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 asTorbjorn 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 4STorbjorn 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