International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipli... more International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipline of International Relations emerged in 1919 and developed through a First Great Debate between idealists and realists. These are the established myths of 1648 and 1919. In this article we demonstrate how historical and historiographical scholarship has demolished these myths, but that the myths regardless are pervasive in the current textbooks that are used in teaching future IR scholars. Disciplinary dialogue seems to have failed completely. Based on a detailed reading of the myths and their perpetuation, we discuss the consequences of the discipline’s reliance on mythical origins, why there has been so little incorporation of revisionist insight and what possibilities there are for enhancing the dialogue.
Emerging in the 1980s, maturing in the 1990s and taking-off in the 2000s, historical sociology ha... more Emerging in the 1980s, maturing in the 1990s and taking-off in the 2000s, historical sociology has become a major feature of contemporary International Relations (IR) theory. However, the origins of historical sociology run much deeper than this. Indeed, historical sociology can be seen as at least two centuries old – an attempt by economists, philosophers of history and nascent sociologists to provide a historically sensitive, yet generally applicable, account of the emergence of industrial capitalism, the rational bureaucratic state, novel forms of warfare and other core features of the modern world (introductions to the field include Abrams 1982; Skocpol ed. 1984; Smith 1991; Delanty & Isin eds. 2003; Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003). Although the place of historical sociology within Sociology suffered from that discipline’s diversion into abstract theorizing and its turf-wars with cognate rivals, historical sociology experienced something of a renaissance during the late 1970s and e...
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2011
International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipli... more International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipline of International Relations emerged in 1919 and developed through a First Great Debate between idealists and realists. These are the established myths of 1648 and 1919. In this article we demonstrate how historical and historiographical scholarship has demolished these myths, but that the myths regardless are pervasive in the current textbooks that are used in teaching future IR scholars. Disciplinary dialogue seems to have failed completely. Based on a detailed reading of the myths and their perpetuation, we discuss the consequences of the discipline’s reliance on mythical origins, why there has been so little incorporation of revisionist insight and what possibilities there are for enhancing the dialogue.
International Relations, as a discipline, does not grant race and racism explanatory agency in it... more International Relations, as a discipline, does not grant race and racism explanatory agency in its conventional analyses, despite such issues being integral to the birth of the discipline. Race and Racism in International Relations seeks to remedy this oversight by acting as a catalyst for remembering, exposing and critically re-articulating the central importance of race and racism in International Relations. Focusing especially on the theoretical and political legacy of W.E.B. Du Bois’s concept of the "colour line", the cutting edge contributions in this text provide an accessible entry point for both International Relations students and scholars into the literature and debates on race and racism by borrowing insights from disciplines such as history, anthropology and sociology where race and race theory figures more prominently; yet they also suggest that the field of IR is itself an intellectually and strategic field through which to further confront the global colour ...
This article provides an ‘engaged’ introduction to this forum on Andrew Linklater’s recently publ... more This article provides an ‘engaged’ introduction to this forum on Andrew Linklater’s recently published book, Violence and Civilization in the Western States-Systems. I call this ‘engaged’ because I seek to adjudicate between the critics and Linklater’s book in the hope of building a bridge over troubled water. Given that the key word that underpins many of this forum’s contributions is Eurocentrism, I explore whether, and if so to what extent, Linklater’s book is Eurocentric. While I too identify various Eurocentric cues, I also provide various defences for Linklater. In particular, the final section advances two definitions of Eurocentrism and anti-Eurocentrism. Although I identify elements of ‘Eurocentrism I’ (the elision of non-Western agency and reification of the West) in his book, Linklater might respond to the principal forum complaint that he accords little or no role to non-Western actors and processes in the Western or global civilizing process by appealing to an alternati...
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 09692290 2012 704519, Dec 4, 2013
In this article and in Part 2 I advance a ‘critical historiography’ of IPE which excavates to the... more In this article and in Part 2 I advance a ‘critical historiography’ of IPE which excavates to the deepest foundations of the discipline. For while I very much welcome Benjamin Cohen's seminal historiographical intervention, nevertheless it obscures two foundational properties of IPE. First, identifying 1970 as the birth-year of IPE produces a distorted image of the discipline's purpose and historiography
International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipli... more International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipline of International Relations emerged in 1919 and developed through a First Great Debate between idealists and realists. These are the established myths of 1648 and 1919. In this article we demonstrate how historical and historiographical scholarship has demolished these myths, but that the myths regardless are pervasive in the current textbooks that are used in teaching future IR scholars. Disciplinary dialogue seems to have failed completely. Based on a detailed reading of the myths and their perpetuation, we discuss the consequences of the discipline’s reliance on mythical origins, why there has been so little incorporation of revisionist insight and what possibilities there are for enhancing the dialogue.
