Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)
Chapter 2: Broad Historical Overview of IR (Theory)
2.3 Origins of IR
2.3.1 An Academic Discipline Contextualized
So what are the origins of IR? Having noted the eclectic, parochial, patriarchical, fragmentary and Eurocentric nature of IR, from the above scholars so far, perhaps some attention of providing, a broad overview or historical gaze of IR, might also be of assistance, for clarity seeking purpose(s). In keeping, the above opening remarks in mind, rewinding back to the birth point of IR, as proposed may perhaps provide, the desired fruitful reference points.
Reference to Box 1.2 (Core Values and Theories of IR), as illustrated by Jackson and Sorenson (2003) provides a summary, that at least paints, the sort of picture, that could simply reflect (in a snapshot) a succinct timeline, of processes which were involved, in the origins of IR. “The history of this discipline is recent, dating only from 1918, and its unifying rubric, has always been, that it exists to study the international system, as a whole; or how different parts of it, relate to the whole” (Chan and Moore, 2006: xxxv). Of significance from the abovementioned point, the author of this study, was of the view that it was crucial, to take note that historically IR to date is believed to be a discipline, which originated in the West (specifically in the United Kingdom).
89
To elaborate more on Jackson and Sorenson’s (2003) tabulated summary, invitation to the following references, are recommended. In The Evolution of International Relations Theory, emphasis is placed on IR, being a discourse of ideas, than much else. “The theme is that the key, to the understanding of international relations, consists of ideas, not facts…All these structures and processes, are manmade. They began as schemes, in the minds of statesmen and entrepreneurs, or systems of thought in the literature of philosophy and society” (Banks, 1984:75). The author of this study also shares this view, based on the intimate relationship, IR enjoys with Mainstream/ Western philosophy.
Scholars are informed, that “the decisive push, to set up a separate academic subject of IR, was occasioned by the First World War (1914-18), which produced millions, of casualties, it was driven, by a widely felt determination, never to allow human suffering, on such a scale, to happen again” (Jackson and Sorensen,2003:35). In as much as this insight, may not necessarily explain much, it however indicates why contemporary IR scholars, such as R.B.J Walker (1995:308) and Nevil Johnson (1989:14) amongst others, would eventually label IR, as being nothing more than an “Anglo- American discipline”. According to the observation, of the author of this study, such an expression has been informed by obsession, to the themes of conflict, as articulated by the majority, of IR’s Westerncentric scholars.
Though scholars and thinkers have long devoted their thoughts to international politics, the formal recognition of international relations as a separate discipline within the Western academy dates from the end of the First World War with the establishment of a Chair of International Relations at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth in 1919.Until this time, the province of international politics was shared by a number of older disciplines, including law, philosophy, economics, politics and diplomatic history (Burchill ,1996:4).
In addition, to the above, a more elaborate articulation, about the foundation of IR, is best captured below:
The establishment of International Relations as an academic discipline was, more specifically, a response by liberal optimists (primarily in Britain and the United States) to the First World War, hoping through education and information to bring reasoned debate into politics and policy-
90
making. Its development as a discipline, was shaped by the turbulent international politics of Europe in the 1920’s and 1930’s, by the Second World War and the direct but diverse experiences of those caught up, in that war, who dominated academic International Relations, until the end of the 1960’s.The generation which passed through universities, in the 1960’s, now at the top of the profession, were marked in their turn, by their diverse responses, to nuclear deterrence, American hegemony, and the Vietnam War. The rising generation, now passing through undergraduate and graduate education, start from their experience of a world, in which the Cold War, is history, in which the juxtaposition of a proliferation, of new states, claiming sovereignty and of increasing evidence, of the endemic weakness and incapacity of states, presents a central paradox. (Wallace, 1996:80).
The above extract, for the author of this study, confirms the suspected views, held about IR. This view is mainly that above all else, as a result of being a Eurocentric construct, essentially a product of Western Philosophy, which underwent a metamorphosis thus in time evolved, into a hegemonic Anglo-American construct. A closer historical analysis, reveals that from its initial phase, IR’s existence as a discipline, manifests and promotes, the protection of Anglo-American interests.
