One text that helped me better understand the American dominance in IR is the Dunne Chapter on “The English School” (Week 5). The chapter begins discussing the American dominance in IR theory, that considers the English school as a variant of realism, rather than its own individual school of thought. Dunne writes that the English school focuses on the anarchical society, and the interplay between human rights and the relations between countries.
Drawing from the lecture material, it was fascinating unpacking the extent parochialism affects the field. I think this is closely related to the elite enterprise of IR , leading to think tanks being created that spread and influence the greater academic discourse to prioritize American schools of thought rather than their British counterparts. Such prioritization is evident with the 1954 conference of scholars like Morgenthau, Nitze and Waltz, sponsored by American philanthropist John D Rockefeller. Furthermore, the quote in class by Tom Daschle was eye opening of how parochialism can be masked as exceptionalism and cosmopolitan within the international system.
Previously, I had difficulty understanding the English School. Given the closeness in relations and theory between the US and UK, I assumed that both would share and dominate all academic spheres. However, the Dunne reading helped shed a light on the nuances of English theory. Dunne summarizes the findings of Hedley Bull, who argues of three components of the English School. First, the interpretive mode of inquiry, defined as the establishment of a global political system that contends with the origins of human rights being from the enlightenment period or the 20th century boom of the liberal order. Second, the makeup of the international society, being formed by individual units of common interests. Lastly, types of international society, namely the pluralistic liberty of states, or the solidarist shared values of basic rights.
Bull’s theory resonates with me because of the closeness it has to liberalism, but it separates where English thought argues that the liberal system disregards the split between the pluralistic and solidarist variants along human rights cleavages. However, I feel that the modern political system is American dominated because of American power in both the political and military spheres. It is interesting to me how when NATO was first formed , the US had grave concerns about Article 5 and collective defense. What is fascinating is that it has only been invoked once , after the September 11th attacks , and further used to jump start the war in Iraq. I think that the UK is considered a global power militarily, but a “middle power” when it comes to academic literature. The American dominance in literature is closely related to what Dunne argues is the prevalence of NGO in IR. As mentioned before, elitist enterprise in IR forms think tanks that dominate the spheres of literature they themselves created. As such, it would explain why many governments organization hire/recruit those same scholars to help influence policy, creating echo chambers of parochial thought.
Given the constructivist leaning of the English school, it is understandable how they see a difference between liberal thought and liberal order. One example the text highlights is the prioritizing of national security over civil liberties, particularly in the post 9/11 world. I argue that the September 11th attacks not only changed US foreign policy but planted the seeds for more entrenched parochialism. As Daschle’s quote implies, US democracy is the best form of government that must be developed by all countries. Furthermore, the US’s supremacy in the UN enforces the stereotype that it is a mechanism for great powers. With its position in the Security Council, the are well equipped to serve individual agendas, or stage proxy great power conflicts disguised as cosmopolitanism. This can be seen with the contemporary example of Syria, where deadlock by great powers (holding veto’s) disguise individual agendas as the “national security interest” , putting human rights and humanitarian concerns at the back seat on international relations.
In conclusion, the Dunne chapter helped shine a light on not just the nuances of the English School, but also why American scholar’s dominance the academic sphere. American scholars were best positioned for this given their means and willingness to engage in IR. Given the fall of the British Empire, there may have been a lack of willingness to remain the world’s top superpower, as well as fatigue from sustaining the Empire for so long. As such, the English thought was disregarded as a variant of realism, a key theory contended within in the Great Debates of IR. Still, it is necessary to consider how the 9/11 attacks enforced the dominance, with many nations following the lead of the US into war, citing national and collective security concerns that take priority over solidarist , basic inalienable human rights. As such, my main takeaway from the English thought is the need to truly prioritize human rights, rather than having it be a part of the rhetoric within conflicts of great powers.