Theories Of International Relations 2 Dersi 8. Ünite Özet

Debate About the English School

The term “English School” was first coined by Roy Jones in a 1981 article titled as “The English School of International Relations: A Case for Closure”. Jones argued that a group of scholars, basically gathered at London School of Economics, could be taken as forming a distinct school of international relations and this school could be named as “English School”. According to Jones, there were four defining elements shared by the authors of this school: 1) English school scholars consider International Relations (IR) as an autonomous subject rather than being a part of (International) Politics. 2) They examine order in the world in terms of the structure of relations between sovereign nation-states. 3) They have a common style that involves no use of statistics, geometry and algebra, no rhetoric of world problems, such as poverty and monetary reform. 4) The English School has a commitment to holism in the sense that the whole is more than the mere summation of its parts.

Hidemi Suganami (1983) agreed with Jones on the existence of a distinct school and called it as “British institutionalist approach”. He identified five factors that united the authors of this approach: 1) aspiration to werthfreiheit (morally neutral analysis), 2) rejection of behaviourism or scientism, 3) reliance on sociological methods (institutional analysis), 4) unity and specificity of the state’s system (autonomy of IR), and 5) rejection of utopianism.

Sheila Grader (1988) directly took the issue with Jones’ article and disagreed with him on the existence of a distinct English School. She argued that the authors, whom Jones grouped within a school, could not be taken as forming a distinct and common school because each of those authors had his own views and opinions about the study of international relations.

Peter Wilson (1989) replied to Grader and formidably argued for the existence of a distinct English School. He identified six characteristics of the School: 1) a perspective of the whole (holism), in other words, the view that international relations constitute a whole, 2) the idea of international society, the view that international relations can be conceptualized in terms of a society, 3) the existence of order within international relations unlike the prevalent conception of anarchy or disorder, 4) the institutional basis of international order rather than mechanical or hegemonial/hegemonic imposition, 5) rejection of utopian schemes, and 6) rejection of behaviourism

Yurdusev (1996) argued for the existence of a distinct school and outlined basic premises as follows: 1) concern for history, historical explanation and classical works, 2) international relations being an orderly realm, 3) the view of the whole, 4) the adherence to a via media (middle way) approach, in other words, precaution and refrain from the extremes 5) the significance of and emphasis upon cultural/ civilizational factors in international relations, 6) the volitional/voluntaristic conceptualization of international society/system against mechanical/ structural conception, 7) a broad historical perspective and the use of historical parallels to current problems (rejection of presentism), and 8) avoidance of scientific jargon.

Tim Dunne (1998) argued that we need to take into account three preliminary articles in order to define the English School: 1) self-identification with a particular tradition of enquiry, meaning that if we are to speak for the existence of a distinct English School, there must be a collective self-identification among the members of the said school, 2) an interpretive approach, and 3) international theory as a normative theory rather than a positivist and explanatory theory.

Roger Epp (1998) highlighted three neglected characteristics of the School, namely, 1) interest in the issues of the Third World and decolonisation, 2) international relations being conceived more about culture, values and history rather than structure and mechanics of international system, and 3) the conceptualization of international theory as a normative theory.

Barry Buzan (2001) made a call for the reconvening of the English School in 1999 and took the issue with the naming of the School. By that time, besides the “English School”, the School was variously named by different scholars such as “British School, British Institutionalists, International Society Approach, the Classical School, British Idealists and Rationalism”. As a result of Buzan’s call for reconvening, there emerged some agreement upon the name “English School” and since then it has been commonplace name for the School.

In order to speak of the existence of a distinct English School, the three conditions must be satisfied: 1) there must be some commonalities of the views in terms of the subject matter, concepts, principles and methods among the scholars/ members in concern, 2) conscious selfidentification with the school by the members, and 3) recognition by the larger community of the discipline.

The first generation scholars of the English School are Herbert Butterfield, Martin Wight, Hedley Bull, Adam Watson, Michael Donelan, and Roy J. Vincent; and the second generation scholars are Barry Buzan, Tim Dunne, Peter Wilson, Hidemi Suganami, Nicholas Wheeler and Robert Jackson.

School theory has now been generally accepted within the scholarly community of IR and within the literature.

The Historical Development of The English School

A convenient date for the beginning of the English School is 1959 when the British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (hereafter, the British Committee) first met at the Peterhouse College of Cambridge University. The year 1959 is a reasonable date because the three conditions for the definition of a school (commonality of views, self-identification, and recognition by the community) were in a sense satisfied with the establishment and the works of the British Committee.

