Serpents and Doves in Classical International Theory

Millennium - Journal of International Studies

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 1988, Pages 215-225

  Rengger, N J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84970708537     PISSN: 03058298     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/03058298880170020801     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Roy Jones, ‘The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure’, Review of International Studies (Vol.7, No. 1, January 1981), p. 1.
2. For a different, though equally critical, view of Jones' article, see Sheila Grader, ‘The English School of International Relations: Evidence and Evaluation’, Review of International Studies (Vol. 14, No. January 1988).
3. Roy Jones, Review of International Studies, p. 1.
4. See, for example, R. Purnell, The Society of States (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973);
5. C.A.W. Manning, The Nature of International Society (London: Macmillan, 1975);
6. Hedley Bull and Adam Watson (eds.), The Expansion of International Society (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).
7. Martin Wight, ‘Why Is There No International Theory?’ in H. Butterfield and M. Wight, Diplomatic Investigations: Essays in the Theory of Inrernational Politics (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1966).
8. For a response to Wight's view- see Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations (London: Macmillan, 1982).
9. C.A.W. Manning, For a response to Wight's view- see Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, p. 177.
10. Historicism and holism are somewhat debased coinage in the literature of modern social theory. However, for the purposes of this article, historicism can be defined as the belief that history is the chief source of knowledge about the society of states. Holism is the belief that the interpretation of this history will hold good for the entire international system.
11. Michael Donelan (ed.), The Reason of States: A Study in International Political Theory (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978), p. 11.
12. See Peter Savigear, ‘International Relations and Philosophy of History’ in Michael Donelan (ed.), p. 203-4. For the quote from Wight, see H. Butterfield and M. Wight, p. 33.
13. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society (London: Macmillan, 1977), p. 317.
14. In the case of Wight, his devout, if pessimistic, Christianity; in the case of Manning, his background and intellectual antecendants (viz, his notion of international relations as a ‘debutante discipline’.
15. Maurice Keens-Soper, ‘The Practice of a States-System’ in Michael Donelan (ed.), The Anarchical Society, p. 40.
16. Peter Savigear, The Anarchical Society, p. 196.
17. Roy Jones, The Anarchical Society, p. 4.
18. C.A.W. Manning, The Anarchical Society, p. xxxv.
19. Sec, for example, Robert O. Keohane (ed.), Neo- Realism and Its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986).
20. See Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modem Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978);
21. J. Dunn, Rethinking Modern Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985). For more general philosophical discussions,
22. see R. Rorty, Q. Skinner and J.B. Schnecwind, Philosophy in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984);
23. R. Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979);
24. A. Maclntyre, After Virtue (London: Duckworth, 1981);
25. R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946);
26. M.J. Oakeshott, Experience and Its Modes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1933).
27. M.J. Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics (London: Methuen, 1962).
28. R. Rorty, O. Skinner and J.B. Schneewind, Rationalism in Politics, p. 12.
29. M.J. Oakeshott, ‘The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind’ in his Rationalism in Politics, p. 197.
30. See N.J.Rengger, ‘Incommensurability, International Theory and the Fragmentation of Western Political Culture’ in J. Gibbins (ed.), Politics and Contemporary Culture (London: Sage, 1988).
31. Interestingly, the intellectual roots of this approach can be seen in the idiosyncratic philosopher R.G. Collingwood, who was considered an idealist (albeit an unusual one). Collingwood's influence is acknowledged by both Skinner and Maclntyre.
32. Quentin Skinner, Politics and Contemporary Culture, p. xii.
33. See N.J. Rengger, ‘Going Critical? A Response to Hoffman’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol. 17, No.1, Spring 1988).
34. R. Rorty, ‘Solidarity or Objectivity’ in J. Rajchman and C. West (eds.), Post-Analytic Philosophy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), p. 3.
35. L. Wittgenstein, Culture and Value, trans. Peter Winch (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1981).
36. For a discussion of paradigms in contemporary international relations theory, see Michael Banks' introduction to Michael Banks (ed.), Conflict in World Society (Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1986)
37. Mark Hoffman, ‘Critical Theory and the Inter-Paradigm Debate’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol. 16, No. 2, Summer 1987).
38. R.S. Beal and K.P. Misra (eds.), International Relations Theory: Western and Non-Western Perspectives (New Delhi: Vikas, 1980), p. 1.
39. For a discussion of the position of critical theory in relations to the paradigms of international relations, see Mark Hoffman
40. Robert W. Cox, ‘Social Forces, States and World Order: Beyond International Relations Theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies (Vol.10 No. 2, Summer 1981).
41. See James Der Derian, On Diplomacy: A Genealogy of Estrangement (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987). It must, at the same time, be admitted that Der Derian's critical theory differs from that of Cox; see my ‘Going Critical? A Response to Hoffman”
42. M.J. Oakeshott, ‘Rationalism in Politics’ in his Rationalism in Politics.
43. Murray Forsyth, ‘The Classical Theory of International Relations’, Political Studies (Vol. 26, No. 3, Sept. 1978), p. 416.
44. See, for example, his Profiles and Critiques in Social Theory (London: Macmillan, 1982); and his contribution to B. Bourne, U. Eichler and D. Herman (eds.). Modernity and Its Discontents (London: Spokesman, 1987).
45. There is a clear case for saying that this debate, and its correlates. surfaces most obviously when the sense of international order breaks down and hence when a challenge to the prevailing system is imminent.
46. N.J. Rengger, ‘Reason. Scepticism and Politics’. PhD thesis, University of Durham, 1986.
47. For example, by Martin Wight and Medley Bull and also in F.H. Hinsley. Power and the Pursuit of Peace: Theory and Practice in the History of Relations Between States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1963);
48. W.B. Gallie, Philosophers of War and Peace: Kant, Clausewirz. Marz. Engels and Tolstoy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).
49. The phrase is Peter Gay's. See Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation Vol. 2 (London: Wildwood House, 1970), p. 317.
50. Hans Reiss (ed.), Kant's Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), p. 116.
51. I have discussed this more fully in my ‘Reason. Scepticism and Politics’, op, cit. chapters 3 and 4.
52. Especially to those in Cox's and Linklater's version of critical theory. See N.J. Rengger, ‘Going Critical? A Response to Hoffman’, and Linklater
53. See also N.J. Rengger, ‘Reason, Scepticism and Politics’, chapter 4;
54. N.J. Rengger, ‘An Arrow in the Heart of the Present: Kant and International Theory’ in Howard Williams (ed.), Kant's Political Theory, forthcoming.