fromInternationalRelationsscholars,butastimewentbyitbecamelessandless
thecasethatonecouldusefullyclassifytheparticipantsinthisdiscoursebytheir
origins.Forthosewhoarekeenonpigeon-holing,InternationalPoliticalTheory
isgenerallyunderstoodasasub-fieldofInternationalRelationsbutthepeople
whocreateditareincreasinglyhardtoclassifyandmightnotthinkof
themselvesaspartofthiswiderdiscourse.Someofthemostinterestingwriters
inthefieldexemplifythispoint–MichaelWalzer,forexample,isaleading
15
authorityontheJustWarandafameddefenderofaliberalnationalistapproach
topoliticalcommunities,onbothcountsamajorfigureinInternationalPolitical
Theory,butsomeonewho,ifhecouldbebroughttoself-identify,wouldmost
likelysimplydescribehimselfasapoliticalphilosopher.26
Itisalsoimportantnottodisregardsomeofthelessintellectualfactorsthatlead
tothegrowthofInternationalPoliticalTheory,especiallyintheUKinthe1980s
–PierreBourdieu’sstudyofHomoAcademicusmayhavefocusedonFrench
intellectuals,butthebasicpointthatdevelopmentsinacademiclifearerarely
simplydrivenbyintellectualfactorsholdmorewidely.27The80swereatimeof
greatfinancialstringencyforUniversitiesintheUK,andacademicpostsin
politicaltheorywereveryhardtofind;InternationalRelations,ontheother
hand,wasbooming,ledbystudentdemand–predictably,theresultwasthat
youngscholarswho,aspoliticaltheorists,foundthemselvesvirtually
unemployablebutwhohadanykindofinterestintheinternationalweregivena
verystrongpositiveincentivetorebrandthemselvesasinternationalpolitical
theorists.InternationalPoliticalTheorywasalsoreinforcedbypost-structuralist
andfeministwritersinthelate1980s,andbyearlyconstructivists.Thesewere
sub-fieldsofInternationalRelationsthatwereregardedveryunfavourablyby
theneo-positivistmainstream,and,ontheprinciplethattheenemyofmyenemy
ismyfriend,theynaturallygravitatedtowardsthenewdiscourse–inthecaseof
thefirsttwogroupsatleastthisalliancedidnotlastlong,butconstructivists
remaincloselyakintointernationalpoliticaltheorists.Moreclearly,the
rebrandedandrevived‘EnglishSchool’–thesuccessorstotheBritishCommittee
ofthe1950s–becamepartofthediscourseofInternationalPoliticalTheory
moreorlessbydefault.EnglishSchooltheorists,bysimplycontinuingtodo
whattheyhadalwaysdone,foundthemselvesincreasinglyslippingawayfrom
themainstreamofInternationalRelations.
Onecouldcontinuetotrytodelineatethenewfieldmoreorlessindefinitelybut
thekeypointisthatwhetheronewishestothinkintermsofanewdiscourseor
not,thereisnowabodyofworkinthehistoryofinternationalpoliticalthought
thatissuperiorinqualitytotheworkbeingdone40or50yearsago,andwhich
16
hasfoundanaudienceintheun-policedborderlandsbetweenPoliticalScience
andInternationalRelations.InthisessaythetermInternationalPoliticalTheory
isusedtocharacterisethisborderlandbutwhetherthischaracterisationis
acceptedornot,thisworkexistsandisread.Intheframingdocumentfrom
whichthisessayoriginated,NoelMalcolmisquotedasdescribingthestandard
(IR)interpretationofHobbesas‘fixedandossified’andperilouslycloseto
caricature.Malcolm’scredentialsasaHobbesscholarareunquestionable,but
notsothisjudgment;inrecentyearsscholarssuchasDavidArmitage,WillBain,
DavidBoucher,RaiaProkhovnik,GabriellaSlomp,andMichaelC.Williamshave
writtenextensivelyandcreativelyonHobbesdemonstratingthatIR’s
interpretationofHobbesisbynomeanseitherfixedandossifiedoranything
resemblingacaricature.28Similarlytherecentinterestintheoriginsof
internationallawandtheso-calledWestphaliasystemhasproduceddecidedly
un-caricaturedaccountsoffiguressuchasGrotius,forexampletheworkof
ReneeJeffery,aswellashighlynuancedaccountsofpoliticalthoughtinthe
seventeenthcentury,particularlynotableisEdwardKeene’sanalysisofthenon-
Europeanoriginsofthe‘European’states-system.29Justwarisanothertopic
whichhasbenefitedfromrecentscholarshipbothbuildingonthetradition,on
whichsee,forexample,theworkofCianO’Driscoll,TonyLangandJohn
Williams,andsubvertingitbyreadingitthroughthelensofmodernanalytical