Emerging in the 1980s, maturing in the 1990s and taking-off in the 2000s, historical sociology ha... more Emerging in the 1980s, maturing in the 1990s and taking-off in the 2000s, historical sociology has become a major feature of contemporary International Relations (IR) theory. However, the origins of historical sociology run much deeper than this. Indeed, historical sociology can be seen as at least two centuries old – an attempt by economists, philosophers of history and nascent sociologists to provide a historically sensitive, yet generally applicable, account of the emergence of industrial capitalism, the rational bureaucratic state, novel forms of warfare and other core features of the modern world (introductions to the field include Abrams 1982; Skocpol ed. 1984; Smith 1991; Delanty & Isin eds. 2003; Mahoney & Rueschemeyer 2003). Although the place of historical sociology within Sociology suffered from that discipline’s diversion into abstract theorizing and its turf-wars with cognate rivals, historical sociology experienced something of a renaissance during the late 1970s and e...
Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 2011
International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipli... more International relations as we know them emerged through the peace of Westphalia, and the discipline of International Relations emerged in 1919 and developed through a First Great Debate between idealists and realists. These are the established myths of 1648 and 1919. In this article we demonstrate how historical and historiographical scholarship has demolished these myths, but that the myths regardless are pervasive in the current textbooks that are used in teaching future IR scholars. Disciplinary dialogue seems to have failed completely. Based on a detailed reading of the myths and their perpetuation, we discuss the consequences of the discipline’s reliance on mythical origins, why there has been so little incorporation of revisionist insight and what possibilities there are for enhancing the dialogue.
International Relations, as a discipline, does not grant race and racism explanatory agency in it... more International Relations, as a discipline, does not grant race and racism explanatory agency in its conventional analyses, despite such issues being integral to the birth of the discipline. Race and Racism in International Relations seeks to remedy this oversight by acting as a catalyst for remembering, exposing and critically re-articulating the central importance of race and racism in International Relations. Focusing especially on the theoretical and political legacy of W.E.B. Du Bois’s concept of the "colour line", the cutting edge contributions in this text provide an accessible entry point for both International Relations students and scholars into the literature and debates on race and racism by borrowing insights from disciplines such as history, anthropology and sociology where race and race theory figures more prominently; yet they also suggest that the field of IR is itself an intellectually and strategic field through which to further confront the global colour ...
This article provides an ‘engaged’ introduction to this forum on Andrew Linklater’s recently publ... more This article provides an ‘engaged’ introduction to this forum on Andrew Linklater’s recently published book, Violence and Civilization in the Western States-Systems. I call this ‘engaged’ because I seek to adjudicate between the critics and Linklater’s book in the hope of building a bridge over troubled water. Given that the key word that underpins many of this forum’s contributions is Eurocentrism, I explore whether, and if so to what extent, Linklater’s book is Eurocentric. While I too identify various Eurocentric cues, I also provide various defences for Linklater. In particular, the final section advances two definitions of Eurocentrism and anti-Eurocentrism. Although I identify elements of ‘Eurocentrism I’ (the elision of non-Western agency and reification of the West) in his book, Linklater might respond to the principal forum complaint that he accords little or no role to non-Western actors and processes in the Western or global civilizing process by appealing to an alternati...
Http Dx Doi Org 10 1080 09692290 2012 704519, Dec 4, 2013
In this article and in Part 2 I advance a ‘critical historiography’ of IPE which excavates to the... more In this article and in Part 2 I advance a ‘critical historiography’ of IPE which excavates to the deepest foundations of the discipline. For while I very much welcome Benjamin Cohen's seminal historiographical intervention, nevertheless it obscures two foundational properties of IPE. First, identifying 1970 as the birth-year of IPE produces a distorted image of the discipline's purpose and historiography
Uploads
Publications by John M. Hobson
Papers by John M. Hobson