Abstract
General interest in the English School’s (ES) approach to international relations has increased steadily over the past two decades, along with the number of its adherents. These two trends have given rise to contradictory developments. On the one hand, the growing interest in the ES has meant that there are now recurrent attempts by non-ES theorists to locate the ES in the pantheon of IR theory. In the process, however, much of the complexity and variation of the theory is lost. In the interests of providing an unambiguous image of the ES that is clearly differentiated from other approaches to international relations, key elements of its multidimensional theoretical perspective are excised to reveal what is considered to be the main core of the theory. Almost invariably when this happens, the ES is associated with either a purely norm-driven or an institutional conception of international relations. On the other hand, internal differentiation within the school has developed as the ES has attracted a growing number of adherents. Indeed, Buzan argues that there are now at least three different ways of understanding ES theory.1 ES theory may be considered first as a set of ideas to be found in the minds of statesmen; second, as a set of ideas to be found in the minds of political theorists; and third, as a set of externally imposed concepts that define the material and social structures of the international system.2
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
Barry Buzan, From International to World Society: English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalization ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004 ), p. 12.
Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999 ).
Hidemi Suganami, ‘British Institutuionalists, or the English School Twenty Years On’, International Relations 17 (2003), pp. 253–271.
Stephen D. Krasner, Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy ( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999 ), p. 44.
Hollis, Martin and Steve Smith, Explaining and Understanding International Realtions ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990 ).
Alan James, ‘System or Society’, Review of International Studies 19 (1993), pp. 269–288.
Robert Jackson, The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States, ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 ), pp. 113–116.
Stacie E. Goddard and Daniel H. Nexon, ‘Paradigm Lost? Reassessing Theory of International Politics’, European Journal of International Relations 11 (2005), pp. 9–61.
Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981 ).
Barry Buzan and Richard Little International Systems in World History: Remaking the Study of International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
Barry Buzan and Stuart J. Kaufman, Richard Little and William C. Wohlforth, ‘Conclusion’, in Stuart J. Kaufman, Richard Little and William C. Wohlforth eds., The Balance of Power in World History ( London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007 ).
Roger D Spegele, ‘Traditional Political Realism and the Writing of History’, in Alex J. Bellamy ed., International Society and its Critics ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005 ), p. 97.
David Boucher, Political Theories of International Relations: From Thucydides to the Present ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998 ), p. 16.
Adam Watson, ‘Hedley Bull, States Systems and International Societies’, Review of International Societies 13 (1987), pp. 147–153.
W. Callahan, ‘Nationalizing International Theory: Race, Class and the English School’, Global Society 18 (2004), pp. 305–323.
Gerrit, W. Gong, The Standard of Civilization in International Society ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984 ).
Shogo Suzuki, ‘Japan’s Socialisation into Janus-Faced European International Society’, European Journal of International Relations 11 (2005), pp. 137–164.
John J.Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics ( New York: W.W.Norton and Co., 2001 ), p. 489.
Ian Clark, International Legitimacy and World Society ( Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007 ), p. 47.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Richard Little
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Little, R. (2009). History, Theory and Methodological Pluralism in the English School. In: Navari, C. (eds) Theorising International Society. Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234475_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230234475_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-36150-2
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-23447-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)