politicalphilosophy;hereJeffMcMahanandDavidRodinareexemplary
figures.30And,bringingthehistoryofinternationalthoughtclosertothe
present,figuressuchasDuncanBellandIanHallhavedonemuchtoclarifyour
understandingofVictorianandtwentiethcenturyinternationalthought.31The
listoffineexamplesofscholarshipcouldbeextended,butthepointisclear,
thereisalotofverygoodworkbeingdoneinInternationalPoliticalTheory
today,morespecificallythehistoryofinternationalthought,andthecontrastin
qualitywiththekindofworkdoneagenerationortwoagoisquitestriking.The
kindofdividedescribedearlieraspresentinthe1960sdoesn’texistinthesame
waytoday.InternationalRelationsandPoliticalThoughtarenolongerdivided
intoseparatesilosinthewaytheyoncewere;InternationalPoliticalTheoryhas
providedabridgebetweenthesediscourses,and–theanalogyherewouldbe
17
withtheMedievalLondonBridgeuponwhichhousesandshopswerebuilt–not
justabridgebutalsoahomeforaparticularkindofwritingthatcrossesborders.
Andthere’stherub.TheverysuccessofInternationalPoliticalTheoryin
providingahomeforworkonthehistoryofinternationalthoughthasreinforced
thetendencyofmainstreamInternationalRelationstoregardthisdiscourseas
essentiallymarginaltoitsconceptionofthediscipline.Hereisarealcontrast
withthe1960s;atthattimetheleadingfiguresinInternationalrelationsonboth
sidesoftheAtlanticwerefirmlycommittedtotheimportanceofthehistoryof
internationalthought,buttheiraccountofthathistorycameperilouslycloseto
caricature.Now,wehavedevelopedamuchmoreimpressivebodyof
scholarshiponthehistoryofinternationalthought,butmostoftheleading
figuresinthewiderdisciplinehaveverylittleinterestinthiswork.Toputthings
inthelanguageofcontemporaryeconomics,thereisasoliddemandforhigh
qualityworkthatbringstogetherInternationalRelationstheoryandthehistory
ofpoliticalthoughtandaplentifulsupplyofhigh-qualityworksthatmeetthis
demand–butthisisanichemarket,nolongeratthecentreofthediscourseof
InternationalRelations.Toreturntothequestionthatopenedthisessay,the
historyofpoliticalthoughthasagreatdealtocontributetothestudyof
internationalrelations,andindeedisalreadymakingasubstantialcontribution–
buttheaudienceforthisworkisrelativelylimited,andwillremainsoallthe
whilethatthehighgroundofthedisciplineisoccupiedbyformaltheoristsand
quantifiers.
1Seee.g.DavidArmitage,FoundationsofModernInternationalThought(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2012)andLucianAshworth,TheHistoryofInternationalThought:FromtheOriginsoftheModernStatetoAcademicInternationalRelations(London:Routledge,2014).2BrianSchmidt,ThePoliticalDiscourseofAnarchy:ADisciplinaryHistoryofInternationalRelationsAlbany,(NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.1997); Nicholas Guilhot, The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).
18
3ReinholdNiebuhr,MoralManandImmoralSociety(NewYork:CharlesScribner’s,1932);MartinWightPowerPolitics(London:R.I.I.APamphlet,1946);HansJ.Morgenthau,PoliticsAmongNations(NY:AlfredKnopf,1948;JohnHerz, Political Realism and Political Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Herbert Butterfield,Christianity,DiplomacyandWar(London:AbingdonPress,1953);C.A.W.Manning, The Nature of International Society (London: Macmillan, 1962);ArnoldWolfers,DiscordandCollaboration(BaltimoreMD:TheJohnsHopkinsPress,1965).4SeeMackinnon,D.M.(1966)‘NaturalLaw’inHerbertButterfieldandMartinWightDiplomaticInvestigations(London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,1966)andforcontext,TimDunneInventing International Society (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1998).
5MartinWight,‘Whyistherenointernationaltheory?’inButterfieldandWightDiplomaticInvestigationsop.cit.p.96F.H.Hinsley, Power and the Pursuit of Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Hinsley’s work contained many valuable insights into the history of the European states-system, even if his account of Kant was inadequate.
