International Politics, 2008, 4, (650-674)
HE _C Som Paige Mecritn Cid 38570508
‘wir palgrave-journals.com;
A Lost Generation? IR Scholarship before
World War I
Torbjorn L. Knutsen
Department of Sociology and Political Science, University of Trondheim (NTNU), Trondheim
NO-71491, Norway,
Evmail torbjom knutsen@svt.ntnu.no
The traditional understanding of the origins of international relations (IR) is on the
ropes. The old vision of a discipline that was born under an idealist star and
matured through a first “Great Debate’ is no longer credible. This article offers an
alternative understanding: viz. that a scholarly study of IR emerged during the
decades prior to World War I, that the emergence represents an international
movement, and that it was occasioned by major changes in Great Power economic
and political affairs. By posing a few simple questions — who were the first
scholarly IR-authors? where and why they write? — this article identifies some of
the formative forces that produced the first (now largely lost) generation of IR
scholars. It proposes a historically grounded, alternative to our traditional (largely
British and mythological) understanding of early IR scholarship.
International Politics (2008) 45, 650-674, doi:10.1057/ip.2008.30;
published online 1 August 2008
Keywords: E.H. carr; G.L. dickinson ‘great debat
L. Woolf
idealism; IR; origins; realism;
Introduction
Edward H. Carr (2001{1939}) was right when he wrote that World War I marks
a watershed in the scholarly study of International Relations (IR). But was he
right in claiming that the first scientific studies of IR were marked by an
idealist outlook, which was later replaced by a realistic perspective after a first
‘Great Debate"? A growing number of scholars think not — Wilson (1998) and
Osiander (1998) question whether an ‘idealist’ school ever existed, Schmidt
(1998, 2002) and Ashworth (2002, 2006) doubt whether a ‘Great Debate’ ever
took place. This article takes this critique a step further. It argues that Carr
provided not a historical account of the emergence of scholarly IR, as much as
a foundation myth of it, and that this myth now needs to be replaced,
As history, Carr’s (2001) sketch will no longer do. Carr painted his outline in
too broad Hegelian sweeps and on too small a canvas: What he saw as the
“Great Debate’ was, in reality, a rather parochial affair. What he portrayed asTorbjorn L. Knutsen
A Lost Generation? 18 Schou fre Would War _ SHE
st
“the idealist’ school was merely the British crest of a larger, international wave
that broke on the shallows of World War I. His famous vision was derived
from interwar debates in Britain, and does not transfer well to debates in other
countries — or to the world at large. Also, for a man who delivered the basic
taxonomy of IR scholarship, Carr is surprisingly vague.' To the extent that he
names concrete authors, he forces them into Procrustean beds of ‘realism’ and
“utopianism’ — categories that hardly originate with
Myths provide understanding. They often reveal the origins or manner of things
in allegorical ways — where people come from, why rainbows appear or how the
universe emerged. They may provide common understanding (and therefore also
sustain collective identity) to a particular community. The value of myths must not
be belittled, and Carr’s mythogenic contribution should not be denigrated.
However, the delivered myth of the origins of scholarly IR is now falling apart. It
no longer serves its purpose. It has become contentious and it serves to blind us to
the larger, international movement that brought forth the scholarly study of IR.
The purpose of this article, then, is not to protest the veracity of Carr's
account — for one does not ask of myths whether they are true or false, and
one does not put them to the historical test. One replaces them. Thus, the
purpose of the article is to draw the keel of a more historically based, more
internationally grounded account of the origins of scholarly IR.
An Alternative Story
How can we best leave mythology behind and lay the rafters for a more
grounded history of early modern IR scholarship? One way is to simply consult
the early scholarly works on IR and ask: Who were the authors of these works?
Where did they write? What did they write about?
A method of regress
The opening move is to find a satisfactory sample of early IR books. To do this
we may consider the following method: First, find books that are commonly
regarded as early classics in the study of IR. Then open them and trace their
liographical references. Frederick Schuman (1958 [1933]) noted, for example,
that Raymond Buell wrote the first introductory textbook to IR. When we open
Buell’s (1925) book and peruse his sources, we find that he refers to several
previous texts. Among these are Bryce (sez) and Allen (1920). If we find and
open these books, in turn, we find that they’rély on even earlier authors,
By tracing references in this way, we are lead further back into the scholarly
past. Indeed, once we begin to unravel the intertextual web of IR scholarship
by this method, we encounter a problem of infinite regress. There seems to be
no natural end to the bibliographical trail. At one point, we have to define an
Toternational Poles 2008 4STorbjorn L, Kautsen
HE_ AUN Generation? TR Scholarship before World War
632
appropriate point, intervene and simply impose an end! The question is, where
shall we impose it?
‘A variety of audacious dates has been put on offer. ‘In or about December,
1910, human character changed,’ wrote Virginia Woolf (1968[1924], 320). On that
day all human relations shifted — ‘those between masters and servants, husbands
and wives, parents and children, And when human relations change there is at the
same time a change in religion, conduct, politics and literature’. Her husband,
Leonard, might have added that there was a change in literature about politics as
well because Leonard Woolf was one of the authors who helped change it.
Can we find such a major shift in scholarly writings of IR? — a ‘rupture’, as
Braudel or Foucault would have phrased it, or a veritable ‘paradigm shift’? The
1890s is a good candidate. It was during this decade that ‘problems which are
actual in the world today first take visible shape’, writes Barraclough (1974,
24). It is during this decade ‘that most of the developments distinguishing
“contemporary” from “modern” history first begin to be visible’, he continues.
Clearly, the processes of change had begun earlier. Epochal changes are rarely
sudden. For that which looks sudden in history is usually born out of a longer
evolution, The shift that Mrs. Woolf found so sharp, started further back.
They started in the previous century — in fact, they mark the entire final
quarter of the 19th century, and gathered considerable speed during the 1890s.
Before the 1890s, books on world affairs are far between, few in number and
rather descriptive. Texts which appeared after the 1890s are more numerous
and, on the whole, more analytical. Many of them include assumptions,
approaches-and arguments that we will unhesitatingly recognize as part and
parcel of contemporary IR scholarship.
Who were the authors who wrote during the 1890s? Which approaches and
arguments did they present? These questions can be infinitely explored and
endlessly debated. Neither of them will receive a final answer here. However, a
few general propositions will be offered. The important one is this: That the
origins of scholarly IR were triggered by new issues and uncertainties that
emerged in world affairs during the final decades of the 19th century. These issues
were discussed not only by politicians and journalists, but also by academics and
by political activists who inspected, systematized and criticized old perspectives
ives and new approaches. Which events were these? What
ind of uncertainties emerged in world affairs during the final decades of the 19th
century? These questions will be addressed in the next section. After that, the
authors will be introduced and their major arguments indicated.
‘The Early Literature
The early IR literature reflects the origins of IR scholarship. It has been
explored to some degree,” but no overarching account exists. However, a keel
International Polities 2008 45