1914 in world historical perspective: The ‘uneven’ and ‘combined’ origins of World War I

Abstract

The causes of World War I remain a topic of enormous intellectual interest. Yet, despite the immensity of the literature, historiographical and IR debates remain mired within unhelpful methodological dichotomies revolving around whether a 'primacy of foreign policy' versus 'primacy of domestic politics' or systemic versus unit-level approach best account for the war's origins. Given that this historiography is the most prolific body of literature for any war within the modern age, it reveals a much deeper problem with the social sciences: how to coherently integrate 'external' and 'internal' relations into a synthesized theory of inter-state conflict and war. Drawing on and contributing to the theory of uneven and combined development, this article challenges standard interpretations of the war by distinctively uniting geopolitical and sociological modes of explanation into a single framework. In doing so, the article highlights how the necessarily variegated character of interactive socio-historical development explains the inter-state rivalries leading to war. Contextualizing the sources of conflict within the broad developmental tendencies of the Long 19th Century (1789Century ( -1914 and their particular articulation during the immediate pre-war juncture, the article seeks to provide significant contributions to recent debates in IR and historical sociology, as well as those concerning the relationship between history and IR theory.

Geography and the theory of uneven and combined development: Theorizing uniqueness and the return of China

“…The theory of U&CD permitted a stronger incorporation of international relations into historical sociology. It also enabled an integration of 'external' and 'internal' relations into theories of the structural and contingent drivers of inter-state conflict (Anievas, 2013), the rise of capitalism (Anievas and Nis¸ancio glu, 2017) and the evolution of the twentieth century world order (Desai, 2013). In this article U&CD is brought to bear on two issues.…”

Bad influence: social networks, elite brokerage, and the construction of alliances

“…One challenge associated with this task is to redress the Eurocentric biases that excluded from the discipline’s scope many cases and issues from outside Europe (Hobson, 2012; Kayaoglu, 2010). Even though the First World War is IR’s “most analyzed and contested case” (Copeland, 2001: 56) and an integral part of its history as an academic discipline (Porter, 1972), the Ottomans, whose decline was a major cause of the war (Anievas, 2013: 734–735), were virtually invisible to IR scholars until quite recently (Bulutgil, 2017; Kadercan, 2014; Nisancioglu, 2014; Savage, 2011; Zarakol, 2010). In International Organization , they appear only in two articles, with no direct relevance (Narang and Nelson, 2009; Tetreault, 1991).…”

A Marxist Theory of International Relations

“…Kamran Matin has provided a highly theoretical illustration of U&CD ( 2007 , 427). For U&CD applied to the causes of WWI see Anievas ( 2013 ). For a critique, see Smith ( 2006 ) and Rioux ( 2015 ).…”