The protection of Anglo-American agenda’s, seems to have been achieved, by virtue of the plethora of British and American scholars, who have written and lectured in the field of IR, since its inception to date. Given the above background, the focus of those wholly Western scholars, who have become authorities of IR, by having been based in the enclave of the Western hermisphere, does not appear, in the least, to have bothered William Wallace. Perhaps the reply to Wallace, as was done by Ken Booth 147 and Steve Smith148, in amongst other contentious issues concerning IR, as raised above, may have been and still remain meritously in order. The absence of the non-West other in a discipline, that claims to be international, should expectedly irk the majority (if not all) contemporary IR scholars.
From such a vantage point, as stipulated in the previous paragraph, it should be understood why British and American universities, overtime eventually became masqueraded, as the foremost intellectual hubs. Such misleading reality, as informed by the overwhelmingly widely published Eurocentric pedagogy, consequently has imprinted upon scholars at large, that the abovementioned instutions indeed take the lead (this is further strengthened, by the ease of data
91
accessibility for reference purposes), at the helm of the bulk of academic disciplines. IR in this regard is not an exception to the rule. With growth of such revelation(s), these noted distorting factors, require attention in as far as contemporary scholars of IR, may be concerned.
The scholars as noted in the previous stanza, who pass through graduation halls, of these institutions in the UK and USA, consequently have notably been masqueraded, as authorities of IR. With legacies such as those imposed by imperialism and capitalism avidly still alive and roaming large, (in the interest of this study, specifically amongst IR scholars), such patterns should not be rocket science (not hard to comprehend), to any scholar. Within the context of IR, a realization that the outcome(s) of such cheap bully tactics, could only lead towards distorted perceptions, such ill fallacies embroiled around IR, should not be overlooked.
Such misleading scholarly pathway(s), could only serve to promote parochial views, as being the order of the day. The emphasis of the state, as a unit of analysis, remains as one of the signature ways, which has over time grown, to become typical of the Anglo-American trademark, on IR scholarship. In the light of such a backdrop, researcher thinking gradually grows, to agree that the field of IR, clearly seems to emanate, from a particular context, which in turn, has always driven its Eurocentric agenda.
In their explication, of an international system of IR, the following reminder below, is due
because of the perception of an international system, has a central place, a very great deal of work has been given over to the systematic149 nature of international political and economic life. It is the study, of what is meant, to be systematic, that has given IR, its concern for both logical and conceptual thought- and hence its concern for theory (Chan and Moore, 2006: xxxv).
Based on the data thus far, this agenda appears to be of service for Eurocentric interests- achieved at the expense, of the rest of the non-European other. So the working premise, which argued that “IR fails to herald a unique contribution to Social theory because it persistently avoids and denies the historical problem from which it surfaced…(Blaney and Iniyatullah, 2002:8; 104)” seems not to have been, farfetched, in fact it seems to have struck, right on the bulls eye.
92
If the above realization remains as suspect to some, within the IR scholarly community then paying close attention, to results as projected by the respective TRIP databases (to be analysed in greater detail in the forthcoming chapter), may hopefully assist, in decreasing at least some (if not most) of this held suspicion. If the reason and history of IR, amongst both the older and recent scholars of the discipline, as expressed by Wallace (1996) is anything to go by, then indeed, this should be registered with much regret. The echo of the callings of inclusivity, need to be attended, beyond the artificial agreements of lip service. Nevertheless, in as far as this study is concerned, leading upto this juncture, the revelations of the selected scholars of IR, have provided the cornerstone of the problems, which have been associated within IR discourse.
When judging from the above descriptions, it may appear to scholars, as though IR, may have formally begun around 1918 or 1919 (the author of this study, reads these two separate dates, as being of same difference), as informed by the effort, to end conflict between nations, of the world. Joining the chorus of those scholars, who seek to take the origin of IR, from the same time frame, as stipulated above, for the author of this study, would be somewhat simplistic and may also run the risk of being dismissed, as being ahistorical.
In an attempt, to avoid such arguably valid criticism, placing effort (beyond a mere glance) at history of relations, between nations as packaged in a discipline, such as suggested by the bulk of the definitions above, convincingly enforces the researcher, to consider the pre-1918/1919 period, in international relations, as the informal or unofficial phase of IR’s existence.