J. A. Hobson and Idealism In International relations

Abstract

J. A. Hobson died on April Fools’ Day in the first year of the Second World War. This, and a whimsical anecdote from A. J. P. Taylor, might appear to be enough to justify the portrayal of Hobson as an idealist. This paper critically assesses the work of J. A. Hobson and its relation to idealism as a category of international relations thought. An examination of Hobson’s writings on international relations shows that there are three distinct strands of thought, three modes of idealism. These modes of idealist thought differ on fundamental propositions about international relations as well as in their prescriptions for a reformed world order. In short, consideration of Hobson’s work destabilizes the monolithic category of idealism in international relations. Put another way, idealism blurs important distinctions in Hobson’s work.

On the History and Historiography of International Relations

“…One of the most significant findings to emerge from the recent scholarship on the history of the field is that, contrary to popular belief, the field was never dominated by a group of utopian scholars who adhered to something akin to what has been described as the idealist paradigm (Ashworth, 2006;Baldwin, 1995;Kahler, 1997;Little, 1996;Long, 1991;Long and Wilson, 1995;Osiander, 1998;Schmidt, 1998aSchmidt, , 1998bSchmidt, , 2002Schmidt, , 2012Thies, 2002;Wilson, 1998). In most cases, it is difficult to find a scholar who was self-consciously and institutionally a member of the field of IR who adhered to the tenets that are frequently associated with a construct termed "idealism" or "utopianism."…”

L.T. Hobhouse and the transformation of liberal internationalism

“…But where Cobden blamed the aristocracy for pushing its interest at the expense of the common good, the new liberals identified the commercial elite as the cause of the malady. 66 However, Hobhouse feared that the Fabians in particular would welcome imperialism. A positive conception of the state and expert rule, Hobhouse asserted, may end in another justification of imperialism, stressing the right of a superior power to rule in the name of 'civilisation' and social efficiency.…”

Sovereignty and freedom: Immanuel Kant's liberal internationalist ‘legacy’

“…A. Hobson, have flirted with the idea of a quasi-Hobbesian global agency that functions to secure peace and enforce international law. 19 The rarity of this sentiment-even within the context of Hobson's intellectual trajectory-does not make it unimportant. This is because, although world government is certainly not the internationalist mechanism of choice, its mere suggestion indicates the increasing frustration and suspicion among some liberals with state sovereignty.…”