When was international relations (IR) born? Is there a single moment to which the genesis of either the substantive phenomenon of IR or the academic discipline of IR can be traced? In their article, Carvalho et al (2011) do not seek to answer these questions, but rather to critically examine the traditional ways in which these questions have been answered, and to demonstrate the extent to which these traditional answers, despite credible claims to be made against them, continue to be disseminated in introductory texts to the discipline. I will argue that this article, despite its narrow scope, is in some sense an illustrative microcosm for some of the key thematic concerns of our course, and in fact embedded within the text are several prominent tensions which characterize much of the international relations literature. Specifically, the article parallels the general contestability of IR theorizing and particularly the issue of incommensurability, as well as providing an example of the disconnectedness and factionalism of IR as a divided discipline.
To briefly summarize, Carvalho et al (2011) explain that the traditional view of IR traces its origins to the years 1648 and 1919. In 1648, the story goes, the war-weary powers of Europe signed a treaty in the German province of Westphalia which, for the first time, recognized sovereignty as the defining trait of states and anarchy as the defining trait of the international arena. Thus, our recognizable form of international relations was born. Yet, the story continues, it would only be in 1919, after the powers of Europe again grew weary of an even greater war, that the autonomous academic discipline of IR would be born, this time in the sleepy Welsh town of Aberystwyth. I will not rehash Carvalho et al’s extensive rebuking of these foundational claims, but needless to say both the Treaty of Westphalia and the IR department of Aberystwyth are far from the certain IR progenitors which they are made out to be. However, despite the extensive historical evidence undermining the claims of these two years as the definitive ‘beginnings’ of IR, Carvalho et al show that these myths continue to be perpetuated in the introductory textbooks provided to students of the discipline. It is ultimately in its exemplification of several key tensions – namely, tensions between ‘truth’ and ‘value,’ between common understanding and contestation, and between disciplinary dialogue and mutual ignorance, that the article becomes relevant to the general issues of IR as an academic discipline.
In my view, Carvalho et al’s (2011) analysis offers an emblematic example of IR’s issue of incommensurability. IR fundamentally differs from other ‘scientific’ disciplines as the discipline’s object of study, the methodology by which it is studied, and the validity of its findings are all deeply contested. In a word, incommensurability is a fancy way of saying that IR theorists in disagreement with each other have no common ground. Carvalho et al’s piece contributes to the laundry-list of fundamental disagreement in the discipline by demonstrating that even the discipline’s origins are not agreed upon. Thus, when an IR theorist with the embedded view of 1648 as the modern international system’s birth disagrees with a theorist who does not subscribe to this view, she is by extension fundamental disagreeing over what IR as a substantive phenomenon even is.
Relatedly, the piece exemplifies the issue of the fact/value distinction in IR. According to Carvalho et al (2011), the ‘truth’ of these two stories holds normative value. Indeed, the insistence of realists in particular to perpetuate these stories raises doubts as to whether realists are able to successfully distinguish, as they claim, between their normative views of the world (their ‘values’) and the ‘truth’ of how the world is. For realists, there is a vested interest in maintaining the truth of the Westphalian story as the birth of the international system, because its continued validity in effect justifies their ‘truth’ of the world, in which the anarchical character of the international arena is invariable. When this Westphalian story as a historical ‘truth’ is contested, the ‘truth’ upon which realism is built is therefore potentially invalidated. Thus, realism’s a priori assumption of the truth of state sovereignty and anarchy as defining elements of the international system after 1648 becomes the normative foundation of their paradigmatic understanding of the world, rather than a descriptive claim of the world, a shift which the realist school (which through its very name claims to be grounded in ‘reality’) cannot tolerate. Thus, realists continue to recite the Westphalian story, because undermining it could very well undermine the very logic of their IR paradigm.
This ignorance in the name of maintained paradigmatic coherence illustrates the relative self-imposed isolation which the kaleidoscopic IR ‘schools’ have perpetuated. Revealingly, the central puzzle of the article is not whether these IR myths are true, but rather why, despite their historical invalidity, they continue to be perpetuated. Some of this is explained, as described above, by a continued reliance on these stories to justify certain IR paradigms. However, in large part this perpetuation of falsehood relates to a mutual ignorance of the different IR ‘bubbles.’ Carvahlo et al (2011) dedicate their article’s conclusion to the strategies of building dialogue exactly because dialogue, with the conspicuous exception of the inter-paradigm debate, is so greatly lacking in the discipline. Of course, this isolation is not limited to paradigms, but also to nationality. A significant consequence of these myths is that they whitewash much of the eurocentrism and prejudicial origins of IR as a discipline, with the Westphalia story all but ignoring the fact that ‘sovereignty’ was not a feature of much of the world following 1648, and that those powers granted sovereignty in Europe would go on to subjugate entire nations in the colonial era. For its part, the story of 1919 ignores the racial history of IR as a discipline, as international relations theorizing can be traced to colonial and white supremacist scholarship well before the inter-war period. In that sense, these myths of IR are as much beholden to certain paradigms as they are to the colonial nations from which they originated.
Bibliography
De Carvalho, Benjamin, Leira, Halvard & Hobson, John. (2011). “The Big Bangs of IR: The Myths That Your Teachers Still Tell You about 1648 and 1919.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 39(3), 735-758.