The founding members of the British Committee were Herbert Butterfield (historian), Martin Wight (IR Scholar), Desmond Williams (historian), Michael Howard (military historian), Geoffrey Hudson (historian), Donald McKinnon (philosopher), William Armstrong (economist from the Treasury Department), Adam Watson (diplomat), and Hedley Bull (IR scholar). Historically, the English School has emerged on the one hand against the American social science approaches, especially against the behaviouralist approach, and on the other hand within the British tradition. British Committee led to the formation of a body of works, which we now consider as the output of the English School of International Relations.

The Committee was composed of scholars coming from different disciplines, not just those coming from the discipline of IR. It included different historians, economist, philosopher and people from the practice. It means that for the British Committee, the study of international relations required the insights from politics, economics, history, and philosophy. Secondly, as the Committee included people from the practice (diplomat and expert of Treasury), not just the theorists, it is fair to say that, from the very beginning, English School argued for the unity of the theory and practice. Finally, the British Committee worked in the way that many publications came after a thorough discussion among the members of the Committee.

The approach of the British Committee visibly differed from the Behaviouralist and Realist approaches and it is fair to say that it was posed against the American approaches.

Basic Premises and Arguments of The English School

The first and basic argument of the School is ontological and epistemological pluralism. The English School argues that the reality of IR cannot be confined, or reduced, to a single element; it is always multi-dimensional. The English school scholars conceive international reality as “the combination of international system, international society and world society”.

The second basic argument of the English School is international society as the core concept and element of international relations. English School argues that international relations constitute a society just like individual national societies. International society has been the core concept of English School so that it has been well-explained compared to the two other concepts of international system and world society. International society is defined by four components: common interests, common rules, common values and common institutions.

The English School authors have elaborated two versions of international society: the pluralist version and the solidarist version. Pluralists typically prioritize order to justice within system as they argue that, although a deeply unjust system cannot be stable, order is in many ways a prior condition for justice. They also emphasize the significance of sovereignty, non-intervention and cultural and political diversity.

The solidarists on the other hand prioritize justice over order as they argue that order without justice is undesirable and ultimately unsustainable. They say that the logic of international society is not just co-existence but cooperation as well. They also stress upon human rights and thus give room to humanitarian intervention.

The third basic premise of the English School is the salience of the cultural/civilisational factors and values. For the English School; identity, culture, civilisation and values are part of the practice of international system. The English School argues that it is not possible to explain and understand the phenomena of international relations simply by referring to power or welfare. Instead, in addition to power and economy, we need to take into account identity, culture, civilisation and values.

The fourth basic premise and argument of the English School is epistemological/methodological pluralism. English School argues that the understanding and explanation of international relations cannot be reduced to a single epistemology or a single method or technique. In order to examine and understand the multidimensional phenomena of IR, we need a multidisciplinary approach. This conception prescribes different epistemologies and methodologies for different phenomena.

A final premise of the English School is rejection of presentism. The historicism of the English School rejects presentism in the sense that the present is not conceived as the penultimate culmination point of history, rather it is just one experience within the course of history and part of it.

English School vs. Other Schools and Its Merits

English School vs. Realist or Neo-Realist Schools: the international system conception of the English School is very much similar to the system conception found in Realist or Neo-Realist schools as both of them consider system in terms of an interdependence relationship and both of them take the sovereign nation states as the primary members. Yet, their conceptions are not identical as the Realist conception is much more mechanical and structural, whereas English School’s is much more historical.

English School vs. Constructivist School : They both strive to show the social bases of international relations and for both of them society is constructed with norms and institutions. They also stress the significance of norms and other ideational factor such as identity and values. As a difference, The English School has a much more normative orientation as seen in debate about solidarism and pluralism. As to the norms and institutions of the society, while the English School scholars see them as historical formations, the constructivists see them as more of in contemporary terms and purpose oriented, very much similar to regime theory of liberalism.

English School vs. Critical Theory and Marxist Approach: English School shares with them a historical orientation and concern for world community. However, Unlike the Marxist conception of history, the English School does not have a material and structural understanding of history as the English School scholars entertain a volitional/ voluntaristic and cultural/civilizational conception of history. Likewise, contrary to the critical theorists, the English School’s concern for humanity does not implicate the transcendence of the existing states and cultural identities.

English School vs. Poststructuralist and Postmodernist approaches: Historicism and voluntarism are two common grounds between the English School and Poststructuralist and Postmodernist approaches. Yet, here the significant difference is that historicism and voluntarism of the English School does not envisage relativism and a full individual and local determination, because there have always been associations and interactions between individuals and localities.

The distinctions of the English School from the other schools and its merits are:

• ontological and epistemological pluralism,
• its historical approach repudiating both determinism and presentism,
• the significance given to values and cultural and civilizational identities