7MartinWight,op.cit.1966,p.288TerryNardin,Law,MoralityandtheRelationsofStates(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1983)isanexplicitlyOakeshottianaccountofinternationalsociety,compatiblewith,thoughonlymarginallyinfluencedby,thatoftheEnglishSchool;seealsoNardinThePhilosophyofMichaelOakeshott(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaUniversityPress,2004).RobertJacksonThe Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) is a paid-up member of the English School (though, as is traditional, without actually being English). 9ForStrauss’sinfluenceseetheessaysinStevenB.SmithTheCambridgeCompaniontoLeoStrauss(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009).10JohnRawls,ATheoryofJustice,(CambridgeMA:HarvardUniversityPress,1970).11JohnRawls,TheLawofPeoples andTheideaofPublicReasonRevisited.(Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress,1999).12BrianBarry,TheLiberalTheoryofJustice(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1972);CharlesBeitz,PoliticalTheoryandInternationalRelations(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1979);ThomasPogge.RealizingRawls,(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1989).Theseauthorsdisagreedonmuchelse,butwereunanimousintheviewthatRawlshadgottheinternationaldimensionofhistheorybadlywrong.
19
13ChrisBrown,InternationalRelationsTheory:NewNormativeApproaches.(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1993).14CharlesTaylor,Hegel(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1975);MichaelWalzer,JustandUnjustWars(NewYork:BasicBooks,1977,5thed.2015).15AndrewLinklater,MenandCitizensintheTheoryofInternationalRelations(London:Macmillan,1982).
16MichaelDoyle,‘Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Policy’, Parts I and II, Philosophy and Public Affairs (12) 1983, pp 205-35 and 323-53. 17MervynFrost Towards a Normative Theory of International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1986).18W.B.Gallie,Philosophers of War and Peace (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). 19J.G.APocock,TheMachiavellianMoment:FlorentinePoliticalThoughtandtheAtlanticRepublicanTradition(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1975).
20CharlesTaylor‘InterpretationandtheSciencesofMan’TheReviewofMetaphysics25,(1)1971,pp.3-51;WilliamE.Connolly,TheTermsofPoliticalDiscourse(London:BasilBlackwell,1974);Smith,op.cit.21KennethWaltz,Theory of International Politics. 1st ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1979); Robert O. Keohane, (ed.) NeorealismanditsCritics(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986).22Asearlyas1959,BernardCricksetoutacritiqueofAmericanpoliticalscienceandadefenceoftheBritishinstitutionalistandhistoricalapproachtopoliticalstudies:BernardCrick,TheAmericanScienceofPolitics:ItsOriginsandConditions(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,1959).23C.P.SnowTheTwoCultures(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1959,ReissuedwithanIntroductionbyStefanCollini,2012).24OnwhichseeChrisBrown‘ThedevelopmentofInternationalRelationstheoryintheUK:traditions,contemporaryperspectives,andtrajectories’InternationalRelationsoftheAsia-Pacific,11(2),2011.Pp.309-330.25Beitz,1979op.cit.andPoliticalEquality:AnEssayinDemocraticTheory(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1989).26Walzer,op.cit.(1977/2015).ForanoverviewofhisworkseeChrisBrown‘MichaelWalzer’inMichaelT.GibbonsetalWiley-BlackwellEncyclopediaofPoliticalThought(London:Blackwell,2014).
20
27PierreBourdieu,HomoAcademicus(PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1990).28Armitageop.cit.(2012);WillBain,‘ThomasHobbesasaTheoristofAnarchy:ATheologicalInterpretation’HistoryofEuropeanIdeas4(1),2015,pp13-28;DavidBoucher,PoliticalTheoriesofInternationalRelations(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPres,1998RaiaProkhovnik&GabriellaSlomp,(eds.)InternationalPoliticalTheoryafterHobbes(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2011);MichaelC.Williams,‘HobbesandInternationalRelations:AReconsideration’InternationalOrganization50(2),1996,pp.213–236.29ReneeJeffrey,HugoGrotiusinInternationalThought(Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2005);EdwardKeene,BeyondtheAnarchicalSociety(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).30AnthonyF.Lang,Anthony,CianO’Driscoll,andJohnWilliams,(eds.)JustWar:Authority,Tradition,andPractice.(WashingtonDC:GeorgetownUniversityPress,2013);JeffMcMahan,KillinginWar.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009);DavidRodin,WarandSelf-Defence(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2002).
31DuncanBell,TheIdeaofGreaterBritain(PrincetonNJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2007);IanHall.Dilemmas of Decline: British Intellectuals and World Politics 1945 – 75 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2012).